Slashdot Mirror

Can you give me the quote that asked that? I've been following the story pretty closely and never saw anything like that. I think you're just drawing conclusions from headlines, just like they want you to.

I assume you're playing cute with semantics, because he doesn't actually asked them to hack her emails, he asks them to "find" the emails. The implication being of course that they already hacked them.

It's not hugely better of course, rather than asking Russia to hack her server he's saying that it's great that Russia hacked her server, and Russia should use that intel to help his campaign.

And of course his backtrack that he was being "sarcastic" is stupid. But since it was obviously Trump talking he couldn't blame it on a young intern.

2) If you are mad enough to consider voting for Trump does the fact that the Russian's are trying to help him put you off. If it does who do you vote for?

That's an interesting point.

I think the Russians did the country an enormous favour by bringing the actions of the Democratic party to light. It's like Snowden outing all the illegal activity of the intelligence organizations.

I'd be completely OK if they, or some other country, did the same thing to the Republicans. It would only shine a light on the corruption, and help bring us to a more fair political process.

And we also have to consider recent events. Our own Federal Election Commission won't investigate massive money laundering that effectively neutralized Sanders campaign funds, or working directly against the Sanders campaign.

Also, the GCHQ was hacking around the Arab Spring, and the US deposed the democratically elected leader of Iran and put the Shah in power.

We can't blame Russia for doing what every other country is doing, and that we are doing as well.

The Democrats would have every right to be upset except that they were involved in massive wrongdoing!

It's now reported that the FBI warned team Hillary back in March and they refused to cooperate with the FBI.

Sorta like their earlier year-long refusal to cooperate with the feds on the investigation of her server, while she ran around telling the public she was eager and fully cooperating and that her server was approved, which her own State Department denies. There's a good reason why she has held not a single actual press conference in all of 2016 (you know, those things where politicians take questions from a hostile press corps (worse given that in her case the press is actually in the tank for her party and not even tough)).

Former CBS news journalist Sharyl Attkisson has a nice, concise timeline on the whole Hillary server flap for those interested.

Trump's statement, recorded on video with audio, is tantamount to treason.

Try it yourself. Invite an adversarial nation or state to hack servers containing potentially Top Secret information (if the nuts are to be believed), and promise them "rewards" if they do so. You will go to PMITA Federal Prison.

Well, at least one person agrees with me.

This election is rife with hilarious situations, if you know where to look.

Technically, Sanders raised more money than Clinton did in the first 3 months of this year. As an example, at the end of January Sanders raised $67 million compared to Clinton's $27 million.

The maximum one can donate to Clinton (or any one candidate) is $5400, but you can donate to other Democratic campaigns in various amounts. So the "Hillary Victory Fund" held a number of campaign contribution events supposedly for local democratic campaigns. The fund transferred the money to local committees, but then moved the money from there directly to the Clinton campaign.

From the Rolling Stone report:

As an example, take couples who paid or raised $353,400 to sit at a table with George Clooney, a sum that Clooney himself called an "obscene amount of money." The figure represented the maximum allowable donation given the structure of the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint venture between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 32 state committees.

Donors can give a maximum of $5,400 per election cycle to Hillary's campaign, $33,400 per year to the DNC, and $10,000 per year to each of the 32 state committees in the fund.

If you assumed that the Clooney guests had already given their maximum $5,400 to the Clinton campaign, that left just over $353,000 for the DNC and the committees.

But Vogel and Arnsdorf found that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Hillary Victory Fund went to the state committees.

[...] The money sometimes came and went before state officials even knew it was there. Politico noted that the Victory Fund treasurer, Beth Jones, is also the COO of the Clinton campaign.

[...] Vogel-Arnsdorf also noted that of the $23.3 million spent directly by the fund, most "had gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton's campaign, including $2.8 million for 'salary and overhead' and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads."

So the Democratic party took all the Bernie Sanders money and matched it with an equal amount of money drained from local democratic elections, and like matter and anti-matter both sums annihilated in a flash of political advertizing!

All that effort and money and work you Bernie Sanders advocates put in came to naught, because the Democrats simply didn't want Sanders to win.

(I don't care *who* you are, that's funny right thar :-)

And nothing will be done about it.

The Democrats probably violated FEC law, possibly violated money laundering law, and absolutely betrayed your trust in a fair and honest runoff between candidates...

All this was noticed in May , and there's been no call for investigation, no call for prosecution, nothing.

Bernie got roughly 43 percent of the popular vote.

Do you think that those extra campaign funds might have tipped the balance in favor of Hillary?

It gets better.

