SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Anyone who follows American politics will have heard of Hillary Clinton's email server. Rather than using an official State Department address, she chose to use a private server for her official email. Federal law requires all official email to be archived on government servers. Armchair lawyers have pointed out that it doesn't require the use of government servers to send and receive the email, but the archival requirement is clear. This requirement was clearly violated in this case: in response to a subpoena, Hillary Clinton's private staff extracted emails from her private server and turned them over to the government. The contents of the server itself were never made available to the government, and now she has had the server erased:
Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.
“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.
As Popehat tweeted:
@Popehat
I ask you, who among us hasn't wiped a server clean after its contents were requested by subpoena?
I naively wonder why she isn't in jail, but that's just me. Comments and views from those interested in American politics?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:49AM
I subscribe to every conspiracy theory revolving around Clinton. I don't BELIEVE them all, but I believe that many are true. From Watergate to Whitewater, to the killing of Vince Foster, right on up to the Benghazi scandal. Hillary Clinton will sacrifice anyone and everyone to make her dream come true - that of being the first woman to be president.
I truly despise that woman. She is pure evil.
Liberals, I ask you: Can you not find ANY OTHER WOMAN who is more qualified to lead, than this bitch? I would nominate my wife, my mother, my sister before I put Clinton in line. I might even nominate one of our dogs. If you need a female, there are many of them more qualified than Shrillary.
No - I've not contributed anything to the subject of this discussion. But, I feel better for having expressed my contempt for this bitch.
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @10:04AM
So you hate her gender and her voice, both physical attributes. That's some excellent superficial prejudice you have there.
Let's see, I dislike your username and your age which I infer from your username. Fuck off and die, old geezer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Ryuugami on Monday March 30 2015, @01:38PM
He didn't say he hates her gender, if anything, it sounded like total opposite. He said he despises her, but that she's not a good representative of said gender.
As for the voice, I don't know. In the ideal world, it wouldn't matter, but in this one it seems like an important physical attribute for a politician. Especially for a president, since you'll have to listen to them quite a lot :)
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @03:42PM
> He said he despises her, but that she's not a good representative of said gender.
When it comes from someone with a clear agenda saying, "X is important but you are doing X wrong" is called concern trolling.
Since it was clear to you that he despises her, his agenda is pretty clear.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:29PM
WTF? Where do you get that I dislike her gender and her voice? I said, very specifically, that if it's time for a female to run this nation, there are many women who are more qualified. Are you literate? Or, do you just read whatever your psychosis dictates into a post?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @02:38PM
Give up, this AC is a paid astroturfer. Notice the other AC below agreeing with him? Same dude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @03:34PM
I said, very specifically, that if it's time for a female to run this nation, there are many women who are more qualified.
Name some that you would vote for.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @04:19PM
"Some" - Palin come readily to mind. She ain't real bright, IMHO, but her positions are positions that I can live with.
Bachman seems maybe a little less bright than Palin, but again, her policies are policies I can live with.
Rice, from Bush's administraion, is really to much of a warmonger for my taste, but even so, she is infinitely more qualified that Hillary.
You will note that I'm naming conservative women. I hope that three are enough for you, I can find more.
Hmmmm. Google "potential female presidential candidates". There are some that I hadn't thought of, some that I despise less than I despise Clinton, but none that I really admire. Well - no surprise there, really. We haven't had a male candidate that I could admire in just about forever.
As for genuine QUALIFICATIONS, Rice beats them all, male or female, hands down.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:06PM
Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman are the best examples you can think of? That's sad. Margaret Thatcher would do you proud; I would vote for her. But there is no woman on the Republican side of the aisle in America who is her equal, or who even approaches half her stature.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:29PM
Come on now. Maggie was an old broad when I was still a young man - and that's been a long time. Is she an octogenarian yet? Sorry, I would have voted for her 30 years ago, but not today.
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday April 01 2015, @03:33PM
She's dead [wikipedia.org] and received a state funeral in the UK nearly two years ago.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 01 2015, @03:43PM
Well - I might vote for her after all if her name comes up on the ballot. Deceased representatives probably can't do any worse than some of the ones who still breathe.
Pardon me for the brain fart. I was aware of her death, somehow I forgot that she had died.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday April 01 2015, @04:54PM
True :)
And don't mind the brain fart, you weren't the only one and people in general are likely to keep continuing to make the mistake for years.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:11AM
As my daughter would say, now name some that you trust!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @02:37PM
I hate her because she is a Republican (warmonger, surveillor, Wall Street tool).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @10:29AM
I agree with you completely, and I don't for a moment see what her gender or vocal sounds have to do with why she is the pure evil that she is. I also don't see even a spec of anything to suggest otherwise in your post.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @10:37AM
Why did Obama have to start the idiotic trend that the president must be the flavor of the decade? Black male, white female, who's next, gay male?
Anyone care about the potential candidates' policies? Anyone? Anyone?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday March 30 2015, @12:15PM
For the most part, the reason Obama was elected was that unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he opposed the complete idiocy that was the Iraq War. His community organizing roots also got him a lot of support from the left-wing base because he did the same kind of thing in Chicago that they'd been doing in other places.
So yes, it was about more than just "he's a black guy", and at least partially about his actual policies. Remember, his toughest election battle by far was against Hillary Clinton, who would have been the first female president (at least in name - I suspect Bill will be important if she ends up winning this time). Indeed, there's a fair amount of evidence that he was elected and reelected despite his blackness, not because of it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:32PM
Bingo. My vote was cast for the candidate whom I felt LEAST LIKELY to start another war in which my sons might be killed. I didn't like anyone's policies very much, so I fell back on "Which one of these clowns is most and least likely to start a new war?" I did NOT vote for or against a black man, or a white man, or even a white woman. The policies dictated my choice among several poor candidates.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday March 30 2015, @03:21PM
And that seems to have been a wise choice, based on your motivations: A lot of people who wanted to become POTUS would have already sent your sons to fight in Iran.
Although I suspect Dennis Kucinich, had he been any sort of factor and not just an also-ran, would have also kept your sons safe - his campaigns were defined by his opposition to the Iraq War and an attempt to impeach Cheney and Bush for starting it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:37AM
Dennis Kucinich, isn't he actually left wing with libertarian tendencies? Totally un-electable. http://politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png [politicalcompass.org]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:38AM
He's very left-wing, but frequently found himself on the same side of an issue as Ron Paul for entirely different reasons. I lived in what used to be his district for quite a while, have met the man and heard him speak, and his basic vision of America looks something like this:
1. Equal rights for all adults, and reasonable protections for children. That also means punishing those with power who break the law.
2. A very strong social safety net that ensures that nobody starves or is homeless or dies because they can't pay for health care.
3. Strong unions and workplace protections. A much higher minimum wage.
4. A military that is dramatically smaller than it is now. US foreign policy focused on peaceful dealings with foreign governments rather than threatening them with war.
5. If cuts to the military are not sufficient to cover the strong social safety net, tax the rich to get the money.
6. Government programs can and should compete with private corporations in providing services, because citizens can often get better service and pricing from the government entity.
Points 1 and 4 are very compatible with libertarianism. Points 2, 3, 5, and 6 are decidedly not.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GlennC on Monday March 30 2015, @03:02PM
... unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he appeared to oppose the complete idiocy that was the Iraq War
FTFY
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @12:27PM
> Why did Obama have to start the idiotic trend that the president must be the flavor of the decade?
What an empty criticism. The obvious corollary to that is the previous idiotic trend that the president must be one the flavor of the millenium.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by negrace on Monday March 30 2015, @01:13PM
It does not matter what the candidate's policies are. They are _promises_ that are promptly abandoned. Until the campaign promises are made legally binding or something like that, the whole system does not make much sense.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday March 30 2015, @06:16PM
Hell, awhile ago [maybe 15 years ago?longer?] the Liberal party put out "The Red Book", a book that they promoted during their election campaign about all the things they would do as soon as they were elected. They get elected, then it was "Oh, now that we're in charge, we realize we can't actually do ANYTHING that we promised [the primary thing was they were going to cancel the national GST [a sales tax].
Course, we re-elected them the following election as well.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:41AM
Considering the choices.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @07:56PM
The bureaucratic machinery that surrounds the president seems to quickly convince new presidents that there is no bridge between the current state of affairs and the state of affairs envisioned in their campaign promises. People underestimate the monstrous political inertia that stymies the people nominally in charge of the government.
Generally the President can start new things, to an extent, but stopping something already in motion is more difficult.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday March 30 2015, @01:58PM
who's next, gay male?
Would an "in the closet" neoconservative republican count, or only if he's busted in an airport restroom before the election, not after?
It might be their only chance to ever win again, for various demographic reasons.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:46PM
But here you're getting to the heart of the matter: "flavor of the decade" is in fact part of the strategy of the Deep State. They figure by giving the rubes a President from the flavor du jour they're buying themselves more time to cheat, steal, & murder in 8 yr increments. It's because what a candidate says are his or her policies are totally irrelevant to what the Deep State ensures will happen. Bush Jr promised "compassionate conservatism." What we got was the Total Information Awareness program. Obama promised transparent government. What we got was the most secretive government in history.
It's obvious to the regular citizen who's paying attention to the news (ie., not news about celebrities) that there's an unbroken continuity in policy between Republican and Democratic administrations. In the last 15 years we have literally switched back and forth from total Republican control of the federal government in the US to total Democratic control of the federal government, and nothing has substantially changed in terms of policy outcomes. There remain some extreme denialists and shills who will argue up and down that "elections matter," but 99% of the rest of us trust our lying eyes and ears and know that they don't.
