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.
Related Stories
FBI Director James Comey Sacked
The Washington Post reports that:
FBI Director James B. Comey has been dismissed by the president [...] a startling move that officials said stemmed from a conclusion by Justice Department officials that he had mishandled the probe of Hillary Clinton's emails.
Previously:
Clinton Told FBI She Relied on Others' Judgment on Classified Material
FBI Recommends No Prosecution for Clinton
F.B.I. Director James Comey Is Fired by Trump
President Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey:
President Trump has fired the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, over his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, the White House said Tuesday.
[...] Under the F.B.I.'s normal rules of succession, Mr. Comey's deputy, Andrew G. McCabe, a career F.B.I. officer, becomes acting director. The White House said the search for a new director will begin immediately.
I never liked Comey (see this cluster of stories), but I doubt there will ever be an FBI Director I like.
Related:
We're Stuck With Comey
Earlier in the day...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Saturday September 03 2016, @06:35PM
So by any reasonable standard, she withheld evidence in contempt of court and may have destroyed evidence.
Five additional devices? Really? Anyone care to start a pool on why they were destroyed in the manner described? After all, information security is obviously at the forefront of this woman's thought process. What actually would drive her to take a hammer to a cell phone?
As Sec of State, her very job description is to handle classified info. It boggles the mind she can mount this kind of defense.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday September 03 2016, @07:08PM
Ignorance of the law does not absolve one of violations of the law in America.
Except for Hillary. She can escape prosecution of the most egregious crimes against the nation because:
(1) She can blame it on her junior IT staff
(2) She can blame it on her own senility
(3) If she goes down, a lot...A LOT...of other fifth-columnists within the American government are going to go down with her. THAT is the true reason why many are so desperate to see her beat the rap.
(4) She practiced shitty OPSEC to a degree that left the whole nation open for blackmail. Which is why we have to stop them all at step (3)
(5) Ethanol-fueled stops posting anywhere because he was assassinated
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @07:30PM
"(5) Ethanol-fueled stops posting anywhere because he was assassinated"
More likely died due to illnesses relating to his obvious alcoholism and various mental illnesses...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday September 03 2016, @07:41PM
Hahahaha, suck my dick, you goddamn nigger.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @08:01PM
You think you response does anything but add further evidence to my hypothesis? Think again.
You betray more about your character than you think you do with your posting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @08:22PM
I think his response was appropriate, nigger.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @10:11PM
I like it when bigots out themselves. Makes it easier to discriminate against them.
Tit for tat and all that.
Also I find it hilarious that you think using the word nigger somehow hurts me. Like a naughty school boy mooning someone. Also, I am neither black or a yank.
For the record I LOVE that he posts here. People should be reminded how bad the scum of the earth really are.
If you only ever expose yourself to the intelligent, empathetic members of society you forget what is out there and become complacent.
So good work!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @08:27PM
Yea, like Milo, he likes black men.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @07:52PM
I don't disagree with the tone of your comment but, to my eye, you used the wrong term.
I think of a fifth column as an anti-establishment (sabotage) group.
ISTM the term that you want is the Deep State [wikipedia.org] which seeks to more deeply embed the status quo and to resist reform.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @09:00PM
Sell-out Bernie says, "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails". Does anyone still believe that Bernie was a legitimate candidate? His primary campaign was all scripted by the DNC to give the naive Democrats the illusion that they actually had a choice in this election year. Hillary being the 2016 nominee was decided back in 2008.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Saturday September 03 2016, @10:03PM
It's Sheepdog Bernie. His job was to keep the "lefty" idealists and their money from wandering off the democrat corral towards the Greens or whoever. Worked like a charm, the idealistic democrats are sheared sheep.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @10:35PM
> It's Sheepdog Bernie. His job was to keep the "lefty" idealists and their money from wandering off the democrat corral towards the Greens or whoever.
And that's why the DNC leaked their own emails and then fired all those people including the director. It was just an elaborate charade to keep the sheep inline behind Bernie once he was no longer in contention because, uh, because? Help me out here fuska?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 04 2016, @12:58AM
Why don't you tell me what is your charade?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:33AM
I know you are but what am I?
— Fustalogic!!
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 04 2016, @06:39AM
Did you follow me from Slashdot?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @01:34PM
Probably not. That AC has been posting stupid one-liners for a while now. I'm honestly not sure why he's here since he doesn't like any of our regulars.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday September 03 2016, @11:49PM
100% agreement from me on that.
It's not only the Dems though, there are warnings of the potential for fake "Republican" sites being set up for the purpose of functioning as strawmen and I've recently seen an atrociously edited video of Soros (and way too uncritically reposted/linked by Gateway Pundit) that would fit all too well into that template (because there really isn't any need to edit Soros into an even bigger megalomaniac than he is: straight footage and facts is more than enough).
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Gravis on Saturday September 03 2016, @10:00PM
she's lying through her teeth and tried to cover it up. sadly, despite all of this dishonesty, she is still the lesser evil.
(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.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:11AM
Keep telling yourself that. I suppose it justifies voting for a real douche.
Hey, I'm not real proud of my own voting record, but at least I've never voted for such an outright criminal as Hillary. And, I've never tried to justify voting for an outright criminal. But, whatever helps you sleep at night, go ahead and say it. You're voting for a bitch who has zero respect for the constitution, the rule of law, other people's health or welfare, can't relate to voters on any level, and would copulate with Satan on top of any of the monuments, live, on television, if it would get her elected. Because - SHE DESERVES IT!
