SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The FBI's year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.
Justice Department lawyers said last week that the State Department would review and turn over Clinton's work-related emails to a conservative legal group. The records are among "tens of thousands" of documents found by the FBI in its probe and turned over to the State Department, Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said Monday in court.
The 14,900 Clinton documents are nearly 50 percent more than the roughly 30,000 emails that Clinton's lawyers deemed work-related and returned to the department in December 2014.
Lawyers for the State Department and Judicial Watch, the legal group, are negotiating a plan for the release of the emails in a civil public records lawsuit before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington.
In a statement after a hearing at the U.S. district courthouse in Washington, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the group was pleased that Boasberg rejected the department's proposal to begin releasing documents weekly on Oct. 14, ordering it instead to prioritize Clinton's emails and to return to court Sept. 22 with a new plan.
"We're pleased the court accelerated the State Department's timing," Fitton said. "We're trying to work with the State Department here, but let's be clear: They have slow-walked and stonewalled the release of these records. They've had many of them since July 25 ... and not one record has yet been released, and we don't understand why that's the case."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:18AM
Hillary's going to win one for Feminists everywhere! Are you gonna vote Hillary or are you still a sexist?! Vote Hillary!!
After 8 years of Hillary you'll get your chance to vote for Gay. Don't be a homophobe in 2024!!!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @06:03AM
Got no problem voting for a uterus, IF the uterus has a mind. I've never met either a uterus or a testicle with a mind though.
Want a woman in the White House? Vote Stein. Stein may or may not be the "best" woman for the job, but she'd damned good, and she's honest. No dead bodies, no scandals, no hundreds of millions of dollars from questionable donors - AND SHE HAS A MIND! Most people who hold a doctorate's degree have a mind. Funny how that works.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:16AM
We found the Green voter! Jill should totally invite you to her Mensa meeting to celebrate her defeat.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @06:42AM
Jill doesn't really expect to win. She knows that most ill-informed voters have been brainwashed by one or the other of the big parties.
Vote for her anyway. Or, vote for Johnson. Take votes away from the two major corrupt parties, that's all I ask.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Friday August 26 2016, @07:09AM
I'm voting for Stein personally. I don't REALLY expect her to win, but I hope if enough people stop voting against the wrong lizard, perhaps they'll realize that they could actually lose to a 3rd party one day.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Friday August 26 2016, @05:25PM
Vote for a uterus, or vote for a Johnson... funny choice! :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by RedBear on Friday August 26 2016, @06:51AM
Stein is an anti-vaxxer and believes Wi-Fi may be harming American schoolchildren. Two fringe conspiracy theorist ideas that have been soundly debunked repeatedly by numerous legitimate peer reviewed scientific studies.
Beg to differ. Are there many intelligent people who wind up with PhDs? Sure. But the main thing you need in order to acquire a PhD is not brains but perseverance (and money). The ability to slog through the years of insanity that is the PhD candidate process. Many people without functioning brains have managed to acquire PhDs.
Example: A current presidential candidate has a PhD and yet is an anti-vaxxer and believes Wi-Fi is medically harmful. See above. QED.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @06:58AM
Granted, some real idiots manage to get degrees.
Stein isn't an idiot though.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:03AM
Stein is an anti-vaxxer and believes Wi-Fi may be harming American schoolchildren.
http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/ [snopes.com]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by RedBear on Friday August 26 2016, @08:04AM
You should really read the entire Snopes link you posted, not just the giant "FALSE" at the top. She's a waffler on the subject and uses many lines commonly used by anti-vaxxers to imply that the vaccine process is corrupt and vaccines are just being used to line the pockets of Big Pharma. This is the equivalent of Trump constantly claiming to not be racist or support white supremacy while dog-whistling and using white supremacist arguments all day long and pretending that he's never heard of the KKK.
She is an anti-vaxxer. Do not be fooled. She's just not quite as open and dumb about revealing it as, say, Michele Bachmann.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Friday August 26 2016, @11:31AM
"""
I think there's no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases — smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication ... We have a real compelling need for vaccinations.