The conclusion is obvious, though timorous souls will shrink from it: in the United States democracy 1.0 has failed; it has been totally captured and subverted by nefarious forces. It must be broken down and re-made.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday March 30 2015, @05:34PM
the president is basically just a figurehead anyway. all they can do is give suggestions to congress, have the option to veto any extremely bad laws, and appoint some federal judges (if the seats are empty), thats about it. he can send out some of the military but that mostly falls to congress too. treaties are supposed to be a presidential thing but i think congress has mostly been taking care of that lately as well. executive orders are an option but can't congress easily veto or override those?
so presidential powers - appointments and suggestions, and limited warfare options. did i miss anything? the president is who matters the least and is more of a "check and balance" than anyone with power.
people who want to affect change in the US need to worry about their congressmen and not the president. congress has been bought pretty much in its entirety too, but thats because the same idiots keep getting re-elected (and now that its already been bought, swapping in new people probably won't change that).
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:11PM
You know, tathra, I worked for a President of the United States. The top of the hierarchy under him was not, the "Know how to do stuff and get stuff done" department, but the press department. That is, they don't know how to actually do anything, nor do they know anyone who knows how to do anything. What they think constitutes "doing something" is talking about stuff, and getting the press to talk about the stuff you want them to. That's it, and that's all.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:51AM
You should come up to Canada if you want to see a secretive government. At least you know Hillary uses email, our government doesn't write anything down, little well use email in such a way that we'd know that they deleted stuff.
Things have got so bad that even America looks better.
(Score: 2) by glyph on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:16AM
Representation isn't exactly a trend. It's an old idea as old as democracy that's just been a bit slow to get going.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Nuke on Monday March 30 2015, @11:54AM
Can you not find ANY OTHER WOMAN who is more qualified to lead, than this bitch? I would nominate my wife, my mother, my sister .... I might even nominate one of our dogs.
If female, the dog would be a bitch.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:35PM
For purposes of this "discussion", yes, it would have to be a female dog. It seems that libs are determined that "It's time" for a female president. And, I can go along with that. Just pick a decent candidate. That is the core of my diatribe. Damned near every town and village in America can claim at least one better candidate than Hillary Clinton.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:04PM
Unlike conservatives, us liberals and moderates don't give a flying fuck about the president's skin color or gender, all that we care about the president is that they represent us, which means we definitely don't want that bitch Hilary. Some talking heads may have "decided" that the next president should be a woman, but the non-conservatives of this country certainly haven't.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday March 30 2015, @06:29PM
Can we borrow Margaret Thatcher? At least that way she'd have a brain.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday April 01 2015, @03:43PM
Link to the other comment [soylentnews.org] explaining why that's not possible.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday April 01 2015, @06:17PM
I know, but even in the dug-up state, she'd still have more brain than ... my nightmare ticket, Feinstein and Boxer. I might even take Hilary over that!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @12:12PM
Your knee-jerk opposition to anyone who self-labels as non-Wrong Wing simply demonstrates that your father beat you excessively when you were a child.
I can't stand Hillary either.
To "Liberal" voters, I say if you want a Republican, vote for a self-labeled Republican.
Why support a warmongering Neoliberal Blue-Dog Republican-Lite?
Why choose someone with no respect for government transparency laws?
Alternatives?
Elizabeth Warren is a first-term senator.
(Declared Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is also a first-term senator.)
Warren has a governmental philosophy of "The most good for the most people".
I see a great future ahead of her.
Cruz, OTOH, is a demagogue--a notorious liar and manipulative clown with ambition beyond his abilities.
I don't think either of those 2 is electable to the top job this cycle.
Warren appears to know that; Cruz doesn't care.
Among those with viable credentials and an interest in the job, Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent) of Vermont is currently closest to what the Democrats and the country need.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:43PM
Alternatives?
Elizabeth Warren is a first-term senator.
Except she's not running.
But Martin O'Malley [vox.com] is.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @10:30PM
-1 Redundant
I already indicated that Warren knows she doesn't yet have the gravitas and the organization required to win at the national level.
+1 Informative
Yes, former Maryland governor O'Malley supports several New Deal ideas.
-1 Offtopic
No, he hasn't declared his candidacy.
No Democrat has declared as a presidential candidate thus far.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:38PM
Warren is slightly better than Clinton. With Clinton, they are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel. Warren floats in the muck a couple inches off the bottom of the same barrel.
I don't expect that either party will nominate the best of all possible women (or men) in America. Politics are politics, and the best people stay the hell out of politics. The people most qualified to rule or lead are just about the least likely to want the job!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:41AM
Principle of the least-bad option: If it's a choice between a warmongering neo-liberal beholden to an anti-war party base and a warmongering neo-conservative beholden to a pro-war party base, you want the one who's at least going to have some internal opposition.
Strategically, though, my rule is always to vote for the least-bad option in a close election between least-bad and absolutely-terrible, and vote for the candidate I really want that has no chance of winning in non-close elections. That's one reason in my state the Green Party candidate for governor polled higher than that party ever has before in that state.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:16PM
Liberals, I ask you: Can you not find ANY OTHER WOMAN who is more qualified to lead, than this bitch?
But you at least you respect Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Eric Holder, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Al Gore, even though you mostly disagree with their policies, right?
Oh, I guess you don't.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:43PM
Obama ranks several points ahead of Clinton. Biden a point or two over Obama. Holder? He's one racist son of a bitch. Kerry? A self professed war criminal. Pelosi? Like Warren, she floats in the much a couple inches above the very bottom of the barrel. Reid? I don't have much use for him, but he still ranks above Clinton, Warren, and Pelosi.
Al Gore? Isn't it obvious to everyone yet that he is a self-serving con artist? He tells all of us how we need to sacrifice to prevent "global warming", while he makes money off of his scam, and squanders enough energy to serve ten wasteful families. Wow - how did HE get into this discussion? Is he running again?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:47PM
I can think of only one Democratic female that would come close to Hillary's qualifications, name recognition, and electability: Elizabeth Warren. Contrast Hillary Clinton with the right's female stars, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman. Clinton is orders of magnitude more qualified.
Deleting the emails may be part of Hillary's big evil plan. She brings Benghazi back to the forefront and Republicans talk about it 7 x 24 and can't focus on anything else. The election becomes the prosecution of Benghazi and repeal Obamacare versus equality, environment, economy, etc. Republicans lose.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:10PM
Being more qualified than batshit crazy doesn't mean much.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:32PM
Chris Ruddy, the CEO of NewsMax, founded that theory and pushed it heavily. He is now Bill Clinton's best pal; I've sat in meetings with the two of them. I've also seen Bill Clinton meeting with Rupert Murdoch. Truly, the Republicans vs. Democrats, Left vs. Right divide in America is all for the rubes. The Clintons, Bushes, Soroses, Murdochs of the world are on the same side.
I don't identify as a "liberal," in the "bleeding heart liberal" sense of the word, but as a "progressive" in the Teddy Roosevelt sense of the word, but I'll take the question. Elizabeth Warren should be the first woman President of the United States. She keeps kicking Wall Street hard in the nuts. Nobody else in the federal government is doing that. I would vote for a Republican who did that over Hillary Clinton, any day, but none of them do. I want to see Wall Street banks destroyed the way Andersen Consulting was, and all of their top- and middle- executives perp-walked in handcuffs to a SuperMax near you.
I agree 100%. If she is elected President I will emigrate. No place on Earth is safe from an evil President of the United States in this era, but perhaps my kids will get enough time to come of age before civilization comes crashing down.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Monday March 30 2015, @03:44PM
perhaps my kids will get enough time to come of age before civilization comes crashing down.
See, stuff like this is just pure wing-nuttery. Both parties in the US are pretty centrist, although the Republicans do have a large far-right contingent that the establishment tries to keep mostly under control. Hillary Clinton has no interest in and will not intentionally cause the downfall of civilization. She's not the Antichrist, and it's not in her interest to do that. She's also an intelligent human being who would have a pretty good understanding of what actions would and would not be likely to cause the downfall of civilization, and, again, in her own self-interest if for no other reasons, she would choose not to engage in actions likely to cause the downfall of civilization.
It's fine not to like Obama, either Clinton, McCain, Bush, etc. But they're people, not demons. Get it together.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @04:01PM
OK, do you know these people personally? Have you interacted with them? I have. I have sat in meetings with them, I have been in their inner sanctums. They are not honorable people, they do not care one jot for you or anyone else. They are as alien to the experience of the average American as an actual alien. To put it in American terms, they are like the Palins, but with better PR success. That is, they are grifters.
I do know the difference between normal people, and normal people with the ability to screw things up for a great many more people than themselves. The Clintons are the latter. They should not be let anywhere near the levers of power again, however symbolic those levers of power have become.
So do not stand up in defense of politicans you do not know, unless you are a paid shill. It calls you out, and renders your words moot.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @09:12PM
OK, do you know these people personally? Have you interacted with them? I have. I have sat in meetings with them, I have been in their inner sanctums.
You are so fucking delusional. There is no way you've ever "sat in a meeting" with Obama, the Clintons, McCain, or any Bush. Not a chance. Maybe you attended one of the tens of inauguration balls held after every election, and they made a perfunctory appearance before moving on to the next one. But even that's a stretch.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:49PM
This part makes me think he's telling the truth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 01 2015, @09:08PM
How can you be so sure? First you need to read more carefully, he never claimed to have been in a meeting with Obama, Bush or McCain, he was talking specifically about the Clintons.