Al Capone was a lesser evil than Hillary Clinton.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:32AM
This is the third or fourth time I'm going to say this: a vote for Trump is a vote for the Cheney cabal. Trump, like that other famous, malleable retard Dubya, will spend his tenure in office shoving crayons up his nose in the Oval Office while the unholy Cthulhoid alliance of Dominionsts and corporate raiders who have owned the GOP since Reagan if not Nixon have free reign, as they did from 2000-2008.
Trump is a distraction. Don't look at the distraction. Look at the people behind the distraction.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @07:23AM
Which part of "third party" have you failed to understand? If the Greenies get 10% of the vote, and the Libertarians get 10% of the vote, the PTB will take notice. If we actually get a small boatload of third party candidates elected, we can actually start putting the brakes on the Ruling Class Cabal's agenda.
No, we aren't going to see a third party president this time around, the best we can hope for is that they get enough of the vote to qualify for federal campaign funding.
BUT LET'S DO THAT AT LEAST!!
You know as well as I do that Hillary is wedded to Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. Trump is far less bound to either of those institutions than Hillary is.
Trump is not a neocon, whatever else he is. Trump is not Cheney's puppet. Hillary is more Cheney's puppet than Trump is.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 04 2016, @03:46AM
she's lying through her teeth and tried to cover it up. sadly, despite all of this dishonesty, she is still the lesser evil.
As noted before, there's third party. You don't have to take this bullshit. You don't have to defend a felon.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @10:27PM
As Sec of State, her very job description is to handle classified info. It boggles the mind she can mount this kind of defense.
You are right. It does boggle the mind. So why do you take the headlines at face value?
You have a choice of what to believe
(a) Someone so competent as to become a senator, the secretary of state and most likely president is an idiot
- or -
(b) The reporting is deliberately sensationalized because more eyeballs generate more dollars
The actual documents are available for you to read yourself:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2600906 [washingtonexaminer.com]
Clinton could not give an example of how the classification of a document was determined; rather she stated there was a process in place at State before her tenure, and she relied on career foreign service professionals to appropriately mark and handle classified information.
...
She relied on State offcials to use their judgment when e-mailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she
received at her e-mail address. (page 26 of 47)
So there you go, she didn't write the documents, they were provided to her and she relied on the people providing them to mark them appropriately. Utterly mundane. Anyone who has held a clearance works exactly the same way. If you aren't intimately familiar with the exact origins of the information you won't recognize it as classified. Expecting otherwise is expecting her to be psychic. And no, accusing her of being a witch doesn't cut it.
And while we are here, lets put that "turn it into non-paper" canard to rest once and for all. Runaway? Listen up:
Clinton instructed Sullivan that if the secure fax could not be fixed, he should turn [the talking points] into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure. State uses the term "non-paper" to refer to a document which is authorized for distribution to a foreign government without explicit attribution to the US. government and without classified information. (page 25 of 47)
I'm sure none of these actual facts changed anyone's mind. To most of you I'm just some toady. But fuck you, at least I'm not working backwards from assuming she's a bitch to find anything that sounds like she's a bitch. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:22AM
Except, she didn't rely on others because they were career professionals: she relied on them because she'd had a "concussion" and couldn't remember being taught about 'classifications' and security. Yeah, she'd make a great President.....
She is a liar and a dangerous person.
She really needs to be treated to a stroke or heart attack or
Feh, if only there was a real contender to go against her, cause she will ruin you guys further.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:27PM
Being taught about classifications and security has nothing to do with the initial classifications of information. That is done by specialist with extensive knowledge in the subject matter. You're an idiot.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday September 03 2016, @11:33PM
The "fun" part is that this stuff is trivial compared to all the other shit they're up to and which has already been revealed and documented and then there's still Wikileaks, Judicial Watch, and possibly others set to release even more.
Another "fun" part is that the "elitists"/globalists (in any party) that Hillary represents might have managed to piss off the surveillance and manipulation system (Five Eyes etc.) or at least some parts of it. I've seen different people arguing that the Hillary and DNC leaks come from the NSA.
I certainly can't vouch for the following but Alex Jones & Infowars is claiming that at least parts of the US military is getting antsy as well. The last month I've peeked at their web page to see what kind of stuff they were covering but hadn't ever watched any of their shows until I recently watched an entire full show out of curiosity. However at a minimum from other sources (like Wikileaks) it seems quite certain that there's some significant internal disagreement going on inside and between various branches and departments concerning topics such as Russia, Syria, and Ukraine. Maybe Yemen too. Because RT seems to have veered closer to "mainstream nonsense" (although there's still a few gems once in a while) I've finally also had a closer look at Moon of Alabama [moonofalabama.org] which turned out to have the most sensible stuff I've read about recent developments in Syria and some interesting comments as well.
Back on topic!
Setting all that aside it's not 5 but at least 13 devices (8+ 5 = 13) that we know of so far [thegatewaypundit.com].
Or maybe that ought to be 14 if one includes the Hillary Clinton laptop with archived classified e-mail lost in the mail [thegatewaypundit.com]. ...and in other news the dog ate the homework :P
Of course there could easily be plenty of such information left over on those 13 other devices; I seem to remember that on its own smashing computers with hammers isn't in any way conforming to US government regulation on data destruction so it could easily be nothing but misunderstood, uneducated, and ineffectual copying by the Hillary team of the security theater surrounding the Guardian's "destruction" of computer hardware that was used for the little bit of reporting they did on Snowden.
