Slashdot Mirror

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

She (and her stooges) broke the law - but did so "without intent". So the next time you are arrested - just tell the cops you didn't "intend" to break the law.

I suspect that if your last name is not Clinton - it will not go well for you.

deliberate took pictures of equipment he was specifically prohibited from photographing with intent to distribute the pictures to people who were not cleared to see them

Citation needed. AFAIK, he took the pictures solely as personal mementos — without "intent distribute". Indeed, no such intent. Still illegal, of course...

Hillary, on the other hand has been crucified because she received several emails that contained, improperly marked, classified information over the course of her four years at the State Department.

"Several", huh? Why would you lie on something so easily verifiable? Let's see:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

And there could have been more — we do not know for sure, because she ordered her e-mail server purged upon receiving a subpoena. The purging was not entirely successful, and the FBI found a few more among those, that it was able to obtain despite Hillary's best efforts of destroying evidence:

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.

Now "crucified"? Drama Queen much? She was not even prosecuted — much less convicted and punished. Don't you think, "crucified" is a bit of an overstatement? I mean, the term means death penalty — by very painful and slow means...

Material that the State department is on record saying it does not believe should have ever been classified.

First, the claims such as yours, are meaningless without a citation of that alleged "record".

Second, even if there were, in fact, on such a record, it would hardly be vindicating, that the State Department still headed by a Democrat would say anything else to help the Democratic nominee for President.

Because everyone who isn't blinded by partisanship does.

That reliably excludes present company, does not it?

But, yes, I do see the difference — a sailor is facing 5-7 years in prison for a few photographs that no enemy ever saw. Clinton is "crucified" by nothing for making thousands of classified messages (with different levels of classification) accessible to enemies. The opportunity they, most likely, have used:

we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of

I'm sure you'll be more than happy to provide some data to that effect, right?

It is so obvious no rational person would need data for this, similar to needing data proving things fall when dropped. But here you go anyway.

It is nearly impossible to find out how many sexual harassment cases are unfounded, but you can get a rough idea of how many by comparing them to forcible rape statistics where there has been more investigation into false claims. According to the FBI about 8% of forcible rape cases are deemed to be unfounded. Other studies put the number closer to 2%. But even though false claims are very rare, only about half of rape cases end up in a conviction. For sexual harrassment, the plaintiff wins about 40% of the time (both this and the above 50% statistic for rape are only for ones which make it to trial).

So considering the conviction rates are similar for both sexual harassment and rape claims, it is unreasonable to assume to rates of false claims are drastically different. Whatever the rate of false sexual discrimination claims are, they are probably somewhere around 5-10%.

Compare that to the near certainty that someone blames the victims in cases of sexual misconduct or rape.

Well, the OP said "guns", not long guns, but the majority of your argument was restricted to long guns only. Far more people are killed by guns than any other method you mentioned. Rifles and other long guns aren't the gun of choice for carrying around, and are less likely to be used that a handgun. In 2014, for example, 510 homicides were committed by long gun, 435 by blunt objects, 660 by hands/feet, etc., and 5,562 by handgun. Also, there were an additional 1,959 murders by firearms of a type not stated in the reports. Firearms were the weapon used in 8,124 homicides out of 11,961 total in 2014. If a gun wasn't available, the vast majority of these homicides were unlikely to have occurred at all. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls Source: FBI

Also, violent crime went down everywhere, including those areas that didn't allow concealed carry. It's incomplete information when you state it the way you did.

No one argues that legally used guns equal more crime, as you stated. If a gun is used legally, then a crime didn't happen by definition. However, it is absolutely true that the more guns that are available, a higher opportunity for violent crimes exists. And the more guns that are available, with a loophole that allows purchasing without a background check, the easier it is for violent criminals to acquire them.

You really need to back up the claim that defensive brandishing happens "hundreds of thousands of times a year", as that estimate sounds, on the face of it, completely made up.

FBI says: false.

From 2007 to 2011, 4058 people were killed with "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet etc.)", and 3918 with rifles and shotguns. However: there are also 9361 killed with "other firearms" or "firearms, type not stated". If we assume that the types of these are divided in the same proportion as those where the weapon is more precisely described, then over 900 of these would be with "long guns" - bringing the total to over 4800.