In another comment he claimed to have worked for a PoTUS, and in a different comment he stated he had sat in a meeting with Bill Clinton and Chris Ruddy. Taken together this implies he worked for Bill Clinton while he was president, that being the case it is plausible he would also have met Hilary Clinton.
We may not be able to verify Phoenix666's claims, but they are at least coherent and plausible.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:08PM
Both parties in the US are pretty centrist
Centrist? compared to themselves, maybe. Compared to every other industrialized nation on the planet both parties are right wing. The Republican party is slightly more right wing and its "base" (crazy minority) is totalitarian. E.g., socialized, single payer health care is a centrist idea with the humans on the rest of the planet. It's considered a left wing conspiracy in the U.S.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:16PM
No, even the "left" in the US is pretty far to the right. The US has two parties - the right and the bat-shit-crazy insanely-far right. Even a centrist position would get you mocked as a "communist" in the US. That what we call "communist" isn't even a position to the left, being "totalitarian state capitalism" and all, doesn't help.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday March 30 2015, @07:34PM
I'll agree that both parties in the US are pretty similar, but I'd call them rather far towards the authoritarian wing of the authoritarian-anarchist axis, and not very near the center at all. I *do* think that the center is the only sane type of government, but that's not what you get when you have government run by those who worship power.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:01AM
Look at the 2008 contenders politics, http://politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png [politicalcompass.org] , 2 contenders to the left and 3 contenders towards the libertarian philosophy. The rest are right wing authoritarians to one degree or another with the most extreme being red.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:40AM
I've never heard of that site. Why do you think it is persuasive?
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:52PM
Read their introduction at http://politicalcompass.org/ [politicalcompass.org] and perhaps check out their test. It's not perfect but compared to the idiots who call Obama socialist or communist because he gave a huge giveaway to the insurance companies...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Monday March 30 2015, @02:52PM
And the difference between what she did and what Cheney did in 06 is....what exactly? I look forward to seeing how many of the right wingers here aren't hypocrites and believe likewise that Cheney and Bush should be brought up on charges, Cheney for the same email bit and Bush of course pushed known bad intel as legit to get a way started which cost millions of lives.
Of course I bet like with most USA partisan hacks that will be 100% okay because the person had the R beside their name, just as those that screamed about Bush wiretaps had no problem with Obama expanding the program. Meet the new hypocrite, same as the old hypocrite.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @04:28PM
No, Hairy, I argued long and loud against the invasion of Iraq. I am perfectly aware that Bush knowingly pushed a Crusade on the American people under false pretenses. And, Cheney is pretty much evil incarnate, based on his twisted legal logic and his endorsement of torture as much as anything else.
But - this discussion wasn't about the evil SOB Cheney, it's about the evil bitch Hillary.
You can, of course, begin a discussion of the evils done by the Bush administration. I don't give anyone a pass because they have an R or a D beside their names. Evil is evil.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:30PM
Normally I would agree that bringing up somebody else would count as an attempted misdirection, (ie, whenever somebody talks shit about the GOP, somebody always chimes in with "The Democrats are just as bad!" to change the subject), but this is a solid, concrete example of somebody who did the same thing that Hillary did, yet nobody is rallying for anyone except Hillary to hang; this isn't just a "Somebody else is just as bad!" attempt at misdirection, this is "If its a crime, then everyone who did it should be punished".
Now, maybe this is my bias showing and I'm just arguing semantics, I'll admit that's possible, but the difference is generalization vs. concrete example. Evil is evil, yes, and evil should be punished evenly and not just the side that doesn't agree with a certain group, which is what we're seeing. Everyone clamoring for Hillary to be locked up should be clamoring for Chaney to be locked up as well. Nobody except "liberals" seems to want Bush and Chaney prosecuted as the war criminals that they are, yet the right wants what are tiny mistakes in comparison to be executed on the spot while giving "their side" a total pass.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday March 30 2015, @06:35PM
So basically your argument is that all the denizens of the White House for the last 15 years are evil incarnate.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @07:01PM
It wasn't just GWB and Cheney who rabidly pushing for war -- Hillary Clinton was also an Iraq Debacle Cheerleader -- her ONLY beef with GWB, is that she didn't think it was a good time to cut taxes. See here from about 11 minutes for a couple minutes -- Hillary Clinton says it's our duty to get Saddam even if the would isn't totally lined up with us, just like it was our duty to do Bosnia, but that cutting taxes puts "homeland" security at risk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g [youtube.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Monday March 30 2015, @07:26PM
First of all calling her a bitch doesn't help your argument as it sounds like you only care about her sex, evil is enough before her name. Second while I think she'll be a shitty president...she WILL be president, if for no other reason than the Republicans have gone and been taken over by the Ayn randiates that take delight in stomping poor and blowing the rich. Hell look at who they ran last time, Mittens had so many Thurston Howell moments the other side needed only to run clips of his own rich cluelessness to win easily. Look at the pack running now...Paul (no chance), Cruz (another big mouth, no chance), Fiorina? Too much baggage, no chance, I mean things are soooo bad over there they are praying for Jeb to run, and I got better odds of winning the lotto than another Bush in the White House!
This is why I've said for years we need to get rid of the barriers that keep us from having viable third parties, because until the right gets rid of the teabaggers and Randiates they have better odds of bringing Reagan back from the dead than they do getting the big chair.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by beernutz on Monday March 30 2015, @03:33PM
I nominate Elizabeth Warren. We need about 100 more of her.
(Score: 2) by TLA on Monday March 30 2015, @04:52PM
somebody commented once that they could have done with five more of me. I took that as such a grievous insult, I actually walked out of a job because of it. Frankly, I could have done with five assistants to deal with the drudge work while I dealt with the important stuff like analysis. You don't need five geniuses, what you need is five robots to deal with the repetitive boring shit and let the genius shine.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:14PM
You are a rare animal, a person with integrity. Might I suggest the Freemasons? They put integrity above all else.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @05:36PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @04:10PM
> I subscribe to every conspiracy theory revolving around Clinton. I don't BELIEVE them all,
Unless there is some magazine of clinton conspiracy theories, you have a unique definition of "subscribe."
(Score: 2) by K_benzoate on Monday March 30 2015, @07:00PM
Liberals, I ask you: Can you not find ANY OTHER WOMAN who is more qualified to lead, than this bitch?
Yes, easily. Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma) and Jill Stein (Green Party) are both real liberals and both far more suited for the office. They also have no chance of winning (Warren isn't even going to run). Hillary is no liberal, she's just a Democrat; just like you can be a Republican without really being a conservative.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:03PM
Well, what does "democrat" really mean anymore? Both parties are on the take. People who think electing one over the other makes a categorical difference aren't paying attention at all. "Regulatory capture" is only one term for the reality that is the futility of elections in today's America.
The two-party system has failed to deliver the systemic flexibility and adaptability the Founding Fathers hoped for. The checks & balances they built in have failed to prevent systemic subversion. The only remedy that remains is the right to keep & bear arms. I'm generally not a gun-toting sort, but if hundreds of millions of average Americans have and can aim firearms, even single-shot hunting rifles, it gives the Masters of the Universe pause. That's a good thing.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:20AM
The definition in practice is "Anyone who doesn't watch Fox News and/or doesn't argue in favor of/agree with the GOP and their talking points". Seriously, have you seen around this site even? Simply disagree with people like The Mighty Buzzard and you'll be called "Liberal" and "Democrat" (yet he claims he's not a conservative lol). Factually, the Democrat party is everyone who isn't part of the GOP.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:00PM
I think a more accurate statement is that GOP members classify anyone who doesn't agree with their current Republican flavour of crazy as a communist libtard, no matter how those others actually identify themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:14AM
they never expect it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @09:57AM
She is so trendy!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @09:58AM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TLA on Monday March 30 2015, @10:05AM
Why isn't she in jail? Politics.
To some, this might be seen as an opponent's attempt to discredit her before she even gets out of the Presidential Sweepstakes race gate. Maybe she should answer for this potentially relatively minor misdemeanour before she actually assumes office and blows the shit out of some wedding party.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday March 30 2015, @02:18PM
Of course, would-be presidents Cruz and Jeb Bush have both promised to turn Iran into a parking lot if elected. If they carry out their plans, that will making blowing up a wedding party seem like peanuts. A lot of people support this viewpoint, in what appears to be an effort to appear manly (I generally agree with George Carlin's view on why war happens: "They have bigger dicks? Bomb them!").
Over the last couple of decades, we've established a precedent that holders of high office in the US can commit war crimes and not be punished for it, despite treaty obligations that demand that we arrest them and try them for their crimes. That's also why both major political parties are adamantly opposed to the International Criminal Court: Both top Republicans and top Democrats would be in the dock the moment they set foot in any country that's a signatory. And indeed, there are some people trying to get Dick Cheney arrested if he travels to European nations that have signed on.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by TLA on Monday March 30 2015, @02:46PM
There is a document at the ICC that runs to ten and a half thousand pages (I know, I wrote the first 68 pages and then I counted them all through as I faxed them in July 2010) that would, if acted upon, see every serving and surviving previous member of UK Parliament since 1945 and every serving and surviving previous public servant in the same time period, in the dock at the ICC to answer for Crimes Against Humanity.