When even the CNN starts to realize that Hillary Clinton is a sick joke the question that arises is what the DNC and their backers will do next. Will they clear the way for Kaine and try to sell Kaine as better or cleaner even though he is highly unlikely to be anything but another front for exactly the same kind of insanity [paulcraigroberts.org] that Hillary represents? Can Obama, the DHS, Soros and the rest still succeed and/or will the electoral commission overrule a popular vote that does not represent theirs and others entrenched interests?
Will the demise of Hillary (illness or oh-so-convenient violence) be used to reset the election to square one? Is traitor Bernie going to fool people even more successfully the second time around or do they have other "vetted" candidates and manufactured opposition ready?
Only time will tell :3
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:20AM
"the US military is getting antsy"
Well, it's about time. Many of the best leaders have already been fired, retired, or flushed from the system, because they resist all the social justice warrior bullshit forced upon them.
It's about time because homeland security and the TSA is being promoted to the level of the DOD.
It's about time, because this farce of a two-party system could come crumbling down at any time.
I am positively sick of what they have done to our military, and the military has just gone along with much of it. Our air power has taken a tremendous hit with the F-35, the damned thing can't fly, can't fight, can't do shit. It's only purpose is to make some select people unbelievable rich, while at the same time weakening our military. Ditto for that piece of shit destroyer the navy has had shoved up it's ass. We already had better littoral craft than the Zumwalt, but we just had to have a billion dollar POS that can't sail in a storm.
The military is finally getting antsy?
They've been asleep at the wheel for the past fifteen years and more.
It's about time they wake up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:10AM
Everybody thinks they are a fucking lawyer. You are NOT. Shuddup!
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:43AM
Maybe I missed something. Just what court order did she disobey? In the US one cannot be convicted of something that was not a crime at the time.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:31AM
What you missed is that all the clinton hate is about "proving" what the haters already know: She's a bitch.
That's the only logic that applies. I used to be mildly negative towards her because I dislike political dynasties and I thought her capture of democratic party delegates before any of the primary voting even began was bullshit exploitation of the system.
But all these haters have convinced me otherwise because whenever I actually dig past the headlines and deep into the facts, there is never anything there. Its like reading the hysterical conspiracy theories of anti-vaxxers and climate-change deniers. It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:34AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @06:19AM
The FBI's own words from the released documents:
Clinton told the FBI that she directed her legal team to provide any work-
related or arguably work-related e-mails to State; however she did not participate in the
development of the specific process to be used or in discussions of the locations of where her
e-mails might exist. Clinton was not consulted on specific e-mails in order to determine if they
were work-related.
I'm sure that doesn't matter because, you know, she's a bitch!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 04 2016, @06:22AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @01:20PM
There's a term for that. "Plausible deniability". The ignorant, the naive, and the stupid believe that shit. To the rest of us, it's simply not plausible.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Saturday September 03 2016, @06:38PM
The Trump thing is making things a bit difficult for the democrats. If they win too many seats in congress, they won't be able to use "republican obstructionism" as an excuse to break election year promises. So the democrats have to put their most corrupt politicians on the ballot to avoid too big a majority. Without the 50/50 split their rotating villain shifting blame game will no longer work.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @07:27PM
I remember when democrats held a supermajority in in all branches of government.
Pressing on their list of concerns- bathroom equality for women!
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article24460222.html [mcclatchydc.com]
At this point, I have to imagine democrats are as use to disappointment as small government (ahem) republicans, partisan blaming aside.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @10:43PM
Damn fuska! Do you got some serious back-fitting skills! Is there any scenario that isn't the result of a gynormous deep conspiracy?
The all-power illuminati run everything anyway, so why do they bother with the charade? Especially this charade. Entertainment value? What? Why didn't wait so long many decades to run Trump? He's been talking about it since the 80s.
They are so powerful that they can do anything, but so weak they can't just run shit openly and save everybody the hassle.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 04 2016, @12:54AM
why do they bother with the charade?... Entertainment value?
Yes. Distraction is very valuable [hollywoodreporter.com]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:17AM
The Republicans said the same things about Obama and Kerry.
Kerry: remember the Swift boats? Seems Kerry lied about his heroism in the war and actually betrayed his mates. That story died after the election.
Obama: remember Rev. Wright, Bill Ayres, Indonesia, and the missing birth certificate? Obama was some secret Muslim radical who was going to institute Sharia Law on the entire USA.
Rove, Ailes, and the others who run the Republican media establishment - and they have DISPROPORTIONATE influence on American politics, given their ratings - know very well that the way to make a story "have legs" is to keep replaying it 24x7x365.
Otherwise, people would say, private email server? Gimme a break, let's talk about something important. That's what Bernie Sanders said and he was Hillary's main opponent.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 04 2016, @03:47AM
:-) Excuse me, but your partisanship is showing.
I don't pretend to concern myself with the email thing. That also is a distraction from the quid pro quo that permeates the entire political process on both sides. Bernie was never in opposition to Hillary. He said at the very beginning of his campaign that he would endorse her after she wins the nomination. His sole purpose was to keep the "idealists'" money and attention within the democrat party. And he sure brought in plenty of that. And now, as his job is done, he too has disappeared off the TV and other mass media.