The total for "blunt objects" is only 2918, so that claim is comprehensively wrong.

I don't know of any reputable statistics on "defensive brandishing". I know it gets talked about a lot, but nobody seems to have come up with a plausible way of working out how often it really happens. If you know of some, I'm all ears.

All SORTS of violent crime is highly preventable. Far more people are killed every year, for example, using pipes and clubs or other objects than are killed using "assault" rifles or ANY sort of rifle, shotgun, or other long gun.

Did you think nobody would notice what you're leaving out, ScentCone? Handguns. Hmm.

I wonder why. Is it because Handguns make up well the vast number of firearms homicides?

More people are killed with BARE HANDS than are killed by someone using any kind of long gun.

That's a bit harder to show since the FBI doesn't separate hands and feet. It even includes "pushing" which means...yeah, that's not so help, since you could push somebody in front of some other idiot with a shotgun!

In fact, one of the most common ways to PREVENT someone from being violently killed by an attacker is: pointing a gun at the attacker. Defensive brandishing (and much less often, actualy shooting) of guns - usually handguns - happens hundreds of thousands of times a year.

Claims of such are rampant, but the methodology to collect that data is sketchy at best, though at least you are no longer citing the very discredited Kleck-Gertz study that got into the millions. It was a joke.

In places where people are allowed to carry, violent crime GOES DOWN. The "more legally owned and used guns equals more crime" meme is demonstrably false.

Yet we have a president claiming criminal violence has resulted in a country full of carnage, and promising to send Federal troops into Chicago to disarm the population. Are you going to tell him no?

That'll be a first. Of course, you should get him to look at the Chicago PD, and its demonstrated failings, but perhaps you can work up the courage to do so.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

Figure I'd get this in before people start asking you for sources and/or screaming racist.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

Figure I'd get this in before people start asking you for sources and/or screaming racist.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Another way is that black people do a lot more murder on a per capita basis. As it turns out, the chances of getting killed by a white guy are less for a black person than the reverse. Which is indicative of the overall murder rate in the black community being several times (something like 5+ times) what it is amongst whites.

Some source data

Anyway paying undue attention to a single person amongst the 6k or so that are going to die this year is politically motivated, as usual.

OK, at this point I know I'm being trolled so this will be my final post on the subject. What I have stated is exactly how statistics work, and the the figures bear me out. What you are calculating with the figures from here, are not the probabilities of being a cross-race murder victim, but that of being a cross-race murderer. In that respect, a black person is 10.37 times as likely to kill a white person as a white person is to kill a black person, and that is a fairly dismal statistic. But that was not the claim that was made in the post I responded to.

Playing with percentages can get easily confused and obfuscate the underlying issue. They are handy for comparison, but can be easily misconstrued or used to conflate facts (see my reply to AC above). The best place to go for the raw facts is here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

From 2013:

Out of 197.7M whites, 189 murdered a black person, 2509 murdered a white person

Out of 37.7M blacks, 409 murdered a white person, 2245 murdered a black person

All well and good, and I believe I qualified what I said with a disclaimer that agrees with the point you are making. It does not make me any less correct when I point out that the person I was replying to is a liar.

Playing with percentages can get easily confused and obfuscate the underlying issue. They are handy for comparison, but can be easily misconstrued or used to conflate facts (see my reply to AC above). The best place to go for the raw facts is here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

From 2013:

Out of 197.7M whites, 189 murdered a black person, 2509 murdered a white person

Out of 37.7M blacks, 409 murdered a white person, 2245 murdered a black person

You might want to brush up on basic math and/or the facts you claim to know so well.

This is common knowledge so I assumed I didn't need to cite it, but here they are:

Fact 1: ~52% of all murders committed in the US between 1980 and 2008 were committed by blacks, the vast majority of these murders were committed by black men 15-40 years old. The percentage holds relatively steady over time.

Fact 2: 93% of black murderer victims are other blacks for the same time span.