They won't act on it because it would tie the ICC up for the forseeable future. If it ever became public (the entire document, not just the 68-page primer and the subsequently published November 2013 556-page report on State-sanctioned abduction of children of visiting foreign nationals*, also written by me and others), then every other country on the planet would eschew Governmental mandate and International Law and just glass this island.
*Needs updating as several things have happened in the interim, including the forced cutting out of an unborn baby from a woman it was decided had suddenly developed unspecified mental illness that meant she was vacuously a "risk" of emotional harm to her child (Pacchieri case)!
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:52PM
just read about the case...
holy shit...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by TLA on Wednesday April 01 2015, @01:42AM
That's not the worst of them. Just one of the more recent.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @02:35PM
If she went to jail, then the story would end and the Republicans would hate that. We need hearings! Lots of hearings! Just wait if/when she officially throws her hat in the presidential campaign circus how important Benghazi will be again. We need more Benghazi hearings!!! There is still much to uncover that the previous 300 hearings didn't cover.
Your comment is spot-on, however. Bill Clinton brought in David Gergen (a well-respected conservative adviser) as a political adviser back in the day. His advice was to dump all the Whitewater stuff out in the open, take the short-term hit, and just put the issue to rest. Unfortunately for Clinton (and the rest of us), he didn't and we had years of investigations and hearings. Republicans LOVE hearings (can you imagine if it was a Democrat president that pushed the weapons of mass destruction and war on Iraq, how many hearings and investigations we would have had on that?). They haven't figured out, or they don't care, that there is a diminishing returns point where the public turns on them because it is obvious it is just political piling on. We'll probably see that with Clinton, that she may end up as the sympathetic victim of Boehner and company. It can be a fine line that Boehner has to walk, but there are too many that rabidly foam at the mouth for this kind of shit, like Mr. Runaway above, particularly if it involves a Clinton, that they can't keep themselves constrained.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @10:14AM
Just took a shit. Need to buy more toilet paper. Added toilet paper to shopping list. Posting comment to soylentnews because this is newsworthy and will be historically significant someday.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @02:57PM
No, you're supposed to submit that to ratemypoo.com
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @10:26AM
Do you record every face-to-face conversation? Do you record every phone conversation? Do you record every text message?
Why draw the line, between ephemeral communication and permanent communication, at email?
Why not just mandate paper memos for important business. The durability of paper is well proven.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:52PM
The law generally.
Face-to-Face: Might be illegal without consent. Probably illegal without notification. Not of much use without audio.
Audio/Phone: Probably illegal without notification or consent.
Email: Legal, easy, and already automated in every modern client.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @03:03PM
It appears that you are not up to date with governmental intentions. Government desires to do away with paper, completely, and to rely on electronic communications. It isn't going to happen so long as us old bastards are still around, but government is slowly moving in that direction. Electronic communications must be regarded as "permanent", or at least as permanent as any "paper trail" before that goal is reached.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday March 30 2015, @03:59PM
Cut the weasel words and do [wikipedia.org] your [vegress.com] research, [rcfp.org] please.
Only 11 of the 50 states require that all parties be aware of the recording; Federal law only requires that one of the participants be aware.
Apologies in advance, I'm about to rant at you because this is a sore point for me. Feel free to stop reading now if you don't care what my opinion is; I won't care one way or the other.
The conflict between your your idea that face-to-face recording is "probably illegal" and the fact that by Federal Law and law in 39 of the States it is legal is one of philosophy. Those who would outlaw it want personal privacy to be the paramount consideration in the law. That sounds good; it fits with a simple explanation of the U.S. Constitution's 4th amendment, even. Here's the problem: all-party recording laws prevent those who already had a legal right to be part of the conversation from augmenting their memory of the event with mechanical means. There is no benefit to society of this, and significant drawbacks.
Let's start with drawing a parallel to John Gabriel's G.I.F.T., [penny-arcade.com] which I hope most of the readers here are at least aware of, if not in agreement to. In states with two-party recording requirements all parties to a conversation can be reasonable assured that unless they are told that they are being recorded that they can do or say pretty much whatever they want without legal repercussion. If it came to court, any complaint about misconduct boils down to "he said/she said" and in the absence of hard evidence the plaintiff's case is dismissed and, in some states, may be open to a counter-suit for defamation or libel. In essence, all-party recording laws bring the deniability and lack of accountability from Internet anonymity into the real world, with all of the expected consequences.
The federal wiretapping law, in contrast, grants each participant in the conversation the right to make a permanent, objective, shareable record of their own personal experience. It allows everyone the right to elevate their testimony of the events of their own life from hearsay to admissible evidence if they so desire. This right is crucial for victims of abuse and those who would report on abuse of government authority. In essence, it is the right to be believed when giving a truthful account of events. The Federal law, as written, places the importance of this right above that of individual privacy of other parties in the conversation.
The 4th amendment does not protect anyone from being recorded by the people they are speaking with. Its purpose, instead, is to protect from 3rd parties (especially the government) listening in. It should be assumed that anyone participating in a conversation can later give testimony about their experience in that conversation. Recording devices today give that testimony the same weight that verbal testimony under oath used to have (oaths don't hold as much water anymore). There is no law protecting private individuals from the embarrassment of misbehavior or incompetence in the presence of others, nor should there be. This is not a case of "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide", this is instead "if you're not alone when you do it, it's not really private."
Unfortunately, these all-party laws are too often used to cover up illegal behavior or official misconduct. The Case of Anthony Graber [baltimoresun.com] brought this to light in 2010, when his audio recording of his police stop resulted in his prosecution for violation of the Maryland wiretapping law. It's not the only case of this occurring, either, not by a long shot. [lmgtfy.com] The good news is that, at least for public officials, the Maryland courts have ruled [baltimoresun.com] that we can record them doing their duty in public in that state. I hope other states come to the same conclusion.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @02:58PM
"Do you record every phone conversation? Do you record every text message?"
The government sure seems to. Or at least they try. It's OK for them to spy on us but for us to spy on them ...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @03:16PM
I'm a private person, HRC is a _public_ official. These words mean something. A public official has a duty to the public and must be accountable to that public. For accountability to mean something, that public person account for their actions and to account, they must demonstrate what they've done.
A private individual is not accountable to a public person. Look up the word "private" if you can't comprehend this.
So, yes -- everything done by a public should be recorded. Absolutely no private communications of any kind should be recorded of private people, short of a valid warrant.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday March 30 2015, @06:43PM
not everything, just everything done while acting as the public's delegate. when not working in official capacity, even public officials become private persons. one should not lose their right to privacy or private life just because they're a public official, but they absolutely should not have privacy while acting on behalf of the public (basically, working/on the job = public, not working/off the job = private).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @07:48PM
+Y/+X =positive
-Y/-X =positive
Just sayin!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @08:14PM
I don't know if I agree. So much can happen of great importance while not in their office or at their desk. We have an idiom for that: smoke filled back room deal
I think it would be better if there was 100% transparency with respect to the people who make decisions that kill millions.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:09AM
i already covered that - if they're doing that, they're acting as the public's delegate, and thus working in official capacity, and it needs to be documented. there will always be people exploiting loopholes, seeing how far the rules can be pushed, and even breaking the rules, so maybe the only way to ensure compliance would be to document/record everything and then have only the official stuff (working as the public's delegate, no matter what they're doing or how they're doing it) made public and delete everything else.
i stand by my statement - being a public official should not mean losing your non-work-related private life, but it should mean no privacy while working.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:50AM
I could live with record it all and delete, but when the lives of millions are at stake, and you volunteered for the job as a public representative of the American populace, it's only fair that they accept the downside to that job, which is that they are a public person and the public has a right to know what they are doing in its name. If you give them private places to hide though, that back room will just move to the closet, or the toilet. So record everything now and delete later.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @11:24AM
I, for one, feel like this is a big deal.
I feel like Hillary knew more than she was telling about Benghazi, and now I feel like she's covering up. People died in Benghazi, and it was preventable. People died in Benghazi, and it was on Hillary's watch.
I am appalled to live in a country that once would have demanded answers, but now just seems to think that people's deaths are politics as usual.
Hillary will not be getting my vote.
(Score: 5, Informative) by isostatic on Monday March 30 2015, @12:47PM
People died in Benghazi, and it was preventable
45,000 people a year die from lack of access to healthcare [harvard.edu]
Entirely preventable.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sulla on Monday March 30 2015, @01:48PM
I really enjoy how this whole issue has all come back to her justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
Private email? So did the governor of florida
Killing Americans? Doesn't matter anymore we have to fix healthcare deaths
Helicopter shot at? Lots of people forget about events, what about bill oreilly
Deleting emails? Why don't you go look at Sarah Palin stuff first
The biggest problem with everything Clinton has done is when she was campaigning for president against Obama she made herself out to be a vigilant watchguard of the people. Taking that 3am phone call and making the right decision.
A CIA director called to ask for authorization to relieve the embassy. Either she or one of her people gave the order to stand down. Four Americans (possibly only two could have been saved with relief) were killed, ambassador drug through the streets. Despite evidence showing contrary blamed it on a radical film maker who ended up in jail.
When a legislative group looks into this she dodges the questions, diverts blame, and when it finally comes down to the wire it is learned all of her emails were at her home. Then when pressed, she has them erased.