And as always, 95% of congress will be reelected, totally dominated by democrats and republicans, not a single real independent in the bunch. The system works! It is a well oiled machine. Richard Daley would be most proud.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:10AM
Kerry: ..... That story died after the election.
Well it wasn't criminal so other thanbar him from the Presidency, what else is there to do about it. The story didn't die, just not much point in talking about it. But we still make jokes about Lurch and call him John "who served in Vietnam" Kerry in a mocking way.
Obama: remember Rev. Wright, Bill Ayres, Indonesia, and the missing birth certificate?
First off, get your history right. It was a Clinton minion who floated the birth certificate thing. The other are of course entirely 100% true. The birther thing was a huge head fake to distract from the obvious by allowing any discussion of Obama's origin story to be tossed in the Conspiracy Theory kill file. The real story was sitting in plain sight. The only sane reading of the Natural Born Citizen clause, based on the understanding of the concept at the time the words were written, excludes Mr. Obama. That requires no evidence beyond Obama's (and Bill Ayers as ghostwritter) own book. A core requirement is that an NBC is born of American parents. Obama Sr. never even entertained the notion of American Citizenship, q.e.d. The Natural Born Clause was intended to prevent those with divided loyalty from holding our highest office. Mr. Obama holds American citizenship by way of his mother, Kenyan and British by way of his father and Indonesian by being legally adopted by his stepfather. If someone with four countries holding a claim to his loyalty that our government recognizes the legitimacy of, if such a person is "Natural Born" then the clause is null and void.
Much like now, if the clear statutes that explicitly exclude intent as an element of the crime are to now be waived because.... why exactly? Can we now even pretend that the Rule of Law still applies? If we really do place someone whose best defense is "I'm brain damaged, leave me alone!" into our highest office, are we not all insane?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @06:47PM
Or at least that has been my observation. The political appointees are clueless. They haven't come up the ranks and lived this stuff like a career person. Those of us much further down the org chart handle this stuff much more delicately because we're afraid of slipping up and getting in trouble. We also don't have a staff of people handling the grunt work for us. Look at Gen. Petraeus as another example.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @07:38PM
This is why they have staff and guidelines to walk them through it.
Kinda goes to shit when they actively ignore it though, either through hubris or drowning-in-the-shower stupidity.
As an aside, for all the doomsayers about Trump, these actions by Clinton really don't bode well for one of the most powerful positions in government. We already have the presidency overextending its grasp. We really don't need a repeat of Nixon's "everything the President does is legal".
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @09:02PM
...and especially when FBI/DoJ refuses to prosecute.
Because Obama. Because Dubya. Etc.
We really don't need a repeat of Nixon's "everything the President does is legal".
I hope everyone is taking a close look at 3rd-party candidates--especially folks in non-battleground states.
...and, for folks who -are- in a swing state but who want their preferred choice to register in the popular vote stats, there is also the vote-swapping paradigm [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @10:59PM
> Look at Gen. Petraeus as another example.
You know, what he did isn't even close to the same level.
Clinton received unmarked documents that originated from people who took them from classified systems and stripped the markings. Clinton used them as part of her official job. Petreaus knowingly took marked documents and deliberately gave them to a woman he was fucking so she could write his hagiography.
Besides that, the people who knowingly gave the documents to Sidney Blumenthal such that they ultimately ended up in Clinton's inbox, where is the investigation into them? Petreaus got a slap on the wrist, but the career people who leaked the info Blumenthal haven't even been investigated.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:25AM
"Clinton received unmarked documents"
You've not been paying attention to Comey, and/or you only listen to the talking heads who support Clinton.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:42AM
Actually I have been paying attention 1000x better than you.
The only marked documents she received were entries from her own phone schedule [politico.com] and they were single line-items marked with a (C) for confidential, the lowest level of classification.
They only reason they were classified is in the event the she decides to cancel a scheduled call it wouldn't be a political loss of face to the other person for being blown off by the US secretary of state. Two of the three phone calls were completed so they were no longer classified.
That is what its come down to for you runaway. Your entire irrational hate-ball rests on the fact that she cancelled a phone call to some diplomat and the fact she had planned to call them was in her email with a (C) next to it.
Travelgate, benghazi, whitewater, filegate the pattern is the same. There is never any fire and the only reason there is smoke is because people like yourself, who desperately want there to be fire, keep madly rubbing their sticks together.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:23AM
Agreed, I've worked with some pretty damned clueless executives. We'd try to get clear requirements from one guy, but he talked like a sales-drone and used buzzwords he had no clue about. And then he'd chew us out for not reading his mind properly when he wasn't happy with our delivery.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday September 03 2016, @06:53PM
Hillary Clinton never received training on how to handle classified information.
If that is in fact true, not only should most of the high-level officials at the State Department be fired, they should be in prison. Part of certifying someone to handle classified documents is ensuring that they understand the nature of classification and how to handle them properly. If the State Department did not provide guidance to Clinton on this topic before giving her classified information, they are probably in breach of multiple laws.
More likely, Clinton is just saying, "I can't recall" in the way a lot of folks do in legThe report states that "Clinton could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by State." And when she was asked about a "C" marking in one of her emails, a marking the FBI considered an indication of classification, Clinton said she did not know what it meant and speculated "it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," adding that she "did not pay attention to the 'level' of classified information and took all classified information seriously." al depositions when they actually do recall. But again, the State Department should have a record somewhere that proper steps are taken to instruct and certify someone before giving them classified information. If they don't, they deserve to be fired too, because such documentation is essential to maintaining accurate records about who is properly authorized to access information. If someone at State tried to "train" her, but she refused training on the basis that she just needed access on account of her position, again that should have been documented somewhere.