"""
Definitely anti-vax, yes-siree.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @12:12PM
Don't be coy. She plays both sides of the issue. Even if she is not anti-vax she courts anti-vaxxers by echoing their rhetoric. From a practical standpoint, that's the same thing. Its like Trump saying all that racist-friendly shit and then saying he's not a racist because he has hired some hispanics and amarosa.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @03:48PM
Alright, you've got ONE ISSUE which Stein appears to "waffle" on. Now, look at the competition, and count how many times they have "pivoted". FFS - in comparison, Stein is a glowing example of honesty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:52PM
Comparing waffling with changing a position is misleading.
Waffling is about playing both sides simultaneously, not fully committing to any one position. That's Trump in a nutshell, he plays all sides of every issue so that in the future he can say he was "right."
Changing a position is about correcting an error and should be encouraged. If you told us you have never changed your mind in your life, I doubt anyone would believe you.
Saying that Stein has never changed a position is kinda simplistic. Anyone with such little public exposure hasn't really had their opinions tested. Its easy to stick to an opinion, no matter how poorly conceived, if you never have to face the consequences of that opinion.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 27 2016, @01:28AM
You've entirely missed the point. Hillary, and to a lesser degee, Trump, changes position with each new audience she addresses. Hillary even has a different accent ready for each audience.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday August 26 2016, @04:54PM
You just got a direct quote which unequivocally paints her as a principled vaxxer. Are you going to give us a Jill Stein quote that disses vaccines (not the testing/approval process, but the vaccinations themselves), or are you going to admit you are astroturfing for Clinton campaign? Saying this nonsense over and over again, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, clearly betrays your desire to dump some shit on her, just as Assange predicted.
BTW, I'll give you WIFI: she does seem to doubt the current research. Although her infamous "wifi bad for kids' brains" comment is not that straightforward either: she may be talking about the internet via WIFI, not the WIFI proper (hear it in context).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:44PM
Her use of anti-vax adjacent rhetoric is documented in the cited snopes article.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by frojack on Friday August 26 2016, @08:08AM
How does that get modded informative?
Snopes came down squarely on the fence, and the fence appears to run down the middle of the road.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Frost on Saturday August 27 2016, @03:28PM
She's definitely not anti-vax (take that, RedBear), but she's not strongly anti-anti-vax either. So she's a carnivorous lizard just like all other politicians. But she's less awful than the other lizards so she gets my vote!
Giant Carnivorous Lizard 2016! Rah! Rah! Raaaaaaawr!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:05AM
No she's not. [snopes.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday August 26 2016, @08:10AM
Stein is an anti-vaxxer
For those too lazy to click on the Snopes link:
As a medical doctor of course I support vaccinations. I have a problem with the FDA being controlled by drug companies.
- Jill Stein, July 29, 2016
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @03:20PM
As a medical doctor of course I support vaccinations.
I find that way of phrasing it very disingenuous :/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:31PM
Why?
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday August 26 2016, @08:26AM
Nonsense. As far as I can tell by reading about her, she is entirely for vaccinations. She objects to the approval process being bought and paid for, which happens to also be an argument that the anti-vaxxers make. The thing is: she's right:
The approval boards for drugs and vaccines theoretically include plenty of "neutral" people, like professors from universities. However, if one follows the money trail, one finds out that those professors generally run research labs, and those labs are often financed by generation donations from...the companies that submit drugs to the board for approval.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1) by stretch611 on Friday August 26 2016, @08:26AM
Stein is an anti-vaxxer and believes Wi-Fi may be harming American schoolchildren. Two fringe conspiracy theorist ideas that have been soundly debunked repeatedly by numerous legitimate peer reviewed scientific studies
I read this as well. I'm not sure how true it is, but even if she is bonkers enough to believe this, Stein is still a much better choice the either Trump or Hillary.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday August 26 2016, @10:31AM
*sigh*
another propaganda victim...
i don't carry any water for stein, but she is not an anti-vaxxer, MORE lies from cliton droids...
myself, i am going to do what i did last time: write in snowden/manning...
again, i make my point: since the present system nets us a gummint which will vote against our intersests 99% of the time, a COIN FLIP for president where we get 50% of the decisions fall our way would be a MASSIVE improvement...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @03:22PM
They would just do what they always do and submit the same legislation again and again and wail until the coin comes up right.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 26 2016, @08:50PM
Just wanted to put this [wikipedia.org] here for general information. Not sure where the error started.