Fact 3: Blacks are 14% of the population

http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
Or if you prefer the raw data: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

You appear to be attempting to conflate any one young black man's chance of committing a murder, which is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion and definitely not the statistic that I cited. I am talking about a problem that society needs to address, not a problem that should concern you in your everyday interactions with people on the street.

The odds of any one person you meet being a murder, averaged across all blacks, based on the stats is around 0.01%. But that is distributed across all blacks. Since ~90% of the homicides are committed by young black men and they are around 12M out of the total population of 46M blacks in the US, the percentage jumps to about 0.04% for black men 15-40 to be a murderer. On an daily interpersonal interaction, out of every 2500 black men you meet in this demographic, one will be a murderer statistically. This may seem small, but compare it with another minority population, the Asian risk rate is 0.0007%, or one young male murderer out of every 143,000 (due to a more even distribution). Whites and Hispanics both have about the same odds at 0.0017% or one out of every 14,700 young men you meet. Crunching the numbers means that a young black man is 5700% more likely to commit a murder than an Asian. Both are minorities without the cultural benefits of being white. Any way you read these statistics, a glaring societal problem is apparent, and the people who are suffering and getting murdered disproportionately are other blacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

By the way, a white man is several times more likely to be shot by a black man, than the other way around. It's not some 20-30% difference. It's several hundred percent more likely.

This is getting really off-topic, but that statement is ridiculously far off. Murder is quite well traced by the FBI, so let's take it as a proxy for shootings. The FBI has this nice table of 2013 statistics (other years would be broadly similar).

From the table we can see that there were 409 murders of whites by blacks. With a white population of roughly 200 million, that makes about 2 parts per million. We also see 189 murders of blacks by whites. With a black population of about 40 million, that makes just under 5 parts per million.

From this we see that a black person is about 2.5x more likely to be murdered by a white person than the other way around. That's the opposite of what you said.

Now, it is true that if you restrict to the cohort of actual crime victims, things look different. For example, given that a white person is one of the 3,000 murder victims , chances are about 14% that the murderer was black. In comparison, given that a black person was one of the 2,500 victims, chances are about 7.5% that the murderer was white.

Even viewing the statistics this way, we do not reach "several hundred percent", but rather 80%.

The facts speak for themselves.

USC 18 793. Her crimes specifically fit sub paragraphs (e) or (f). If (e), it's often referred to as deliberate security compromise, if (f) it's failure to protect/mishandling of Classified Information. (f) is most likely to be charged as it requires no intent. You mishandle classified information, you have violated this law.

Both (e) and (f) carry a fine of up to $10,000 and a sentence of up to 10 years. She should face a count for each email sent from her account. For any emails containing classified information originating from someone else, that person faces the same charge and she could face another count of (f) for failure to report a violation.

Sure. However if the situation that you desire was to be implemented, we'd have a lot of people in prison - and many of them would not be people you hate. As well, I know that there is no way I would ever work on classified areas if my carreer and life could be destroyed by someone sending me classified mail on an open system. I've read the declassified FBI investigation into the Clinton server fiasco, https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-... and after wading through a lot of it, there were people around her who did the actual transgressions.

Any violation is a violation. Are you prepared to go to prison for 10 years for someone else making a mistake?

Or are you trying to claim that the FBI is simultaneously supporting and not supporting Clinton? They in fact are lying about their investigation and making a huge cover-up? This rises to the level of a security violation and letter of reprimand, and a debatable action of temporarily losing clearance for some amount of time.

The poiunt on my part is that the people yelling the loudest are not yelling because they know the law, but that they hate the lady. As I recall, a few years back, an agent working out of the white house was selling arms to Iran via a money laundering type scheme, when he was nearing caught he and his assistant went on a classified document destruction spree, and his lovely assistant concealed classified documents upon her person and left the building. It wasn't any people set up a email server and maield stuff back and forth, but some pretty egregious stuff, sending arms to an acknowledged enemy of the US, and deliberate destruction and theft of classified documents.

The results?

Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, was indicted on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice on June 16, 1992. Weinberger received a pardon from George H. W. Bush on December 24, 1992, before he was tried.