The polls at the time showed that Bernie had a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary.

And by siphoning money away from local elections, the Democrats have probably thrown many local elections to the Republican side!

That's hilarious! :)

Sanders and the rest of the party are calling for *everyone* to support Hillary. They're effectively asking all the Bernie voters to "forget that we just betrayed you in the worst possible way, we have to stick together or Trump will win!". Keep party unity! Don't let the Republicans win!

And they're absolutely right! If Bernie runs as a 3rd party, Trump will win. If Bernie supporters swi

Well, let's be fair, after all a massive 7% of journalists identify as Republican, so you can't say ALL the media works for the Democrats... ;)

Have you actually read that email? It was written by Bernie Sander's campaign manager. It is in response to an article on Politico the day before. Bernie Sander's campaign manager is basically calling the DNC out on what the Politico article alleges. Even if everything in the Politico article is true it would not surprise me if it is all legal.

Fantastic! Now you can prove me wrong. Just find one person who did what Hillary did (mishandle classified data but with no intent to leak and with no data leaked) and is in jail, and you will prove me terribly mistaken.

Or, if you can't, then it will be clear that your hatred of Hillary is greater than your love of facts or fairness or patriotism, and that you will make anything up if it fits the narrative you wish were true.

How many cases would you like links to? Here is one from NPR that talks about David Petraeus who was indicted for mishandling classified data. He received one year of probation after pleading out. The same article mentions John Deutch, who was the CIA director under Bill Clinton. President Clinton had to grant him a pardon when he was facing indictment for "Improper handling of classified data." In fact, he basically did the same thing as Clinton - had classified data on a (government owned) computer at home. He was facing indictment because he didn't turn over classified material several days after leaving the CIA. How long did Clinton keep the classified data at her house? Oh and here's another Clinton aid mentioned in the same article: Samuel "Sandy" Berger who destroyed copies of classified data and then lied about doing so. Hmmm didn't Clinton do the same thing - only in her case it was to destroy evidence of wrongdoing? And then again we have Alberto Gonzales, AG under GW Bush. He was investigated just for storing material in a safe that non-cleared people had access to - inside the Justice Department office - though in this case there was no indictment. What about this Navy Engineer who was indicted and convicted for mishandling classified data with no intent to distribute it? This young sailor just took a picture on a submarine and then destroyed the evidence and was indicted and convicted. How about this Marine Corps Major who was dishonorably discharged after using personal email to send classified documents? And here is a lab tech who was prosecuted for taking classified material home from the office - again with no evidence of intent to distribute. How about an NSA Employee who was indicted for leaking material to the press? And a State Department Employeee indicted and convicted for taking classified material home. Are these enough references? Because it took me all of 30 seconds to find these news articles.

And what did the FBI basically say? She's too big to indict.

You have a rare talent, to interpret what people "basically" say. My poor brain can only handle what they "actually" say: "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: [various bad stuff]. We do not see those things here."

How else can you interpret the comment that "No reasonable prosecutor would indict" when it was clearly a violation of the law and we can clearly see dozens of cases above where people were indicted for doing similar things, and in some cases, far less than Clinton? If they could not find cases of prosecution in events similar to hers then

Here you go. The explanation laid out for you.

TL;DR: revenge.

Well, that is why he dislikes her, there isn't much in the way of his fearing her. Not quite the same thing.

TL;DR: revenge.

>False. What telecoms â" correctly â" object to, are efforts by local governments to compete with them. Private businesses, individuals, or non-profits are fine...

No. They lock up the last mile and do everything they can to stop private competition as well. If you're lucky enough to live in a densely populated and affluent area, you might be able to get high speed internet through microwave (the pricing is actually pretty competitive), otherwise you're going to be stuck choosing between the two horribly shitty options of either AT&T or Comcast.

It's a duopoly, and enforced by our legislators that are bought and sold by them.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

I would argue that it began a lot earlier than that.

The congress has been the only thing standing in the way of letting Obama ruin us further and fundamentally change everything that made the US great to begin with.

Yet it was the Republican Party that made Obama one of the most powerful presidents in U.S. history by not doing their jobs and abandoning the power of the purse.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/barack-obama-gop-most-powerful-213814

Hell, look how much a challenge a self proclaimed Socialist did in the primaries??!?!?

You do realize that "Socialist" is an empty label that doesn't mean anything?

Here come the apologists and lemmings. Most things are pretty straight forward and there is not a conspiracy. However, there is a very clear conspiracy here to the point that it's hardly a conspiracy -- it's just a crime being allowed and enabled.

