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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @01:11AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:17AM
Here's my hand:
Trump: He's a joker and can't win. Maybe. But if he does win, that legitimizes the alt-right. I can look at probably new laws and regulations that will make my ability to access the meds I need even more difficult, and transition may become impossible. Note: I'm still certain that Trump is not a racist, sexist, whateverist. He's merely appealing to them. It's the alt-right who are the true problem. They cannot become a legitimate political voice because they represent authoritarianism and anti-scientific small-mindedness.
(Wanted to make that clear—I don't care if any given asshole can't figure out whether I'm a boy or a girl. Anybody feel free to call me “he” here and I don't care, will probably just assume I haven't been posting enough rants involving the c*s word lately. I do care if suddenly there is a political movement that believes that the science that supports what I am is nothing but politically correct garbage.)
Johnson: This is my candidate of choice. While I was concerned that he would force businesses to accept my money because I have some fucking status or another, I'm hopeful that was a flub on his part. If he doesn't get into the debates, he'd done. Voted for him in 2012, and ready to vote for him again now, except for the complications.
Stein: Apparently, she wouldn't be a bad choice for me either. I agree with a lot Dr. Stein stands for. She'd also unlock the “female head of state” achievement. It's just I have to pick one person, and she has the slimmest chance of getting close to even two or three whole percentage points of the popular vote.
Clinton: She's a shape-shifting lizard person. She will in all likelihood roll TPP/TTIP into something else, pass that alongside TISA, and start a war with BRICS as they move to their own currency, leading to a global nuclear exchange (followed by the year from hell, etc). On the bright side, maybe weed for all! More overreaching, unconstitutional executive decisions about bathrooms that superficially work in my favor (while building the fuel for the 2018 riots). But weed! Maybe. At least we'll get taco trucks on every corner! Yay!
Who the hell do I vote for in this mess? I'm reduced to one Boolean statement. if (get_odds(trump) >= CREDIBILITY_THRESHOLD) vote(clinton); else vote(johnson);
Yes, I just said that, to me, the nuclear apocalypse is preferable to the alt-right turning back civil rights to 1820. Really, the nuclear apocalypse may not be avoidable at all, Trump or Clinton. I'd just rather have my yay! weed! while I can before the year from hell.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:30AM
s/Johnson/Stein/, thank you. Johnson sounds reasonable, but a closer look reveals that "libertarians are pot-smoking, bi-curious Republicans" is dangerously close to the truth.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:25AM
but a closer look reveals that "libertarians are pot-smoking, bi-curious Republicans" is dangerously close to the truth.
What's dangerous about that? Those labels indicate that libertarians do away with a considerable portion of the baggage that Republicans have such as the authoritarian impulse to excessively punish ethnic minorities for engaging in criminal activities (a fair portion of which shouldn't be crimes), being against the war on drugs, and not using the power of the state or of culture to interfere with same sex or inter-racial marriage.
The only danger here is that some democrats might find a better political fit with the libertarians should they ever become politically strong.