Robert C. McFarlane, National Security Adviser, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years of probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.

Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.

Alan D. Fiers, Chief of the CIA's Central American Task Force, convicted of withholding evidence and sentenced to one year probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.

Clair George, Chief of Covert Ops-CIA, convicted on two charges of perjury, but pardoned by President George H. W. Bush before sentencing.

Oliver North, member of the National Security Council convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity, obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents, but the ruling was overturned since he had been granted immunity.

Fawn Hall, Oliver North's secretary, was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for her testimony.

Jonathan Scott Royster, Liaison to Oliver North, was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for his testimony.

National Security Advisor John Poindexter was convicted of five count

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

A bit of background: Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she would follow the FBI's recommendation on whether or not to prosecute Clinton. Comey explained via press release how Clinton broke the law, but didn't recommend prosecution. That is why she hasn't been convicted, but her guilt is laid out for everyone to see.

The bit in the quote above about intent is bullshit, she knowingly intended to have her email, which would include classified materials, sent to her private email account. A former CIA director had to get pardoned to avoid charges for having classified files on his home computer. How is that any different than her having classified files on a personal server?

You can still submit FOIA requests through their web portal here - https://efoia.fbi.gov/

15,980 murders in 2001, when terrorists killed 2996 on 9-11
2996/15980 = 18.7%

https://archives.fbi.gov/archi...

I totally agree with you. This is why I defend Trump from the morons attacking him. I couldn't even hold my nose to vote for him, and it would not have mattered who I voted for because I live in a solidly blue state. But it is pretty absurd some of the attacks people come up with.

What I point out is the actual criminal behavior that Hillary was confirmed to have committed, namely, running a personal email server for government work, failure to provide the official records required to fulfill the Records Act which allows Freedom of Information Act requests to be fulfilled, encouraging a subordinate to remove classification markings, and failure to report classified leakages. These aren't even up for debate, the head of the FBI gave a statement that they all happened, but that because of who she is they wouldn't be able to prosecute her.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

I am not saying that Donald Trump is so much better, but that none of the candidates were qualified.

Perhaps it also had to do with the fact that Comey came out and said that she broke the law, but no prosecutor would take the case? There have been people who were prosecuted for self reporting an accidental classified leakage, while Hillary reportedly had 100's, while she gets off with nothing. This is wrong.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

She also was pretty damn sleezy to even run the server in the first place. She did it to get around FOIA requests, and is still in violation of the Records Act as she has not provided copies of the official records required to be maintained by anyone in a position like the SOS. She claims that the records are maintained because she corresponded with people in the State Department, but the problem is that there have to be emails that were sent not to people at State that there are now no record of.

I wonder if we'll find any docs as good as the ones that have shown up in the FBI vault recently?

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

2? Are you calling James Comey and the FBI, and all the government agencies involved liars?

...and zero sources.

Putting your opinions in parenthesis after your assertions doesn't count as sources to prove your assertions.

Frankly - Comey DID find that Clinton mishandled classified data in a criminal manner.

Here's my source:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

And for the lazy:

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received."

Comey decided that Clinton did commit a crime - but did so without intent to commit a crime. The public saw right through this as one set of rules for us and another set of rules for the Clintons.

Clinton lost because she is corrupt, she is a criminal, and her policies sucked - and she lost to a real-estate developer/reality TV star with NO government experience at all.

That should tell you how terrible a candidate she really was.

Call me when Trump sets up an illegal email server with Top Secret emails on it - connected to the internet.

Call me when Clinton does. The FBI investigated and found no meaningful wrong doing. Stop pretending that this is a thing that matters. Your favorite asshole won the election. Let it go.

Then lies about it.

You're seriously going to pretend that Trump doesn't lie constantly? You are seriously going to pretend that Trump doesn't break any laws?

You are FULL OF SHIT.

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

...

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information [the emails were classified WHEN THEY WERE SENT, and not retroactively]

...

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. ["extremely careless" == "grossly negligent", no?]

Note well that it is a FELONY to be "grossly negligent" in the handling of classified information.