Further, from TFA:
The report states that "Clinton could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by State." And when she was asked about a "C" marking in one of her emails, a marking the FBI considered an indication of classification, Clinton said she did not know what it meant and speculated "it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," adding that she "did not pay attention to the 'level' of classified information and took all classified information seriously."
If this is true, this almost certainly rises to the standard of criminal negligence for handling classified information. She admitted -- on record, to the FBI -- that she not only was not trained in handling classified information, but did not know when documents were classified and "did not pay attention" to the level of classification. I'm certainly not one of the crazies out to get Clinton on this stuff, but wow... if this story is true, I don't see how her actions are in any way defensible. Nor are the State Department's, if they failed to ensure and document appropriate training.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday September 03 2016, @06:55PM
Sorry... I don't know how that cut-and-paste of the quotation ended up in two places in my post. Should've caught it in preview... my bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @11:08PM
Here's the thing about those three items with (C) markings - they were all entries in her schedule for planned phone calls. [politico.com] State classifies the schedule of calls with foreign diplomats in case the call gets canceled then the diplomat won't lose face for being cancelled on. As soon as the call is finished its declassified because there is no longer any face to be lost. That's it. Two of the three were mismarked, someone forgot to update the marking after the phone call. They've made no comment on the third, so presumably it remains confidential that Clinton cancelled a call with someone.
You decide if she deserves to be disqualified from office for that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @12:54AM
Why lie about it, then?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:12AM
> Why lie about it, then?
Force of habit?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:49AM
Lie about what?
That she thought her declassified phone schedule was not classified and mistook the incorrect (C) as part of an (A) (B) (C) (D) sequence that had been lost to editing?
Yeah no one would ever make that mistake. She must have been totally lying.
That bitch!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:58AM
She's been lying constantly, and trying to cover those lies is what is killing her.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:37AM
WHAT LIE?
Seriously answer the god damn question.
What I see is her reacting to a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. No matter what she says, she's a bitch. So she decides to participate as little as possible.
And this is nothing new for the Clintons. When Toni Morrison called Bill the first black president, that was not a compliment. It was about exactly the same treatment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @12:47PM
It'd almost be easier to ask "what isn't a lie?"
1. Benghazi murders were a response to an anti-Islam video
2. Didn't send classified information using nonsecure means
3. Didn't possess classified ("marked") information
4. Only used [small number] of nonsecure devices which ended up containing classified information
5. Turned over all copies of official government-related email before attempting to destroy the rest
And those are just the ones off the top of my head. Of course, what difference at this point does it make?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:29AM
Think about it. "I can't recall". The woman is either senile, or she's lying to avoid prosecution. That blood clot may have destroyed her brain, presuming that she ever had a functional brain. Or old age. OR SHE'S A FUCKING CRIMINAL WITH A LOT OF COVER!!
Deserves? She deserves to be sent back to whatever care facility she chooses, and forgotten.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 04 2016, @10:37AM
Here's the thing about those three items with (C) markings
There are several things to note. First, that is irrelevant and there are other classified markings than just that. Further, stuff that should have been known to be top secret is treated just the same as stuff explicitly marked classified. She had at least 22 cases where top secret information was propagated over her server. Second, there was a lot more than just a few call lists that were classified at the time they were put in emails on an insecure server such as spy satellite data and discussion of covert US agents. Third, Clinton had instructed staff to remove classified markings. It kind of undermines your argument when it's likely that those classified emails are "unmarked" because Clinton staff removed the markings. Fourth, Clinton had the authority to declassify a variety of classified information in the State Department (whether she did so properly is curiously unexplored at present), but not information from other departments.
Finally, there has been an unusually long sequence of false stories and claims from Clinton and her staff concerning this. She claimed she turned over all relevant emails. The FBI found otherwise. She claimed she didn't have classified information on the server (now modified to classified information marked as classified). That turned out false as well. She claimed she starting using the server after she couldn't find an official PDA which met her needs. This goes on and on.
Then there's are peculiarities in the FBI investigation such as giving the Clintons and their staff enough time and opportunity to coordinate stories. Or outlining a solid case for gross negligence and then throwing it away on the irrelevant grounds that Clinton didn't show "evil intent".
(Score: 3, Informative) by Yog-Yogguth on Sunday September 04 2016, @12:40AM
You're right it isn't true and Gateway Pundit and others have posted the document the FBI found which Hillary signed. A photo of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement between Hillary Rodham Clinton and the United States signed by Hillary Clinton 22-01-2009 is at the end of this short news article [thegatewaypundit.com].
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @01:18AM
It's not a pretend copyright symbol. It is a "portion marking" that stands for "confidential", a type of classified information.
More-common values are U for unclassified, S for secret, and TS for top secret. There can be other markings to indicate compartmentalization.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @07:07PM
Since I heard about this new disk wiping technique, "the cloth", I've never been happier.
My files magically attach themselves to "the cloth" and they are gone gone gone.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @07:40PM
Is that the same cloth you use to wipe yourself off with after ejaculating?