Although much more severe because he was president, this got Nixon impeached. If this had been anyone except hillary they would have been destroyed. Kerry would not have gotten this support, Reid would not have, Boner would not have, not even Jeb Bush. This is about Hillary and her lust for power, nothing else.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday March 30 2015, @04:39PM
She's a senior politician. Like everyone that's managed to get to that level, she's got masses of corruption in her closet. Same as Obama, Bush II, Clinton I, Bush I, the actor and the ones before. They are scum, it's the only way they get where they get. They also get immunity by being in that position (it's expensive to get a politician in place, you don't want something trivial like murdering a hooker to flush that money down the tubes)
Obama's fast rise from nobody probably caught some people out, but he ended up the same way pretty quickly (and while he was being brought under control there was plenty of distraction about birth certificates).
I find it amazing how people (or rather fox news) are complaining about a single decision which may have caused 2 deaths, but ignore the elephants in the room - for example the 1,000 americans a year who die because they (or their parents) didn't vaccinate them.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Monday March 30 2015, @05:12PM
Your example is a wildly inappropriate comparison to government officials' behavior.
Parents almost never force their children's participation in association with them at gunpoint; in regards to governments and private individuals, government officials do.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:19PM
Hillary is much more legal and PR savvy than her husband. While Bill was ham-fistedly trying to figure out the Internet thing, she was on top of it. She got beaten by it, so she learned better than did Bill.
That said, Hillary and Bill understand gotcha politics. It is their life. If America and the rest of the world want another 8 years of that, then Hillary should be elected. If, however, everyone wants to depart from the tired past, much different candidates should be elected.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @02:41PM
Bill O'Reilly was in that war zone and saw the whole thing. He was the only news reporter out there, all the others were hiding back in their hotels.
Bill was afraid to tell his mother that he just witnessed Christian nuns being shot in the face. All hell was breaking lose! His cameraman was bleeding from the head and Bill had to drag him back into safety.
And he has IRONCLAD PROOF - he still has his reporter's notebooks.
Bill O'Reilly and Fox News - the NO-SPIN, IRONCLAD News organization where the right-wing SN posters get their news.
(Score: 2) by TK-421 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:42PM
You really need to stick with this one. [soylentnews.org]
The higher body count will serve you better in your quest to make it all about health care.
For everyone else, if I get mod'd troll so be it. This feels like a variant of cross-posting which I feel has, little to, no place in these discussions.
And now, back to you.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday March 30 2015, @04:42PM
OP said that a member of US Government being neglectful and leading 2 americans to die means not voting for them.
Presumably that logic therefore applies to any member of the US government who conspires to prevent access to healthcare?
(Score: 2) by TK-421 on Monday March 30 2015, @06:14PM
Don't confuse access to health care with access to health insurance.
Assuming a patient in the U.S. and you have no health insurance, you can absolutely get emergency care along with critical care (brain surgery, cancer care, heart surgery). You may be hopelessly in debt at the end of it, and it might not mean you got access to the absolute best of the best WRT doctors but you still have access. Even without health insurance you can negotiate through a lot of the costs of emergency care in the case of say a broken arm.
I agree, health insurance is a big deal. People need catastrophic coverage. How do we get it? I don't have a lot of ideas to be honest. Getting gainful employment is always helpful. I know a lot of folks on here complain about that, but to be honest my state is hiring and so is my company (software company). If you can code you can get a check here. In the event of unemployment well, to be honest that is the first time that many people have the chance to learn the true cost of their coverage. You have all kinds of people who run around with coverage and if you ask them the total cost of their policy they will give you the dollar amount they personally have to pay and they omit the portion paid by their employer (70-90%). They lose their job and they get hit with COBRA, the full cost, which is staggering at the worst time. If I lost my job I wouldn't care about keeping my old policy, I would only care about the catastrophic coverage. I suspect if the industry and employers worked together they could devise something like this.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @02:47PM
Phwew -- Now that have Nixon Care in place, albeit a less liberal one than Nixon promoted -- the world is ponies. No more Wall Street fraud, all wars ended, surveillance decreasing by the second -- fewest whistleblower prosecutions in DAYS. Days I tell you. You Democrats are superduperawsomeness!!!!!!!
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:23PM
You are fucking piece of Fox News brainwashed shit, and so are the fake mods who got SN accounts just so they could mod up political drivel like this one.
You people don't give a shit about science or technology, other than playing around with your Xbox and phones.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday March 30 2015, @02:53PM
What happened in Benghazi, in a nutshell: Like all foreign service members, Ambassador Stevens had a risky job. In countries where there are potential hostilities, ambassadors are experienced foreign service officers, and one of the expectations of those officers is that they may be called upon to engage in combat to protect their embassies (I hung out with a child of foreign service officers who described being in Moscow while the attempted coup against Yeltzin went down - everyone was in flak jackets and armed). Libya was in complete chaos at that point, because Muammar Gaddafi was the only thing keeping it together, and after his overthrow and death there was (and still largely is) anarchy. Stevens underestimated the degree to which he and his staff were targets of the many armed groups running around at the time and was caught by surprise, and went to a largely unprotected station without planning for his own security. In addition, his embassy security budget had been cut a few months before the attacks due to the deficit agreements passed earlier that year, so he didn't have as much to work with.
There has never been any evidence for any kind of conspiracy involving anything other than angry Libyans with guns who seized an opportunity. They may or may not have known the ambassador was in there at the time - they might have been targeting him because they hated the US (with good reason - we supported Gaddafi up until the day he started messing with oil prices), or they might have just attacked the embassy and happened to get the ambassador.
So yes, people died. It was bad. But Congress has spent a now hundreds of man-hours trying to find something that implicates Hillary Clinton, and the only thing they've found is that she deleted some emails.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @03:26PM
... that were under subpoena.
That qualifies her for an adverse inference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference [wikipedia.org]
The act of destroying the records means we should presume that there is damaging information contained in them. That's quite a bit more than just "deleting some emails." It's an Ollie North schtick, and although he didn't get much of a punishment, he also didn't get to be president.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Monday March 30 2015, @03:53PM
No, she responded to the subpoena by turning over all (according to her) emails responsive to the subpoena. Then she deleted the emails.
Still shady? Question of opinion, I guess. Certainly aggressive. But get it right.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @04:54PM
Tell you what -- you just try that someday in a lawsuit and get back to us on just how fucked you got.
This is like when the police find that all of their recording equipment failed, or even more like turning over edited video.We should all just believe they are telling the truth despite any gaps -- they'd never lie right? /sarc
In this context, there are apparently gaps in the emails produced: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0M40US20150308?irpc=932 [reuters.com]
If she really honestly believed that the information was not pertinent, she would have been completely comfortable with a neutral review of it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:50PM
So then why is nobody in comparison going after the police for doing exactly that? [soylentnews.org] The police getting off the hook for it is far more critical a matter, and within local control, yet everyone is only concerned with Hillary doing it.
Tell you what, once the people attacking Hillary start attacking the police for doing the same thing and worse, I'll believe that they're honest about their intentions instead of just trying to smear "the other team".
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:46AM
When the police do shit, one person at a time gets killed and yeah, the cops should be prosecuted and thrown to the wolves.
So here with HRC, we have a possibly dirty cop looking for promotion. You say she should get it. I say she shouldn't because in a couple years, when President Hillary decides to do shit, you can bet many thousands will die. Remember, she was as rabid as GWB for war in Iraq for no fucking reason. Her only beef with GWB on that score was cutting taxes at the same time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:41PM
Where the fuck did I say that? Oh right, I didn't, so its just a straw man. Do you have any non-fallicious arguments?
Like I said, I'll believe you're honest about your intentions in attacking her when you attack everyone doing this kind of shit equally and not just her. Your actions, along with everyone else in the Fox News-worshiping crowd, make it clear that the entire point of this circus is not to get justice or anything except to smear the "other team". When your actions are biased, its obvious as fuck, everyone sees it and everyone knows it, so stop with the theatric outage, straw men, and ad hominems when people call you out for it.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:42PM
I don't even watch TV and I'm since I'm a Green, I'd probably be watching something other than Fox. So check your presumption.
I already said every official who manipulates data for their own benefit should be thrown to the wolves. I don't have the power to do any of that throwing. HRC is manipulating data, in quite possibly illegal ways, for her own benefit. She should be thrown to the wolves too.
You are saying that unless every single other asshole gets busted, HRC should get off. That's idiotic and it basically means that anarchy reigns because never in history has it been possible to catch every law breaker.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:58PM
Again, where did I say that? You continue to ignore what I'm saying, and instead argue against what you wish I was saying; if you're not going to read what I type, there's no reason to say anything more.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Monday March 30 2015, @10:07PM
I said it was aggressive, but your comparison is deeply flawed.
The duty to preserve evidence requires that you should have reasonably believed a lawsuit was imminent. I don't think there was any reason for Clinton to think she was about to be sued. The subpoena was Congressional, not from a court. I don't think Congress can even enter sanctions for spoilation of evidence.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:22AM
Let me understand this.
1) She gets a subpoena for emails.
2) She prints off some emails in response to that subpoena.
3) She deletes all the emails.
4) After doing 1, 2, & 3, she had no idea they would want examine the mail server.
What more notice would she need? It sounds a lot more like an "oh shit, better get rid of this" than anything else.