Whether or not Guccifer hacked Hillary Clinton's server is irrelevant to the fact that she committed a significant crime, repeatedly, and for many years in an effort to coverup -- at best -- private dealings. It was an insecure server left in a bathroom hidden solely through obscurity. The fact that it knowingly stored or could store assumably classified information is itself an actual crime (gross negligence, again at best). The only difference between the FBI Director's terminology of "extremely careless" (as he said) versus "gross negligence" is legality.

From the redacted emails that have been released, there have been numerous signs of separate crimes being committed surrounding both gross negligence and willful acts, including where she told her subordinates to remove origination headers, which implies classification (a crime to remove and separately to order others to do it), to send via fax (a separate crime). The same people that have been willfully blocking the investigation (yet another crime) assured the public that this was not classified content.

I realize that Slashdot is not as technical as it was when I started reading it (get off my lawn...), but I hope that people with a shred of technical awareness can understand the scariness of that approach. Compound it with the fact that Hillary and her attorneys alone decided what emails were handed over to the investigators, plus whatever they managed to find on their own. A statistical look at the released emails shows a very likely pattern of hiding, but again, nothing to see here.

That last part should strike a nerve too. The simple fact is that it is not up to a person to decide that they control the public record, and it was proven by the FBI that she lied and did not hand over all of the work emails because they found more through their own investigations, yet she has been outspoken and signed documents claiming that she turned over all work emails. That's also a crime. Oh, and the email server was used earlier than she's on the record claiming to have used it.

Yet, somehow, "no prosecutor" would prosecute this case. It probably had nothing to do with Bill Clinton meeting up with Attorney General Lynch days before the announcement.

The only thing that we saw from this is that Hillary Clinton is truly above the law. And apparently we all can be too, if we just decide to delete everything before we hand it over and then call everyone a liar as they slowly find evidence of other information. If you're lucky, they won't be able to find enough to prove you wrong (and call you on obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence). Or, as other conspiracies (true or not) have shown, just take a hammer to the hard drive and say "oops".

Much of the Bush White House used email addresses on Bush's private gwb43.com server. This was originally set up by Rove and Dubya to coordinate the perfectly legal (and thus, by definition, legitimate) firing of eight Prosecutors who went after corrupt Republicans, and was designed to be FOIA and Records request immune. It auto-deleted all emails after a period of time.

While it's hard to find direct evidence of the server Powell used, he has admitted that a) he used a private address and b) he has no copies of the emails. He claims he never used it to discuss classified info, but that's more then a wee bit unlikely as much info is considered classified by somebody, and it's impossible to verify because all of them are gone. Nonetheless nonetheless he did have some classified info sent to his email address. Many of the Hillary emails that were declared Classified after the fact would be impossible to find for Powell or Rice because they were discussions with people who did not have state.gov email addresses because at the time the whole state.gov email system was just being set up.

FACT: its NOT clear that she broke any law. If it were "clear" there would be charges, and thereafter most likely a conviction. Our litmus test for such things is the court system, and the fact that nobody has even bothered to submit all this to it tells you unequivocally that there's no good case for an illegal action on her part here.

Now that I've been proven right, I'll be waiting here in this lonely empty room for everyone posting on this thread to come admit it. Fortunately, I have lots of books to occupy my time while waiting...

You are totally right, she learned the tactic (which was illegal when she entered office) from the requirements placed on the Bush administration by the Democrats in order to separate out political party email traffic from the White House email traffic. Or did you somehow think that the Bush White House ran their own email server for the hell of it?

http://insider.foxnews.com/201...

But of course, running an official email, and a separate email for political party email is required by law, so I guess it totally explains why Hillary ran all her email through a private server and didn't provide anything for the FOIA until 2 years later while under congressional subpoena for the records. Then she has the gall to delete half the email claiming they were private.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

Which a court has ruled that she is wrong, all the emails are subject to FOIA. So, that means that she wiped official records...with a rag or something...

versus the abuses that I'm already seeing from Comcast et al?

Comcast is in business for some decades now — and people have been complaining about its "abuses" for just as long. Maybe, that's because its CEO plays golf with the President — and is unlikely to suffer much from President-appointed FCC commissioners.

Or, maybe, because monopolies will always find a way of convincing the regulator, their ways and practices are "reasonable" — and TFA describes just such a case.

Monopolies suck and the regulations help the incumbents fend off challengers...

the Republican party has become so absolutely knee-jerk dogmatic

Yeah? Try mocking "gay marriage" in the presence of Democrats...

k. http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340

(inb4 some genius accuses Politico of being right wing...)