If so, your happiness is warranted: who would even handle a semen-encrusted disk?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Username on Saturday September 03 2016, @07:50PM
I have a hard time seeing other people use this excuse. Sorry, I didn’t mean to sell heroin, I was relying on others to tell me it was illegal. I had no intention of distributing class I narcotics.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Saturday September 03 2016, @08:11PM
I would say its more like taking a drivers test while sick, being given my license, and then going drunk driving. When you are caught you poiint out that you were ill when you took the test that authorizes you to drive and you were counting on your passengar to make sure you knew the rules. The cop then not charing anyone because "simple misunderstanding" .
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday September 03 2016, @09:02PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSTd1LuiVUs [youtube.com]
Just late night random associations & connotations here don't mind me.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @09:26PM
It would be good if folks who frequent tech-related sites would learn to form a proper hyperlink with proper link text.
The Kindness Of Strangers: Scene from the film "Streetcar Named Desire" [youtube.com]
N.B. Some browsers these days allow you to mark text e.g. an example hyperlink, right click, select View Selection Source, and see how that was done in the source code of the page.
.
It would also be good if everybody got a spellchecker and used that.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday September 03 2016, @09:32PM
You're spoiling my hipster drama & irony :(
compiling...
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday September 03 2016, @09:08PM
Not in defense of HC or any politician but in reality so much of many of the things they deal with on a daily basis are far beyond the scope of any but a 'specialist' and CEO's and politicians are totally reliant on hired/appointed advisors. As a tech worker with 25+ years in the industry I can count on one hand the number of 'bosses' I've worked for who actually had a clue what I did. Most are MBA's who speak of synergy and monetizing assets because they really don't understand what they are marketing or selling but just want to 'leverage' it into money somehow.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday September 03 2016, @11:32PM
I met Newt Gingrich once, he tried to help out our company by hooking us up with potential investors. His role was to meet, greet, gain some high level understanding of what was on the table, and make connections with others who might be interested. Before his congressional career ending scandal, he also had a problem with his wife doing penny-ante insider trading based on his dinner conversations.
I also know "someone who knows" Richard Branson. He's a classically flawed individual, unable to do things on his own, his talent is delegation. It's one of the typical paths to make it to the top of today's society.
Get indignant all you want, the people at the top really don't know how to do their own work, they have people that handle that for them.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday September 04 2016, @01:24AM
I totally agree, the only saving grace for many of them is their innate ability to read people and find the ones that know something and the ones that are pure BS artists. I've jokingly advocated electing the US president by lottery, and hiring some know 'good' advisors and business consultants. The best recommendation I could give a President would be common sense and sadly you either have that or you don't it can't be learned or taught.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:34AM
That is a fair observation. But, the CEO who relies on incompetent sons of bitches who CLAIM TO BE IT specialists, security specialists, engineers, legal hounds, or accountants deserve to be tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail.
Viewing Hillary in the best light possible, she is that CEO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:04AM
More buck passing from an apologist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @06:57PM
More judgment from a coward who isn't dealing with reality. Grow up and live in the real world with the rest of us, things are not black and white, and no politician is without guilt
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @02:21AM
"Free Hillary - she's just as guilty as the rest of the crooks!"
Yeah, no.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @09:27PM
Hillary will be an adequate President. She has the experience and the temperament to keep advancing U.S. priorities without fucking anything major up. The next 4-8 years the economy will continue to recover and the U.S. will continue to be the greatest place to live on the planet. Trump is a fuck-up idiot who has the potential to cause an international incident any given week he is in office. No fucking thank you.
Her emails, Benghazi, Bill's cheating once upon a time - all of these are minor issues that the GOP has been relentlessly hammering because they don't have anything of actual importance to stick to her. She is human, she makes mistakes. She has been in public positions for decades now. How many public figures have such an unblemished record over that period of time?
It shocks me that Trump is as close as he is at this point. He is so obviously a bullshit artist. Fuck all you Asperger and sub-100 IQ types who are keeping this election teetering on the edge of what could be a tremendous disaster for this country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @09:40PM
That's the funniest thing I've read all week.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:56AM
Absolutely: she will screw you guys and not use lube.
You will be truly fecked and you will know it... but too late.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(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.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Sunday September 04 2016, @12:20AM
Hillary is a much greater danger, she's talking about obliterating Iran [globalresearch.ca] as if it would not have any consequences. She's a bona fide "war pig" transcending the worst stereotype.
Feel free to read the Huffington Post [huffingtonpost.com] and Breitbart [breitbart.com] reporting the same. The Huffington one is more to the point and better in my opinion because it succinctly summarizes her history of bloodlust —and that's praise of Huffington coming from someone who almost never give them any attention but then again I seldom visit Breitbart either unless Milo tempts me with some antic :)
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday September 04 2016, @01:40AM
I appreciate that your feelings about "Trumps a mean racist" are more important than your knowledge of Treason.
Trump is not my candidate of choice, but its not my fault the democrats nominated a person that would be in prison if she was anyone else. If they had chose Biden they would have won, or Sanders, or pretty much anyone.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:50AM
The racism crap is a red herring. Hillary's mentor? Byrd, a known KKK official. But, no one holds that against Hillary. Bill and Hillary both had glowing eulogies for Byrd when he died. Hillary also worships Margaret Sanger, the woman who wanted to eliminate all those human weeds - especially the black skinned weeds.
Trump, racist? He doesn't hold a candle to Hillary and her ilk.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:32AM
The racism crap is a red herring.