Are you really going to try to argue Hillary! wasn't "grossly negligent"? When there is actual evidence that she directed the removal of classification markings and ordered underlings to send data "unsecure"?

Why did Comey say there was no intent?

Gee, you think the $500,000 the FBI deputy director's wife got from Terry McAuliffe had anything to do with that?

Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife

The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.

Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

With the rampant sexual harassment that was reported last New Year's Eve in Köln, I'm not sure if they're the Mexicans or pussy-grabbing Trump.

That said, does the US have problems with Mexicans that are religiously motivated to kill everyone that thinks differently from themselves?

We do, actually. We've had tons of attacks by latino terrorists, followed by extremist authoritarians / fascists (objective definition, I'm not labelling people here, I mean someone who actually supports a fascist system of government), and then by Jewish terrorists. Sadly, we don't have any hard statistics on Christian terrorism as a whole, but Christian and extremist xenophobia groups, such as the KKK, are indeed still active, having killed hundreds of Americans over the past decade alone, so that's another major problem the police have been struggling to deal with - 74% of police departments, in fact, rank these people as the most dangerous and violent of terrorists. They have been unofficially endorsed by both our president-elect and our vice president-elect, and so predictions for violence from these groups is expected to rise significantly over the next 4 years.

...any other groups, demographics, or religions not mentioned here *pointedly* fail to score within the top 4, such as communists, anarchists and yes, muslim terrorists. That's why these groups receive a minority of the police's attention... correct?

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

Why not read the crimes from the FBI director himself? He doesn't deny she committed the crimes, just that no prosecutor would take the case. It isn't the same thing.

There are people being charged for the exact same things as her, who just aren't as connected. These things she did bring felony charges...unless you are a wealthy connected presidential candidate.

I think BLM is more of a reaction to institutionalized racism that persists to this day - things like black drivers being pulled over because they're black, which is real.

No, what is real is that blacks are pulled over more often than whites. What remains to be proven is that they are pulled over BECAUSE they are black. That's an assumption on your part for which there is no evidence. You are letting your beliefs dictate your interpretation of facts. In fact, I'm willing to bet your feelings are so strong on the issue that if I tell you blacks are more likely to be doing something to get pulled over for that your gut reaction is to assume I'm a racist. However, I doubt you would dispute that blacks are overrepresented in poverty, and that poverty and crime are correlated. For example, blacks are only about 13% of the population of the United States, but where the race of the offender is known commit 53% of all murders.

The constant grind of discontent leads to this. Just like PETA they're a bit over the top and often biased and unfair, but they're the only way society can move forward.

The only way to force an outcome that these idiots think is fair is to start ignoring crime. There is literally no other way, and as long as police are human and value their own lives that's never going to happen. BLM is literally arguing against enforcing the law for black people.

I've been on gab.ai, 4chan, 8ch and voat.co. You really should research this yourself and ask yourself why there is a boatload of evidence and those bringing it to light are being ddosed. Why is twitter blocking those who report vile content while keeping the vile content up and running. Why is reddit admitting to very dishonest practices and shutting down subreddits for TOS violations that didn't occur or if they did were getting policed by mods.

If you are doing research and you see illegal exploitative content please report it. Be also aware that a large number of illegal and abusive content is on honeypot servers to flypaper the criminally insane that deal in child exploitation.

Links to submit reports and information on reporting crime:

https://report.cybertip.org/

https://www.justice.gov/action...

https://www.fbi.gov/investigat...

I would also like to see Proof Of Life on Julian Assange and people should be asking WikiLeaks to prove its not a compromised honeypot to catch whistleblowers.

There is a conspiracy here - there is a lot of legitimate investigative content being summarily deleted and there is a vast effort in the main stream media all the way down to slashdot to just shut down conversation on the topic. Shutting down the conversation is potentially obstructing justice. If we have not crossed the precipice justice will be done so no amount of deleting will stop karma from hunting down those who exploit children.

Whats most disturbing is places that hold content and evidence of whats doing on like 4chan and wikileaks are being DDOSed by STATE ACTORS. When certain content and conversations arise brutal state sponsored DDOS attacks have been employed.