In 1973, Stein graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, where she studied psychology, sociology, and anthropology. She then attended Harvard Medical School and graduated in 1979. After graduating from Harvard Medical School, Stein practiced internal medicine for 25 years at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Simmons College Health Center, and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and also served as an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. She retired from practicing and teaching medicine in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
Disclaimer: I will be voting for Johnson.
(Score: 1) by Type44Q on Friday August 26 2016, @04:01PM
Most people who hold a doctorate's degree have a mind.
I know nothing of the individual you speak of but considering that today's Doctors of Philosophy is little better than yesterday's Bachelor's degree, I'd say you're too easily impressed.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 26 2016, @06:04AM
The establishment of his own party has split between damage control (Koch cash to Senate races, but not Trump [npr.org]) or outright opposition to his candidacy. The guy is flip-flopping all the time (even on his core issue [nytimes.com]), alienating on-the-fence supporters with his prideful pettiness (the Khans as well as his petty non-endorsement of Paul Ryan using his own words against him), and generally making a fool of himself.
All Hillary needs to do is stick to the script and avoid answering hard questions. Then she has to put up a decent performance in 3 debates, which she probably can.
Some states that normally vote Republican are currently polling like battleground states [fivethirtyeight.com]. Trump needs better-than-expected debate performances and maybe an October surprise or two to even have a 50% chance of victory.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday August 26 2016, @07:33AM
Most important and highly unlikely, he'll need to wag a civil tongue in those debates and keep his foot out of his mouth.
While I don't support Clinton, her two attack adds asking if he can be trusted with "the button" and if parents want their children emulating him are spot on.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 26 2016, @10:37AM
Have you seen her debate? She'd do better pleading the fifth. No, not that kind. The kind where she drank one and is too drunk to debate. Trump, on the other hand, killed at his debates.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 26 2016, @10:57AM
He killed at his debates when there were a lot less policy specifics from his campaign, and there were several Republican contenders on the stage with him (9-10 during some). That environment was conducive to the one-liners and zingers he specializes in.
When he debates Hillary, the conditions will be very different. More speaking time with less breaks, and much more sustained attacks than what he got in previous debates. There will be many more tests of Trump's knowledge, and I'll be shocked if Hillary can't school him on foreign policy. Hillary's campaign staff also isn't in turmoil every few weeks.
I'd be willing to bet a few Intranets that Hillary does better in debate polling for at least 2 of the 3 debates. Have they decided when these debates will take place yet? Apparently yes. [usatoday.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Friday August 26 2016, @02:48PM
Same goes for Clinton, she was the zero substance candidate for low information voting Democrats.
To this point, I'm still not eve sure about anything other than the fact that she's a felon that bribed her way out of an indictment. She's got more waffles than an IHOP and is significantly less popular.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @03:54PM
You give to much credit to Hillary. Without handlers, teleprompters, and/or rehearsed questions, she's awash. To many fifths, I think. He gray matter was burnt out years ago.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday August 26 2016, @05:08PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @01:46PM
Trump doesn't debate he rants.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 26 2016, @06:12PM
And it works.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @02:07PM
Trump was also berating people from his far far right position. It played well to the crowd. The crowd that a republican debate would draw. Not to mention he was on the stage with people who have a difficult time thinking in a straight line.