The word you seek is projection. :) The Klan is the terror wing of the Democratic Party, they must exert every effort to ensure people never remember that. Best way so far has been to rewrite the history books to say Republicans are the racists and always have been.
Byrd, a known KKK official.
Use his Klan titles. Exalted Cyclops Byrd. Grand Kleagle Byrd. Much more lulz. Gotta give that one to the Klan, they sure could pick some nifty sounding titles to hand out to each other.
Good one with Sanger, wish Trump would 'go there'. We should also remind folks of the official Clinton Gore campaign merch on Confederate flag backgrounds used in 'appropriate' areas. We should also remind people who resegregated the civil service... along with pointing out the importance of the "re" in that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @01:56AM
The next 4-8 years the economy will continue to recover
Whoever ends up as the next president will have a economic downturn. We are on a 8-10 year cycle. With only a couple of exceptions (usually some sort of major monetary policy shift). You can see bits and pieces here and there. For example all the electronic job boards hyperventilated a couple of months ago that jobs are drying up. I agree, most stuff went from perm hire to 6 month temp. Meaning most businesses are being cautious on hiring. The direct recruiters seem to be OK but very aggressive in placing people. The department store sector is basically going through a major contraction. For example Walmart cutting 7k jobs just this last week. Target the week before that and Macys the week before that. I should look into the shipping sector and see if it is just a soft market or something more interesting. All three usually pre-signal a downturn.
http://www.multpl.com/inflation-adjusted-s-p-500 [multpl.com] You can see the cycle snap about every 8-10 years. It probably will not be as bad as 2008 but it will be front page news.
It shocks me that Trump is as close as he is at this point
Why? Do you think running for president is about values and doing the right thing? It is about who can look the best and make the other guy look the worst. Most elections come down to ~47 for both with about ~3% of the population making the decision.
Hillary will be an adequate President.
I think she could be one. She has political connections and enough experience to do the job. Considering she is pretty much all the DNC and the media put up, we better hope she is the best on offer from them. Her health while a bit of a joke actually does concern me. She is basically walking around in winter cloths in the middle of one of the hottest summers on record. Meaning she is probably on blood thinners. Given the blood clot thing from the FBI this week that would make sense. I know quite a few people on them for similar reasons. It usually wipes them out. They become weak and unable to have the stamina to do anything. Mentally they are fine but doing anything wipes them out. Her position on TPP seems to be rather mushy and flip floppy. Considering she probably had a hand in creating parts of it, it may be hard for her to be unbiased about it.
I also think Donald Trump could be one too. He also has connections. He has tons of construction experience which our country actually needs. Our aging 1930s infrastructure could use a bit of work. Hell one of his stump items is nothing more than a construction project. He loves to make deals. So he will start with crazy positions to get people to state their min bid. He can then negotiate the middle. That is a good quality in a leader. It also makes him come off like a used car dealer. Most people are not looking to make deals they are looking to just buy something and be over with it. So it is quite off putting for a large chunk of people. He is the only one saying TPP is a bad thing and got at least Hillary to admit maybe it needs work. He calls it a bad deal. It looks like a terrible one for everyone but Hollywood. He is also an opportunist. Like the mexico thing this week. The Mexican president didnt actually expect Trump to take him up on it. He probably was going to use it to bash Trump. But Trump turned it around on them and made them both look good.
Last year I said there was one man that could make me vote for Hillary and that many was Trump. I watched her speeches and decided she does not represent me much at all. Johnson is nothing more than a poorly concealed RNC tea party candidate with a few DNC talking points calling himself a libertarian. He does not represent me much at all. Stien is interesting to watch but she has 0 chance of winning. Votes for either of those would be nothing more than token 'you both suck' votes. In all honestly all 4 have good points and bad points. Out of them I think only Stien would not make an adequate president.
Take what the Chinese just did to Obama today at a negotiation. They basically snubbed him and pushed him off to the side. Something he is probably not used to. Why did they do that? They wanted to put Obama off balance because they probably have a large ask. They want him thinking about decorum instead of what they want him to give up in a bad deal for us. They are doing it because they do not respect him. I could see them doing the same thing to Clinton. They could try it on Trump but he would make a huge fake deal of it then use it as a negotiating position to get a better deal. Clinton would be busy trying not to create an international incident. Trump would see it as an opportunity to negotiate.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:39AM
"The next 4-8 years the economy will continue to recover"
Where is this "recovery"? Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Just put it down, and try some coffee.
How many people make more money today, than they did in the 1990's? I make LESS money today than I did then. Most workers today make less money today than most workers did in the 1990's. WTF do you think millenials are living on? Some are doing well, while hordes of others are still living in their parent's homes, with absolutely no prospects.
THERE HAS BEEN NO RECOVERY!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:56AM
Find Jack Welch, the "legendary" ex-CEO of GE who invented outsourcing back in the '80s. You may recall that what he did at GE was popularized among the Fortune 500 CEO/management consultant set as "reengineering" in the early '90s.
Then came fiber optics, the Internet, and a succession of technological advances that made it easy to replace labor with code and back end systems (a trend that will probably continue after all of us here are in the grave).
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:47AM
Didn't you hear? The recovery rations were recently increased from 25 grams to 20 grams.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:53AM
> I make LESS money today than I did then.
Runaway is now reduced to citing his own incompetence as proof of Clinton's incompetence.