Whats even more curious is why with all the contention during the election with the FBI wikileaks and the like this pizzagate/twittergate/whereisassange stuff seemed to be what triggered a desperate, widespread, worldwide and massive response to stop information about this coming to light.

This isnt just goofy numerology there is a lot of bizarre stuff going on. I've been enjoying the internet since inception and I've never seen this - such universal efforts to shut down a conversation about a real concern about a network of child-abusers in operation.

Do your own research. Decide for yourself. Ask yourself why voat and gab.ai are getting massive amounts of refugees from reddit and twitter OVER THIS ISSUE.

Many places where one would go to get information on whether there is truth to any of this dont attempt to document and display factual information they simply shut down all discussion. Something is wrong. Where there is smoke there is fire. And we need to know if Julian Assange is alive and if WikiLeaks is a safe place to blow the whistle.

They are a fairly direct correspondence to free markets versus communism. We see equal opportunity being quashed in the name of equal outcomes.

Only because your choice of conceptualization requires you to be mislead that way. So you see things that aren't there, since you can't imagine them otherwise. The idea space is actually more complex than your views seem to encompass.

And numerous studies also reveal the inherent differences between the sexes, so force-fitting equality of outcome is an active step in sexism instead of letting people make their own choices.

Yes, yes, that's the windmill you're tilting against, thinking they're actual giants. They're windmills, Don Quixote. Not even alive! And they serve a useful purpose.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. You're seriously claiming that Western societies should import rape culture to teach them not to commit sexual assaults and rape?

Nope! I'm telling you that refugees deserve a chance to get out of it, so they aren't suffering from it.

I swear, it's like you have no idea how obvious you are.

I guess those 1,400 girls in Rotherham and the 1,200 women in Cologne can console themselves in doing their part.

Sadly, they are not alone, as sexual abuse scandals have rocked the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, Jehovah's Witnesses, various factions of Mormons, Penn State and more. Just last month, Operation Cross Country X picked up almost 100 minors, and over 200 traffickers. Internationally? The scope may be titanic.

All I can give you is commiseration, sorry.

The amount of liberal stupidity here is through the roof.

That's ok, no worse than the conservatives who seem to be intent on diving into the basement.

It's a finished basement, so it's concrete you know, concrete. It really hurts when you hit it.

Trump's childishness doesn't excuse the childishness coming out of feminists, and more broadly, to the diaper-wearing "social justice" movement.

That's ok, for me it's about taking the pretentiousness out of such claims. Lots of childishness to go around.

If this shocks you, I have only to remind you of Niven's 17th Law.

So a father is defending his son. And? Do you think there's a murder culture every time a mother defends her murdering son?

It may surprise you to learn that mothers are criticized all the time for defending their children, and yes, there are allegations of such cultures. Haven't you heard of them? Or you know, spoken of them yourself.

But enough of that, look at the defense the man chose to include. He'd have been a lot wiser to be more selective. Ah, such hubris on his part. When the sentence to others, was laughably lenient.

It could be it was consensual and hence statutory rape.

Way to look for excuses there. At least stick to the man having severe brain damage or something.

Yeah, it's still sick, but I don't see this as any evidence for "rape culture" of the hysterical nature demonstrated so profoundly by the Rolling Stones gang rape hoax that gained nationwide attention.

Is that supposed to bother me for some reason? I wasn't making that argument, I was pointing out that the world contains many facets to it. You can link o

Hating an individual is not a hate crime ...

According to the FBI, a hate crime is:

"A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

Considering that James Comey himself detailed exactly what crimes were committed, it is pretty amazing that you could still hold that opinion.

She leaked classified information
She encouraged others to remove classification markings
She failed to report classified information leakage
She broke the Official Records Act that supports FOIA

Yeah, she didn't do anything wrong. Keep telling yourself it is all some kind of smear campaign.

When, may I ask, will the FBI go after the creators of child porn, and not just the consumers? The peopel who actually and directly abuse children for money? Or is it a lot simpler easier to entrap the customers, since you can wave the contraband in their faces?

