SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the did-not-think-to-ask-for-training dept.
Politico reports:
Hillary Clinton never received training on how to handle classified information. By her own admission, she had little ability to discern whether a document included sensitive information. And when she did handle sensitive materials, she relied on her subordinates to ensure that nothing important was compromised.
Taken together, her responses to questions from FBI [US' Federal Bureau of Investigation] investigators reveal a high-level government executive who apparently had little grasp of the nuances and complexities around the nation's classification system — a blind spot that helped allow classified communications to pass through her private email server.
While Clinton is clear that she never had any intention to mishandle classified documents, a fact that FBI Director James Comey noted as a factor in his decision not to recommend any charges against the former secretary of state, answers she gave to FBI agents during a July 2 interview are likely to reinforce the Republican characterization of her as having been reckless with government secrets.
Bloomberg reports that Clinton Used Eight BlackBerrys, but [the] FBI Couldn't Get Them:
In addition to the eight devices she used as secretary of state, the FBI said there were at least five additional mobile devices they sought as part of their inquiry. Clinton's lawyers said they could not provide any of the mobile devices she used. One person interviewed by the FBI said he recalled two instances in which Clinton's devices were destroyed by "breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer." The FBI released the summary Friday to provide context on its decision not to recommend prosecution of Clinton or her aides for using the private system. The Democratic presidential nominee was interviewed about her use of private e-mail by FBI agents and federal prosecutors for 3 1/2 hours on July 2. The bureau then recommended that the Justice Department not pursue criminal charges.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @10:27PM
As First Lady (the president's closest advisor), those years mostly saw the experience of Neoliberalism, which made poor people poorer and put more and more of the underclass in prison.
As a Senator, she didn't sponsor one single meaningful bill.
She did vote for more Neoliberalism and more war.
As Secretary of State, her main "accomplishments" were destabilizing Libya (which remains a mess) and turning Honduras into a Reactionary hellhole.
If Obama had followed her advice more closely, he'd be dropping even more bombs on even more children.
HRC is someone with only a hammer (a giant military) who sees every situation as a nail ("Let's bomb them").
and the temperament
With either HRC's chickenhawk nature or Trump's narcissism, I expect WWIII to be started and, when the nukes fly, to end humanity as we know it.
to keep advancing U.S. priorities
Plantation Capitalism, mercantilism, militarism, imperialism, colonialism, hegemony.
Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism.
N.B. Even Zbigniew Brzezinski recently denounced the hypermuscular "Let's make sure we control everything" thinking.
the economy will continue to recover
The **stock market** will continue to recover **for the 1 Percent** (speculators who PRODUCE *nothing*).
For all other USAians, exports will continue to decline (except for exported jobs) and unemployment and precarity will continue to increase.
"Trickle down" is only Reactionary propaganda.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @11:09PM
This. Exactly this. Unfortunately neither is more fit. Neither is fit at all. Victory for the rest of us is if somehow, whichever one it is, manages to avoid starting WW3 - Trump by opening his GD mouth - Clinton by starting something because of plain shortsightedness.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @11:13PM
> With either HRC's chickenhawk nature or Trump's narcissism, I expect WWIII to be started and, when the nukes fly, to end humanity as we know it.
Yeah, Clinton's gonna start WWIII. Come on dude. You make a lot of good posts that are unconventional. But when you say such obvious bullshit like that you delegitimize all the off-the-wall but good ideas you have. You make it that much easier for people to dismiss anything you say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @11:51PM
Let me remind you that WWI was set off by 1 punk kid shooting a minor member of the Austrian nobility.
The candidates of Big 2 include someone who is set off by a Twitter posting and someone whose first response to a foreign policy situation is "Bomb them".
Neither has seen battle up close.
Trump (who attended a military academy) received multiple draft deferments--with 1 of those based on what was clearly a fraudulent doctor's report.
Hillary was a Goldwater Girl; she never got over the notion of sending other folks' kin to murder people (mostly children) on the other side of the globe.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:46AM
> Let me remind you that WWI was set off by 1 punk kid shooting a minor member of the Austrian nobility.
That's like saying the Arab Spring was caused by Mohamed Bouazizi.
If the best you've got is that Clinton might do something that randomly ignites a conflict then you can say that about ANY candidate.
> Neither has seen battle up close.
Nor has any other candidate.
Come on dude. Why are you so hell-bent on proving you aren't rational?
Is someone else posting as you in order to discredit you?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:02AM
Except he's right, and I don't dismiss it... I dismiss HER!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @11:22PM
As a Senator, she didn't sponsor one single meaningful bill.
That's a conveniently misleading fact.
Indeed, she only sponsored 3 bills.
But she co-sponsored 70+ bills, including The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 [govtrack.us]
But furthermore, the number of bills sponsored is a piss-poor metric. The work of congress isn't only sponsoring bills, that's just the start of a long process of negotiation, ammendments and running hearings, bringing in experts and people from relevant agencies, etc. Even when a bill is the result of the collaboration of an entire committee, its usually only the chair's name that goes on it. If sponsorship is the only metric that counts, that's like saying no chef has ever made any food, all credit goes to the farmers who grew the vegetables and raised the animals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @11:54PM
...and each of those was to rename a public building for some Liberal.
Anyone impressed yet?
The work of congress isn't only sponsoring bills
Yes, I mentioned that she pushed Neoliberalism (Plantation Capitalism) and Neoconservatism (Imperialism; A police state).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @11:35PM
Some good things that happened during "those years" while Bill Clinton held office:
- Federal deficits went down, and we were actually running a budget surplus when Bill left office.
- Crime turned around in a big way. It's unclear exactly why, but it was about 20% lower when Bill left office.
- GDP growth was solid throughout his presidency.
- Minimum of military stupidity, especially when compared to his predecessors and successors. (Bill's biggest screw-ups: The attempted Somalia intervention, and the attack on the USS Cole.) He even had one strong success intervening in Bosnia.
- A couple of significant diplomatic successes: Ending the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and coming closer than any US president ever has of creating peace between the Israelis and Palestinians (it didn't last, of course).
- Effective counter terrorism policy: Al Qaida existed throughout his presidency, and didn't succeed in pulling a 9/11-scale event until after Bill left office. And it wasn't for lack of trying - they bombed the World Trade Center about a month into his first term.
- Unemployment fell nearly in half.
- There was a real push to introduce America to this new thingy called the "Internet". Yes, that was more Al Gore's doing than Bill Clinton's, but Bill definitely went along with it. Bill remains the only president with a photo-op of him and his VP stringing network cable.
- The percentage of Americans with college degrees increased 5%.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:06AM
She, sir, is NO Bill Clinton. And she is no Presidential person... criminal person, yes, but not Presidential.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:45AM
I keep repeating that any third party candidate is preferable to either Trump or Clinton.
But, I also have to repeat that Trump is far less dangerous than Clinton. If elected, Trump will be a lame duck from day one. He has no political clout. His own party will try to obstruct his stupidity, while the other party does the same. Trump will never accomplish much of anything, good or bad.
If elected, Hillary has no less than a hundred congress critters who will happily grovel at her feet in public, while at least another hundred will grovel in private. Many of the rest can and will be bullied into going along to get along.
Hillary is the most dangerous choice available, by orders of magnitude. Hilllary will "make things happen", and the world will regret it.