Secondly, as I've been digging around, one of the things that Ollie North some jail time was this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 [cornell.edu]
Been the law for a long long time -- scrap the ex post facto BS. And the punishment is perfect: barred from holding public office (also fines and jail -- like she'd actually get jail, but the big one is bar from office which is not optional). Man, it would be so cool to see her convicted on that, she and Ollie North could drink whiskey together and bitch about things.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:46AM
That law doesn't seem relevant. Why would her personal emails fall under things "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States". Not applicable.
Man, it would be so cool to see her convicted on that, she and Ollie North could drink whiskey together and bitch about things.
Fantasizing is healthy as long as you don't let it interfere with your perception of reality. Go to sleep, that's the only way you'll see her convicted on anything related to this.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:55AM
How do we know if they were personal emails? The person under investigation doesn't get to make that determination. THAT is the issue. If they were personal, they don't come in. Now we will never know if they were personal because she broke a law that was 100 years old back in the 80s when Ollie North went down for doing the same shit.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:57PM
In the absence of a judicial order stating otherwise, yes, that person does get to make that determination. A phone company doesn't have to hand over all phone records when it's subpoenaed for some subset of those, and it doesn't have to hold non-responsive phone records in case they're desired later. Hillary Clinton was under no obligation to preserve all her emails, just her job-related ones, and, as far as anyone will ever know, she turned all of those over.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:28PM
Personally I don't care one whit about members of the Foreign Service dying under any circumstance. They, more than any other, are the children of privilege in this country. Them dying in an unstable 3rd world country is the closest thing they'll ever experience to facing the consequences of their actions. So, fuck them, they died.
That said, Hillary Clinton campaigned for President last time on her "experience." She staged a famous commercial about what she'd do if an important call came in at 3am. In Benghazi, we rather have our answer: nothing. Now that she has a stint filling in as Sect. of State under Obama, how has that assessment changed? The answer: It hasn't. Not at all.
Hillary must never be President because she is incompetent, and evil. She would use the office to get even with her and Bill's personal enemies, and nothing else. If the rest of us were lucky, we might hope she would accelerate the Second American Revolution we all know is coming. That's it. There is nothing more.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 30 2015, @04:41PM
I feel like Hillary knew more than she was telling about Benghazi, and now I feel like she's covering up. People died in Benghazi, and it was preventable. People died in Benghazi, and it was on Hillary's watch.
The Republican chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagrees with you.
Don't worry, I know you refuse to read this. [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by DNied on Monday March 30 2015, @11:52AM
She should just have kept her old email address: root@whitehouse.gov
[ source: Clinton-era joke floating around the early Internet ]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday March 30 2015, @12:46PM
She should just have kept her old email address: root@whitehouse.gov
That must have been Al-Gore's -- he invented the internet
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @03:28PM
I thought it was root@whitehouse.com?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by mrsam on Monday March 30 2015, @11:55AM
Because she's a Democrat. The NY Times, Washington Post, the rest of the mainstream media is completely uninterested; contrary, they're trying their best to clear the path for her, and take down anyone who stands in her way.
If it became known that, say, Dick Cheney did the same thing, and wiped his server after being subpoenaed; the reaction from the American media, and all the usual left-wing kookblogs (but I repeat myself), would've been such, that you'd be forgiven for thinking that Iran has finally managed to lob some nukes across the Atlantic.
(Score: 4, Informative) by skater on Monday March 30 2015, @12:38PM
There have been several front-page articles on the WaPo website about this story. I don't read the NY Times so I can't tell you there.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:32PM
Yep. It has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with being a part of the ruling class.
Power is the ability to avoid consequences and power does not discriminate by party.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @03:09PM
Ding, ding, ding! You're a winner. You've hit the nail on the head exactly. Growing up in the West of the US, I had the same image of government and power in the US as everyone else in the rest of the world. I thought that Republican vs. Democrat were real distinctions, and that democracy was a real contest of ideas that was won through successful debate. Then I moved to NYC and walked with the wealthy and powerful, listened in on their private salons, and gained access to their inner sanctums. After the initial shock of, "Holy crap! I'm sitting in a meeting with a former President of the United States and one of the wealthiest men in the world!" wore off (about 4 minutes), I realized that the joke was on all the rest of us in the human race.
First, forget all the Left vs. Right stuff, it's a sham. They're all in bed with one another. Their private piques and prejudices ("So-and-so didn't invite me to her Spring Tea!") matter far more to them than the petty, mundane concerns of ours (ie, they voted to starve 10,000 poor children in W. Virginia to death).
Second, they will never, ever stop unless brought to a definitive end point like a guillotine. They're always working their networks and connections to get special consideration or treatment. That is their currency, and the only thing that matters to them.
Third, though bestowed with low cunning, they are fundamentally stupid, stupid human beings. They have no intelligence or skill or technical knowledge or ability to do anything meaningful, really. If confronted by determined forces who do possess those qualities, they will melt like snow in the summer sunshine.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:55PM
I would say that its just like "professional wrestling" but lots of people think that's real too, so it wouldn't really help much.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @02:53PM
Cheney and Clinton should get married. They share so much --- evil neo-con warmonger being top on the list.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:58PM
It's important to understand who the Clintons' constituency is: Baby-Boomer women, wealthy, predominantly Jewish, from the Upper West Side of Manhattan. They comprise the core of the reliable donors to the Clintons, both during Bill's presidency and afterward to his Foundation (which only the Clintons could so mis-label, since it makes no grants and only solicits donations). That is the same core 300 people who are courted by every Democratic candidate in America, be they from New York or Oklahoma. They all hop on the plane to kneel before the women of the Upper West Side.
That's why it's very rare to get policy variation from Democrats around the country. They all have to kow-tow to the same people to fund their campaigns.
It should also be noted that the Upper West Side of Manhattan is where a great many of the people from the media elite of NYC and America live. They do cross paths with the Dem party mavens. It is not a coincidence. They all do know each other, belong to the same clubs, travel in the same circles, and collude. Boy, do they collude. If there is any rivalry at all in American politics, it is not between Republicans and Democrats, or left-wing and right-wing people, but between the Upper West Side and the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
There. I've said it, and now you all know it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday March 30 2015, @06:52PM
Sounds like a Bravo network show: "The Real Housewives of Upper West Side of Manhattan".
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @08:43PM
You could, though they don't advertise it. They are characters, and you could produce an entertaining series without excessive producer manipulation like the usual.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:08AM
Hello. I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Do you have a P.O. box, or should I just send my check to the nearest paranoid delusion treatment center?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @04:47PM
Oh stop.
There isn't any substantial difference between Democrat and Republican. They are both right-wing parties, pro-corporate, pro-finance sector, pro-intelectual property, pro-surveillance, pro-war, ...
The only place they really differ is how much they pander to the religious right-wing in this country. Republicans are far more likely to claim the earth is 6000 years old than Democrats. And, Republicans want to be able to legislate what you can and cannot do in your bedroom.
And, every major media outlet in the U.S. is owned by the rich who still tend to favor Republican. NBC used to be owned by GE who is a major weapons manufacturer. At the time of GE's ownership, the far right was complaining that NBC was "liberal" and anti-war. GE used to force their employees to watch right-wing propaganda narrated by Ronald Reagan for fucks sake. The NY Times suppressed the story of illegal US surveillance under Bush until after Bush was re-elected, because... they are so left leaning?!!! Rupert Murdock stated that he uses his media outlets to promote his viewpoints, in so many words.
So just stop with this bullshit.
Both right-wing parties suck, and all major media in this country leans right to extreme-right.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Hartree on Monday March 30 2015, @12:15PM
Why do you keep calling it an "email server"?
We guarantee there isn't a single email to be found on this server. ;)
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @12:36PM
With this pointless right-wing drivel, it's bye-bye Soylent. Good idea, gone bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:30PM
One has to wonder WHY so much AMERICAN news is here.
Oh ya, cause it's AMERICAN.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Monday March 30 2015, @03:56PM
FUCK YEAH
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:40PM
> With this pointless right-wing drivel, it's bye-bye Soylent. Good idea, gone bad.
This isn't right-wing, it is accountability. Based on the submitter's posting history I am totally willing to believe that for him personally its all about scoring points. But, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The well-known right-wing cheerleader Jon Stewart skewered Hillary for it saying, “I think the concern there is that the aides are the ones that get to decide which emails are appropriate to be shared as opposed to an independent arbiter. That is why Doritos doesn’t get to decide which ingredients consumers need to know about, or why you don’t get to tell the cops which pocket to search.”
(Score: 1) by HystericalLinguist on Monday March 30 2015, @01:57PM
It is less the "right-wingedness" of the post that bothered me, than its "drivel" aspects. [And the rather extensive drivel it got in the comments.] No Tech site should accept an argument of the form: (1) one is obligated to archive all official email by Federal law; (2) this law is clearly violated in this case because "the contents of the server itself were never provided to the government". (1) makes no reference to "the contents of" any "server".
The law as written, like most American laws, is pure theatre: pretend to require openness, while requiring nothing. My reading of Jon Stewart's complaint is that he was unhappy that THE LAW allowed Hillary to decide what emails were "official". But that's the law (because if it required an independent arbiter, it would actually have teeth, and no one wanted that), so all the discussion of "why isn't Hillary in jail" is absurd.