Um, let's see...This video is on their site.

So, unless you consider the video a lie, they are, in fact, doing it, it just doesn't make the headlines here, at Slashdot.

It's rather like penalizing people who drink poisoned water rather than finding the poisoners.

No, drinking poisoned water most likely makes you a victim, the consumers of child porn, are not, however, such, except maybe insofar as they may suffer from some mental illness.

Ah, common problem. You don't want to deal with it.

Not the first time. After all, if you claim it isn't something you've seen, it doesn't exist.

Too bad for you, it is a real problem.. Documented even.

I know, I know, you want to pretend to be above it all. But you can't help but make yourself look bad when you make such blatantly untrue statements.

(By the way, is it possible to "legally violate" federal law? I mean, if you're violating federal law, that's always illegal, isn't it?)

Hillary Clinton managed to do just that...

Classified emails weren't ever supposed to be sent over anything but the system explicitly for classified intelligence. Should she have realized people would screw up? Sure, but people make mistakes. She shouldn't be thrown in jail anymore than the senders of those emails.

You are Correcting The Record. You should go back and listen / read what Comey reported the FBI found in July:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent... ....
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.

Note that in the last segment, he said "sent AND received". Not only that, once those emails were received, she had a duty to secure them on her system. Yet, the FBI got a lot of their data from "slack space" on the server, because the IT guys running the systems simply uninstalled Exchange without sanitizing the disks. It being her server commissioned under her authority, and it being her data, that directly becomes her problem.

Further, she then transported the servers-- well after receiving the data, well after its classification-- to her attorneys. This is, again, not a cleared location nor cleared individuals. That is, again, a violation of 18 USC 1924.

You mean like the sailor that took a picture in a classified area?

Petty Officer Saucier was charged last year with one count of unlawful retention of national defense information and one count of obstruction of justice after prosecutors said the sailor used his cellphone to take snapshots in classified engine room on the USS Alexandria, a nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic at the time, then attempted to destroy evidence when he learned an investigation had been launched.

Or David Petraeus.

In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an affair), while serving as the director of the CIA. Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.

Or John M. Deutch

Deutch had agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor for mishandling government secrets on Friday, January 19, 2001, but President Clinton pardoned him in his last day in office, two days before the Justice Department could file the case against him.

[Not holding my breath for an Obama Pardon either]

Or Sandy Berger

was an American political consultant who served as the United States National Security Advisor for President Bill Clinton from March 14, 1997, until January 20, 2001. Before that he served as the Deputy National Security Advisor for the Clinton Administration from January 20, 1993, until March 14, 1997.

On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke covering internal assessments of the Clinton Administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003, allegedly by stuffing the documents into his socks and pants. Berger subsequently lied to investigators when questioned about the removal of the documents.

In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington.

Or Bryan H. Nishimura.

According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system

The FBI director came out in a speech and detailed the list of laws she broke and she wasn't prosecuted. There is nothing that will get her in front of a judge for all her misbehavior...it is quite sad actually.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us

That should be 1-800-225-5324, AC missed a 2.

But to your point, I'm unaware of Right/Conservative/GOP violence, but then I rely on non-mainstream media for some of my news, so I miss a lot of propaganda. So other than FBI conspiracies and KKK (AKA Democrats)

Man, where do you get your talking points? You profess ignorance, then castigate the media as being propagandists, then top it with the old accusation about the KKK as if everybody would be confused and suddenly start thinking it was 1870 again.

At least try this century.

And how about if that group ACTUALLY DOES commit more crime and requires more police involvement eh? That's not racist of the police; it's called doing your job.

Blacks murder around 5-15x more frequently that whites do: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43

Are you calling James Comey a liar?

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

110 classified emails on an unclassified system. Literally stated by the head of the FBI: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

That's evidence, period. Whether or not that rises to a violation of 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) should be up to a jury.

There's plenty of evidence - Comey laid it all out pretty clearly a few months ago.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

Whether or not that evidence meets the bar of conviction under the statute in question is up to a trial and a jury.