He will rant and rave in these debates but your just being foolish if you think it will have the same result with a different crowd, and with someone who is more knowledgeable then him sharing the stage.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a HRC fan and won't be voting for her. But you can't think straight if you think he is going to do well.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday August 26 2016, @02:54PM
He's up against the velcro candidate. He'll do well, he might even win. The fact that coming into the conventions Clinton was only 5% up on him speaks volumes about how incompetent and narcissistic she is. She should have been killing him by then. Bernie was killing it, but we couldn't have that because the elitists in the Beltway Bubble thought that running the ultimate insider during an anti-establishment cycle was a brilliant move.
And then to skip over Biden for somebody who isn't even remotely qualified to be President is astonishing. The woman is too stupid to figure out how to secure her emails, and we want to let her be President?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:07PM
> The fact that coming into the conventions Clinton was only 5% up on him speaks volumes about how incompetent and narcissistic she is.
Or... it speaks volumes about the kind of people who care about elections before the conventions. If you've been paying attention over the many election cycles you've been alive for, you know that primary voters are, to put it mildly, opinionated. But I'm thinking you might be a little too ... opinionated ... to be particularly observant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @03:02PM
Have you seen her debate? She'd do better pleading the fifth. No, not that kind. The kind where she drank one and is too drunk to debate. Trump, on the other hand, killed at his debates.
Raise your hands. Is anyone surprised that buzzard is impressed by empty, insulting rhetoric?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @03:56PM
Well, answer the question - have you seen her debate? Instead of answering the question, you provide your own empty rhetoric. Imagine that . . . and you're an AC at that. You could anonymously CONTRIBUTE something to this discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @04:18PM
> Well, answer the question - have you seen her debate?
Oh look, runaway doesn't know what a rhetorical question is.
Another checkin from the braintrust of brilliance!
You guys are the best clinton collaborators because you so vividly illustrate the deep insight required to oppose her..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:03PM
You just ignored a rhetorical question in order to complain that the poster ignored a rhetorical question.
LOL. Tell me that was deliberately meant to be ironic!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 26 2016, @06:10PM
I wasn't talking about me, sweety. I was talking about The Public. Trump kills with them while Clinton blows goats no matter who's listening.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:56PM
Yeah "blows goats" is totally not a personal judgment.
Your attempts to portray yourself as unbiased are hilariously transparent. You are so full of yourself you can't tell the difference between your own opinion and facts.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 26 2016, @09:15PM
Oh I'm not unbiased. I totally hate Hillary slightly more than I hate Trump. That's no secret. She still smokes pole at debating though. If she'd had anyone halfway competent and charismatic challenging her, she would have lost the nomination. Likewise if she hadn't had acres and acres of political clout.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:07PM
> Oh I'm not unbiased.
Wooosh!
I'll spell it out for you: Even when you think you are being unbiased you are obviously not being unbiased.
> Likewise if she hadn't had acres and acres of political clout.
Yeah, a politician who is good at politics, obviously she's unqualified.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 27 2016, @02:02PM
Whoosh yourself. You think I'm all right-biased? Bzzzzt! Wrong. I'm not even on your left-right axis at all. That whole thing is a scam to give you the illusion of choice while. Your only real choice in the two major parties is which flavor of oppression you prefer. If I seem to hate the left more than the right it's only because the left are up to more oppressive fuckwadery lately.
P.S. "A politician who is good at politics." - A crooked piece of shit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday August 26 2016, @02:11PM
All Hillary needs to do is stick to the script and avoid answering hard questions.
That this is really being said is a sad commentary on our political system. Politicians being honest and open is bad for them? Ugh.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:41PM
Its particularly bad for a wonk like clinton. She doesn't do simple. But all anybody wants are sound-bite indictments. The more she tries to speak in depth on a topic, the more she gives persecutors fodder to take out of context. Given that her more recent woes are something I have in depth knowledge of (handling of classified materials) the whole circus has changed me from a lukewarm "At least she's not Trump" to "If this is the worst they've got, she's practically a saint."
The argument that using her own server was an egregious attempt to avoid entering her comms into a permanent historical record would hold so much more water than the red herring about classified materials. But nobody wants to dig in on that. Seems like it was not illegal, just against policy. But any reporter who finds a smoking gun where she says she did it to deliberately hide the record would deserve a Pulitzer.