And sorry to what I know are perfectly reasonable people around here who left *that other site* to find a better home, but I won't wade through this kind of crap for my news. So, now, really "bye".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @02:14PM
There are two issues:
(1) Failure to archive according to an ambiguous law
(2) Failure to preserve in the face of a subpoena
WRT (1) it is outrage and publicity like this that get laws changed
WRT (2) wiping the server was utterly transparent but she'll probably get away with it
- however if (1) is fixed, then (2) won't be an issue the next time
(Score: 2) by TLA on Monday March 30 2015, @03:08PM
in the case of (2), failure to preserve in the face of a subpoena is destruction of evidence (AKA spoliation), which in the given case is one step below treason. We're talking official communications here, not Facebook posts. That server should be physically seized immediately; if the erasure was a simple MFT wipe, then the files will still be on the drive and intact. Even the attempt to erase that data should be seen as intent and punished as such. This isn't a shot-in-the-dark data grab in case something was amiss, we know what was amiss and we know the content of that data, that she tried to get rid AFTER being served shows intent to break the goddamn law and compound it by breaking it AGAIN.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @02:55PM
This is not a tech site. Glad you found out in the end.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday March 30 2015, @07:41PM
Dunno...maybe it looks that way, because the Democrats have been in power for as long as Soylent has existed. However, if you go look on the other site (same user name), you'll find that I was no fan of Bush/Cheney back in the day. I object to corrupt politicians who think they are above the law, whatever party they claim to belong to.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:39PM
It's not right-wing. It's common sense. I am not right wing at all. I would once, under Teddy Roosevelt, have been considered Republican, and would have later been considered Democrat. I am currently without a political home. But demanding public accountability is not partisan. It is a hallmark of democracy. Anyone who claims any less is an enemy of freedom and democracy.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:41AM
Selectively demanding public accountability is about as partisan as it gets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:22PM
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by tonyPick on Monday March 30 2015, @01:04PM
Sums up my general cynicism towards the partisan wrangling on this topic
https://twitter.com/loweringthebar/status/574609042754027520 [twitter.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by TheRaven on Monday March 30 2015, @01:34PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Mr. Slippery on Monday March 30 2015, @02:14PM
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:35PM
Me too. Torture and assassination are crimes against humanity. The current government of the United States has granted themselves license to violate any law, any standard of human behavior. That license has, however, not been granted them by the people of the United States. I, for one, hold them accountable. If I have the opportunity, I will bring the guilty to justice. Nazis were hanged for the same; those in the United States deserve no less.
Cheney, Bush, Clinton, and Obama and all those who follow their orders deserve the gallows. Period.
The Age of Lawlessness these people represent must end. Period.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Gravis on Monday March 30 2015, @02:01PM
There is no cause to prosecute because she complied with the law... as far as we know. there is no assumption of guilt (for the rich and/or famous) so there was no reason to prosecute. However, if someone can provide evidence that she didn't turn over all the emails *cough*NSA*cough* then she would be in seriously hot water. fun fact, she's not the only politician that does this either, not by a long shot.
If we really want to prevent this from happening again, congress can just pass an amendment... if they can ever figure out technology.
(Score: 4, Informative) by hendrikboom on Monday March 30 2015, @02:39PM
Congratulations. This seems to be the first post with even a semblance of facts instead of partisan mudslinging.
What I've heard elsewhere is that the law wasn't yet enacted when she was using her private email server and that she handed over the official emails when required. Sorry, I don't have any references on this, but I suspect a diligent search can find them.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @03:53PM
She appears to have followed the law that was in effect at the time. She is not required to provide bait for a fishing expedition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @07:07PM
Exactly. She complied with the law at the time, those pesky 4th and 5th Amendments protect her from here-on. She's no saint and I'm not defending her, but fishing expeditions like this are unconstitutional; the people pushing for these are only serving to further erode the US Constitution, and will seriously regret it when the precedents they're trying to set are used against them.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @03:00PM
Next time you are in a lawsuit, you just go and delete or shred documents after they've been demanded in discovery.
Adverse Inference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference [wikipedia.org]
Your evidence destroying actions will trigger a jury instruction that they are to presume the evidence would have been damaging. That's bog standard law. Explain why HRC's actions in destroying evidence requested in a subpoena, should not trigger this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @03:56PM
> Explain why HRC's actions in destroying evidence requested in a subpoena, should not trigger this.
Because she handed over the evidence and only deleted files that were not subject to subpoena.
That's her argument.
I even believe it.
My feeling is that she deleted the /other/ messages because they contained politically risky information regarding other topics. The benghazigate subpoena brought her attention to the fact that keeping the email records was all downside and zero upside for her. So, from the outside it looks like deliberate destruction of benghazigate evidence but her actual intent was to delete everything else before it might be subpoenaed.
Now, I think that's scummy but probably not illegal. At least not illegal enough that a $1000/hr lawyer can't make it go away. However I also think that's a perfect demonstration of why government email records should be archived out of the control of the people generating them.
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @04:45PM
Yes, scummy is correct, and still subject to adverse inference. When a situation like this arises, where some of the info is pertinent and some not, the way it is handled is that the information is examined by a neutral reviewer prior to turning it over. If it is determined relevant, it gets turned over, if not, it doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_camera [wikipedia.org]
But when the party required to produce the documents makes that determination on its own and destroys the records, you're back at adverse inference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @05:04PM
You are stating your conclusion as your premise - "some of the info is pertinent and some not."
Her position is that /all/ pertinent info was handed over. Not that some of it is too sensitive to hand over, all pertinent info was handed over.
Also, you've misstated the intent of in camera review, it is not about determining applicability it is preventing widespread dissemination of relevant but sensitive information.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @05:31PM
Fox guarding the henhouse fallacy.
Yeah I made that up.
Easy question: should the person being accused of a crime, have carte blanche to determine whether requested documents are or are not pertinent?
If you answer yes -- we might as well stop debating.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @05:38PM
Easy question: should the person being accused of a crime, have carte blanche to determine whether requested documents are or are not pertinent?
However I also think that's a perfect demonstration of why government email records should be archived out of the control of the people generating them.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Monday March 30 2015, @06:31PM
Government email records, as a rule, are archived out of the control of the people generating them. Hillary Clinton's use of a private server for official correspondence appears to be a direct circumvention of the already-established records archival process.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @07:23PM
Which, as I understand it, was perfectly legal at the time. Ex post facto laws and punishments are unconstitutional in the US - people cannot be punished for something that was only made illegal after they did it.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @08:06PM
Congrats -- you have effectively shifted the topic away from the fact that destroying potential evidence, where ever it may be stored, is not the way you respond to a subpoena. If you recall, that was the topic of this thread. The law on preservation is irrelevant in a subpoena situation.
I also note you never answered my direct question, burying your response in what looks to be a formatting error and while I might be able to guess your answer, you evasively never gave a plain "yes" or "no".
Anyway, you clearly have an extremely bright future if you choose to go into astroturfing. You're good at it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @09:15PM
That AC is not me - the one you asked the question of. If you had been paying attention to the thread you would have seen that I already answered your question. I was simply re-quoting it back at you to make it explicit with indentation to show that it was a requote. The fact that you were asking me an insinuating question that I had already answered pissed me off. If you won't pay attention to the words I've already written I don't feel the need to write new ones.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:57AM
Where exactly. I've gone up and down this thread and do not see the answer to my question:
Should a person under investigation be the same person who decides which documents subject to subpoena should be turned over?
___ Yes
___ No
if you have already answered, please link to the specific post. If you have answered it, I apologize for missing it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:49PM
Its irrelevant. If the law allows them to do that, then its legal. What we think of it doesn't matter. I don't think police should be the ones in charge of making sure the police follow all the laws, nor do I think corporations should be the ones in charge of ensuring they comply with all the laws, but what I think doesn't matter, I'm not the one who write the laws nor the one writing new laws, and even if I was, it still wouldn't change the fact that laws created after the act was committed cannot be used to punish those past acts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2015, @09:28PM
Agreed as far as law/legal is concerned, but history has repeatedly proven that just because the law allows something, it does not make that thing morally right.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Monday March 30 2015, @10:56PM
+1 points for knowing what adverse inference is.
-2 for not knowing that it applies to court cases, and there's no court case here, just a Congressional subpoena that was ostensibly complied with.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:19AM
it's a special kind of court in a sense. But aside from that, the fact that this is not a civil or criminal case, doesn't invalidate the concept of adverse inference. It's exactly what Popehat alluded to in the quote in TFS. Third aside, I would be shocked if there is no Federal law prohibiting destruction of evidence sought under Congressional subpoena.
let's see what I can dig up (some draconian IRS document destruction provisions, others fairly draconian but not sure they apply her, and then this) ...
This appears to be the source of the subpoena power for Congressional investigations -- don't take that as gospel, the Federal Code is a rat's nest -- but it looks like it could be, coming from a chapter entitled: 2 U.S. Code Chapter 6 - CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/chapter-6 [cornell.edu]
As you'll note, investigations are to occur in the same manner as a typical court case, so analogizing to the same isn't nuts: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/190m [cornell.edu]
Side note: Refusal to produce papers is a misdemeanor (fine of at least $100 and not more than $1000 _and_ imprisonment for at least 1 month but not more than 12 months):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/192 [cornell.edu]
Anyway, looking at the rules Federal Civil Procedures because the first quoted statute applies the normal court procedure, FRCP 34: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_34 [cornell.edu] -- basically says that you have to produce what is requested but if you have a beef with that, you can ask the judge to hear you out and make a decision. Nowhere does the rule state that you can decide on your own to just destroy the subpoenaed documents.