Saying there shouldn't be a trial is saying "the evidence doesn't matter when you're politically protected". If anyone unpolitically connected person had 110 classified emails discovered on an inappropriate, non-classified system, they'd at the very *least* go to trial, and likely be convicted.

Afraid not, we have copies of a lot of damning stuff thanks to Podesta. And just for comedy, it's coming out that this new FBI investigation came about because they were investigating Democratic Rep. Anthony Wiener (the infamous sexter) who recently divorced Huma Abedin, one of Hillary's closest aids.

But if the objective is to connect emails-Benghazi and conflate the two in votersâ(TM) minds (which consultants feel is an imperative here), Iâ(TM)m not sure we know whether we can credibly do that

Source

Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails
we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov

Source

[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by [Kennedy], Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the e-mail's classification in exchange for a 'quid pro quo,'

Source (n.b. this is from FBI, not Wikileaks).

The DKIM signatures also say the emails are unmodified and signed by hillaryclinton.com. Feel free to validate them yourselves.

Just for bonus points, here's Hillary talking about how they should've rigged the Palestinian elections.

Listen to Hillary talking about rigging those elections here.

This is a tiny sample from a huge list of damaging emails, too.

There's never been a better time to vote 3rd party.

Did you read what the FBI director announced about Clinton? It clearly goes through her crimes. For some reason, it then goes on to say that no prosecutor would take the case, which doesn't follow logically, but it is a Democrat run organization investigating the Democrat candidate for president.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

You claim that I made up those statements

No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.

If you cannot mount a compelling case (...) then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.

If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent. That's why the nudge and not the links list. So here is the case.
Benghazi:
Search terms on youtube: Hillary Clinton Benghazi (as stated before), but you refused to search .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENYYQIAKE (this is a short one with some points);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE (another one focused on the troublesome parts);
full hearing.
On supporting terrorism:
Hillary's email saying Qatar and the Saudis are financing terrorism
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL - not directly related to Clinton but important to understand ISIS;
Military intervention in Syria email from 2011 - also not Clinton, but to give an understanding of what the "moderate rebels" the USG under Obama supports are supposed to do ("commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within");
The three above are to make it explicit that everyone (in her circles) knows who the Saudis are and what the regime change the US is pursuing does to people. It is common knowledge.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department;
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Qatar giving 1M to Bill Clinton (Qatar, the ones she says are financing terrorism);

The secret information mishandling should be one of those clear cut cases of too powerful to answer to justice. They clearly said that the reason they would not prosecute was lack of intent, not lack of proof it was done.
Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department (short video)
The actual FBI statement on the case. They didn't say she didn't commit the crime, just that no prosecutor would prosecute. They also explain what the crimes would be in the case ("Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."). That's why sometimes we are not sure what the crime is. Because US law is overly intricate.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

Care to "correct the narrative" some more? Or are you calling James Comey a liar?

They're not allegations. FBI Director Comey stated that she broke the law by having then-classified documents on a public server and she didn't even turn all of them over. It's critical to understand that intent has zero basis in violating the law, nor does ignorance. Comey broke down the evidence in his own press release where he declared that they would not seek prosecution.

One is an accident that can be ignored (and that does happen). More than 30 times? That's a heavy jail sentence, apparently if your name doesn't end with "Clinton". This is made clear toward the end of the press release:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Said differently: "We would prosecute her, if she wasn't Hillary Clinton. We will prosecute you, if you do it."

Quoting from his press release:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

The way this is phrased is itself misleading. It suggests that there's possibly more than seven, but there were clearly at least seven classified at the top levels of classification at the time that they were sent. That is a crime, which is clear given the previous statement indicated that they didn't intend to violate laws. Intent has no basis in violating classification laws, particularly once you get past the informal "accident" level that gets swept away with minor breaches. Seven distinct TS/SAP email chains is not a minor breach.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

Who knows what they didn't find since they found thousands that were work related and not given to them. Heavily classified documents often do not get sent electronically very frequently, so there wouldn't be many traces of them lingering on the networks.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the sub

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

The entire text is at FBI.gov: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Why not read the actual text? Afraid it does not suit your spin?