Lock the bitch up!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @07:14AM
Yet another idiot who thinks that a person's competence dictates wages. I've been both irritated and amused at the tech workers who gloated over laborers, skilled labor, and craftsmen losing their jobs over the past decades. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and IT workers are losing their jobs to H1-B workers.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&output=search&tbs=qdr:y&aq=t&q=IT+workers+rebel+against+h1b [google.com]
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&output=search&tbs=qdr:y&aq=t&q=IT+workers+rebel+against+h1b#safe=off&hl=en&tbs=qdr:y&q=tech+worker+shortage+myth [google.com]
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&output=search&tbs=qdr:y&aq=t&q=IT+workers+rebel+against+h1b#safe=off&hl=en&tbs=qdr:y&q=engineer+shortage+myth [google.com]
Wake up and smell the coffee, Bubba - the economy is being manipulated, and we are all on the losing end. Today, I make about 5% less than I made in the 90's, and I'm relatively well off. Despite the statistics claiming some miraculous "recovery", workers entering the workforce today are at the mercy of the companies. And, that is PRECISELY WHY congress has never moved to put a real immigration policy in place.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Entropy on Saturday September 03 2016, @10:02PM
There's no excuse for being ignorance of technology in this day and age. If you are, and your compensation strategy(friends/consultants/magic 8ball) fails so badly you mishandle classified information that does not make it better.
Personally--I think she was just mishandled it with knowledge. I understand why she's taking the "I'm old and don't understand computers." route, because federal prison is no joke.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:28AM
Not just for a year or two either. We'd be put away for a long time.
What happens when Trump does it? You guessed it - the rich and powerful in the country get off with a slap on the wrist: [latimes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:49AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:53AM
A law school professor - probably helped Bill to parse "it depends on what "is" is"???
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @03:00AM
If you're going to keep bringing up what Bill did, do we get to go after Roger Ailes, de facto head of the Republican Party 1998-2016, for serial sex harassment?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @03:18AM
I got no problem with that, except Ailes isn't running for president of the United States. Hillary Clinton is trying to establish a dynasty. Relevance has something to do with who we bring up, I believe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:00AM
The bitch, like everyone else, who handles classified materials received training on how to handle said material.
Another liar.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:16AM
Cause that's how she rolls!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 04 2016, @06:07AM
Clinton Told FBI She Relied on Others' Judgment on Classified Material: 99 comments
Juno Snaps the First Images of Jupiter's Poles: 4 comments
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by quietus on Sunday September 04 2016, @11:12AM
Specialisation ... is the mortal sin. (Karl Popper, 1945)
Everybody has an opinion on politics, or religion, or anything else which doesn't involve the knowledge of nature's laws and technological details. When these last two are involved, however, people hesitate to comment on fear of being called out.
Addendum: and quite a bit people also have an opinion on why community sites like soylent go off the rails, pending doom and destruction, become flotsam and jetsam etcetera.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @12:21PM
That's one of the dilemmas with a site like this.
People coming here want to post something, but they can't if it's a subject they feel they have no expertise in. So articles about national politics, greed and corruption, immigration and discrimination, or layoffs always get some of the most posts, even those that have little or nothing to do with STEM.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:48PM
You don't want to read the political articles and associated comments?
Then don't.
No one makes you click on them. They don't show up in your faceook timeline/twitter feed.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Monday September 05 2016, @01:54PM
(No-one replied last time [soylentnews.org] I asked this, so I hope you don't mind a second try.)
Could anyone explain to this non-American what all the fuss is over these supposed emails?
From the outside, it looks like the sort of pointless criticism people fall back on when they can't find anything substantial.
I could see why people might disagree with Hillary's politics, with the people she chooses to appoint, with her potential conflicts of interest, with what she's likely to do if she gets into power, and especially with what the practical effects might be on ordinary people (which is really what people should be basing their vote on). But to concentrate on something so apparently petty and inconsequential seems little more than childish name-calling.
In fact, it seems directly comparable to all the claims that Obama's ineligible for President because of where he was born (or some such). (The main difference being that, AIUI, those claims have been disproved many times, while the email issue seems less clear-cut.)
Do people seriously think that by harping on about these emails, that fewer people will vote for her? Or is it just an (ineffectual) way of venting their frustrations with her party affiliation or other qualities?
[sig redacted]
(Score: 1) by helel on Monday September 05 2016, @05:14PM
I will try to give an unbiased answer, as I understand the situation.
Here in the US there is a law mandating that our highest leaders communications, including email, need to be handled by the federal government and at the end of their service in a given position need to be archived for future historians. There are also very specific rules about how classified documents are handled and who is allowed to have access to them.
Clinton decided that she would handler her emails through her own private server. Then she (at first) refused to hand over her emails for archiving. When pressed she handed over some percentage of her emails claiming those held back were personal and not related to her job and later handed all of them over. While technically in violation of the law many claim that she did not break the spirit of the law and that plenty of other officials have broken this law before so it's not a big deal.
Amongst the emails she was handling on her private server some contained classified material. This is where things really heated up. The Obama administration has been very strict and there have been several high profile cases of individuals being jailed for mishandling classified documents recently. Despite the administrations dedication to prosecuting this kind of case Clinton has gotten off without so much as a slap on the wrist. This inequity has acted as a very clearcut case of laws only being applied to "little people" and those in power showing doing whatever they please without fear of punishment.
So in summery, the argument isn't really about the emails, it's about whether or not this kind of double standard is acceptable. Or maybe it's just something easy to attack. Take your pick.