So if those sections actually apply, then yeah, HRC is breaking the rules and should be sanctioned. I'm sure at most she'd get house arrest, but imagining her in Orange for one month after paying $100 fine -- no way she'd get the max -- that's sort of fun.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:06AM
Hillary Clinton did respond to the subpoena. She just deleted everything non-responsive on the server afterwards. So you can't get her on not complying with the subpoena. That's why you're trying to go for spoilation, but it's not applicable here as far as either of us has been able to find. Given that Hillary Clinton is smart, she probably had a lawyer look into exactly this issue before destroying the non-responsive emails. So, most likely, she's in the clear?
Sleazy? Kinda. But her opponents don't like what she did because it means they can't pour through her private correspondence to try to find things they can pluck out of context and use in sleazier negative campaign ads. Fight fire with fire, right?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:42AM
It strikes me as odd that lying to Congress is worth 5 years (see Clapper) but destroying documents under subpoena is worth nothing but excuses and yeah-buts. What did Oliver North get some jail time for?
Anyway, your point seems to be the "Fox guarding the henhouse" fallacy, where we are supposed to just trust that she turned over everything, despite there being significant gaps. That's baloney and it totally doesn't fly in any other litigatory context.
As for that extra-draconian provision I mentioned earlier (up to 20 years), it appears there is some question about whether it is not applicable in legislative investigations (I had originally thought it was out -- maybe not):
see PDF pages 64 - 67: Obstruction of Justice by Destruction of Evidence: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34303.pdf [fas.org]
Interpreting: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519 [cornell.edu]
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:20AM
Kudos for linking to the Congressional Research Service. That's an interesting statute, although I think it's probably not applicable: changing your phrasing one place and not another is indicative of Congressional intent. But even if the statute is applicable, she can say she only deleted personal emails and therefore had no intent to impede an investigation. It's just impossible to tell whether she's telling the truth, and the burden of proof is on the state.
I think where you're going wrong fundamentally is this isn't a litigatory context. Also, by the way, the interpretation of "tangible item" in the CRS report you linked is out-of-date. That interpretation was overturned on appeal in the Supreme Court case Yates v. United States, a case moderately famous for Kagan's dissent citation of Dr. Seuss.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:34AM
You need to look up what a "fallacy" is. In any case, of course we don't know whether she destroyed evidence. That's the point. The state would have to prove she did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:57PM
Those pesky 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments, making Presumption of Innocence the standard. Too bad we can't do away with that nonsense!
'Its better to let 100 guilty men go free than put an innocent man in jail,' and all that. Scumbags like Hillary are where its the most important to ensure the constitution and law are upheld, because setting constitution-eroding precedents against scumbags will come to bite everyone else in the ass very quickly. So what if she got away on a technicality? Better that than allowing unconstitutional fishing expeditions to become the standard and common practice.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:28PM
I know there's no such thing as "fox henhouse" fallacy -- that's way I said I just made it up in one of my points. It's a sort of humor.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:14AM
Some interesting citations from Ollie's appeal: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19891360716FSupp644_11243.xml/U.S.%20v.%20NORTH [leagle.com]
18 USC 2071 totally calls into question the cannard -- "oh, HRC did what was legal at the time, but then the law changed." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 [cornell.edu]
HRC removed records from the official location by setting up an offsite mail server, and then she destroyed the records. This one is worth up to three years -- and disqualification from public office.
Of course, the neo-con HRC lovers will say: the emails never went to her public office so they didn't get removed, and feel all smug and moral. That still won't get her around paragraph (b) because she definitely had custody and she definitely destroyed them.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:37AM
Oh wow, Clinton is a neo-con. Someone should tell her; I think she's going for the Democratic nomination instead.
That statute appears to require a formal demand have been made. No such demand was made at the time she deleted her personal emails.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:53AM
TFS indicates there was a subpoena -- it doesn't get more formal than that.
Clearly though, you're a die hard HRC supporter. The facts won't matter. They don't matter to me either. She's a neo-con warmonger and deserves prison for that fact alone. As do Obama, GWB, Cheney -- basically the whole entire lot of them.
Anyway, it is my sincerest hope there was a subpoena and she gets to go the way of Ollie North.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:19AM
There was a subpoena for her official emails, not her personal emails. She claims she only deleted her personal emails.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:49PM
CHRIST.
She does not get to make the selection on her own.
Do you not comprehend Fox guarding the chicken house?
Imagine Debian.org sued MS for copyright infringement, demands source of a certain library. MS says "we looked -- there's no infringing code, we're not handing anything over." You'd be totally satisfied with that answer because MS would never lie. Right? You'd be 100% OK with that. That's the position you are taking and exists in no other litigatory or investagatory context. Applying your method to HRC is pure unadulterated favoritism and power fetishism.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:07PM
Discovery in a lawsuit is a completely different situation, and there are very complex rules related to it. By the way, most companies with, "you must delete all your emails older than X weeks" policies typically have those policies because they want to have nothing responsive in discovery when they're sued for anything.
"Fox guarding the chicken house" is a not a law. It's pounding on the facts, and the table, rather than the law. You're grasping for anything you can hold onto to try to impose a duty to preserve all her emails on her. You think what she did SHOULD have been illegal. I would, perhaps, agree with that.
But it wasn't illegal. Accept that, and move on.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:59PM
You keep pretending that a subpoena means nothing. In the context of a congressional investigation, FRCP 34 applies to the subpoena (via 2 USC 190m) and under that rule, it is a Judge, not the party, who gets to decide if something is discoverable.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/190m [cornell.edu]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_34 [cornell.edu]
Plus there is a law over 100 years old, the same one that got Oliver North prison time, that is a direct bar against what she did:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 [cornell.edu]
There is also an argument that 18 USC 1519 applies to this situation as I pointed out in this post: http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=6773&cid=164629 [soylentnews.org]
You need to accept the fact that "she did nothing illegal" is far from a settled matter and not something you can just propose as fact.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:44PM
Okay, you're just outright making shit up now. 2 USC 190m doesn't say anything like that. Once again, there's no discovery when there's no lawsuit. This isn't worth my time anymore.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:46PM
Sorry, that was a little harsher than I intended. Looking back, I've been kind of rude to you in this thread. I didn't intend to be, I've just been really busy. Let's just agree to disagree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:59PM
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a die hard HRC supporter. Its not that they're concerned with upholding the law and the constitution or anything, their sole opposition to you is purely that they worship HRC.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:35PM
I'm a hardcore bill of rights person. There is nothing in the bill of rights that even hints that destroying evidence sought in a subpoena is a protected action. The subpoena process and the associated court rules are due process, and those rules were broken by HRC.
Am I gleeful that she broke the law because I would wish that we could have a NOT-neocon-warmonger running in at least one side of the DNCGOP monoparty -- fucking yes I am. I would be gleeful over anything that might keep that warmonging HRC from polluting the next election. I certainly wouldn't advocate breaking the Bill of Rights, but that isn't an issue here at all and this could have been completely resolved if for example, a Judge was allowed to do an in camera review of the server and then say, these emails are in, and these are out.
Remember -- it was HRC's choice to commingle the data. She didn't have to make that choice, but having made it, she must suffer the consequences which are that she is not the final arbiter of whether things are discoverable. Not under the Constitution, the USC, or the FRCP.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 01 2015, @12:06AM
The judge and court disagrees with you. But they're just a bunch of morons anyway, you know the law and can do their jobs far better than them.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:01AM
Oh -- and you imply that Democrats (AKA: New GOP) aren't neo-cons. The Democrats haven't liberals for decades if you haven't noticed -- they're military industry tools, wall street tools, war mongers, surveillance junkies -- Jesus, if Nixon could have done half what Obama does, he'd be creaming his pants and laughing maniacally. Obama even got Nixon's health care plan passed. You Democrats are about as liberal as Pol Pot.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday March 30 2015, @05:37PM
Armchair lawyers can argue it all day, however, if we actually look at the relevant laws and regulations [nationalreview.com], we find:
- The Federal Records Act requires all federal departments to retain and preserve all records and essential transactions... This dates from 1950.
- Email messages are considered Federal records under the law - this is a statement from a State Department regulation, dating from 1995
Really, there is no doubt whatsoever that Ms. Clinton's private email server did not satisfy the Federal Records Act. She could have brought it into compliance by backing it up to a federal server, but she did not do so.
Moreover, as others have pointed out, she was under subpoena to turn over her email. It doesn't matter if she actually turned over all relevant documents - who knows, maybe she did. She has destroyed the originals, so that there is no way to know. If you or I or any other normal person responded to a subpoena by destroying the original evidence requested, we would be in for some serious trouble.
As a last note, I am profoundly irritated by the numerous comments "Oh, XXX also did that and got away with it". The fact that some other wrong escaped punishment is no excuse - with that logic, you can justify anything. Yes, Bush and Cheney should have been prosecuted for their numerous violations of domestic and international law. However, the fact that they were not, should not give the Obama administration (of which Ms. Clinton was a part) a free pass to get away with their own crimes.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:39PM
"The Federal Records Act requires all federal departments to retain and preserve all records and essential transactions... This dates from 1950."
That is not what the Act says. You are not required to retain all records only essential ones.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Monday March 30 2015, @06:30PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414835/did-hillary-commit-felony-shannen-w-coffin [nationalreview.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:47AM
I am still waiting for that porno: Me and my email server.
The story goes:
An older blonde woman cannot access her emails, and calls for a technician. The technician fixes her email server and fixes her too.
Or something like that.