There's a huge difference between Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton: by the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, email had become the standard way to do things, there was an email system all set up for her, and there were regulations requiring her to use the official email system unless she had a good reason to do something else (and to routinely use her own email system required approval she never asked for and never got).

Colin Powell says he didn't send or receive classified information. Recently, a grand total of two emails that were sent to him were "retroactively classified" (to use Hillary Clinton's term). Neither of the two were classified "Secret" or above. In comparison, of Hillary Clinton's known emails, over 2100 contain classified information, 65 "Secret", 22 "Top Secret" (source)

In 2005, after Colin Powell but before Hillary Clinton, rules were developed over use of email. Colin Powell couldn't have broken them as they were put together after he was already gone, but Hillary Clinton absolutely broke them. She avoided using an official account set up for her to use, and went to great lengths to continue to use it rather than the official one. And she was required to take a training course every year about how to properly keep secrets, but there is no evidence she did so. She took the class once right after she got the job and then never took the class again.

And of course, even if Colin Powell was guilty of the exact same crimes as Hillary Clinton, that still wouldn't excuse her.

And it's obvious to anyone with common sense what her motive was: she wanted to control access to her emails. Some of her email could be embarrassing if someone read it (after filing an FOIA request) so she wanted to make sure there were no official copies of anything she didn't like. She committed conspiracy to avoid keeping Federal records that she was legally required to keep.

If you are willing to excuse Hillary Clinton for this kind of egregious lawbreaking, then you will have no moral right to complain later when President Trump does something just as bad. We're geeks here in ./ and we understand well enough to damn well know why what she did was stupid as well as illegal and wrong. Don't give her a pass for immoral behavior just because she is on your side. If you have to hold your nose and vote for her because you really really just can't even Trump, then fine and dandy, but just admit it to yourself: you would be voting for someone willing to break the law and lie about it (as proven by this email controversy).

http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-colin-powells-emails-are-not-like-hillarys/article/2000949

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/10/the-misleading-democratic-spin-on-hillary-clintons-emails/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/02/05/no-the-powell-and-condi-classified-emails-story-is-not-a-gamechanger-n2114842

The EU is picky on whom it chooses to haul into kangaroo court. Google or Microsoft bashing keeps the politicians and judges in office because anti-American xenophobia sells there. Same reason why a certain candidate does so well in the US. Point a finger at "THEM", blame said group for problems?, and enjoy your new office.

You will never see the EU slap Apple's hand.

Ok, like Crooked Hillary!, her lack of accomplishments outside of marrying Bill, and her blaming EVUL RETHUGLICANS!!! for all her failures?

You know, like how the Democrats blocked tying gun sales to the no-fly list that included due-process protections because it didn't fit the Democrat grandstanding on gun control?

Meanwhile, the GOP plan, written primarily by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), pushes more resources to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System but doesn’t expand the universe of mandated background checks. His measure would also revise legal definitions on who is banned from owning a gun due to mental-health concerns. It also was blocked in the Senate, 53-47, rejected by nearly all Democrats

Our system is designed to deal with bad presidents, we have the legislative and judicial branches to stop them if they try to do anything truly terrible.

Yes, except for this:
http://www.politico.com/magazi...

I've always viewed the entire net neutrality debate as a (hopefully) temporary sideshow while/until we fix the larger problem of lack of competition. The only reason (e.g.) Comcast is able to pull the shenanigans that they are is because we can't go anywhere else.

The problem is, such regulation impedes competition — the more "reasonable regulations", that the governments — Federal and lesser alike — throw at the ISPs, the harder it is to unseat the incumbents. Comcast CEO plays golf with Obama — do you suppose, Obama-appointed FCC-commissioner(s) will be equally fair to Comcast and a challenger?

The less free the market — and government officials deciding, what the owner can do with his cables, is unquestionably reducing freedom — the harder it is for Capitalism's usual forces to work their magic.

1. The Democrat-founded KKK did NOT endorse Trump.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

Only the sort of stupid people who get their news from Comedy Central and SNL and therefore think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house

https://youtu.be/iGSJCDw3ZBw

Blame Hillary and her "Strategic Patience" policy, re: NK.

Hillary's North Korea problem

As secretary of State, Clinton oversaw a hands-off approach to North Korea. Under a policy called "strategic patience," the Obama administration refused to offer any new incentives to Pyongyang to induce it to return to nuclear-disarmament talks following the collapse of an attempted deal at the end of the Bush term. The North Koreans were infuriated, and more nuclear and missile tests ensued, along with open hostilities between North and South Korea in 2010.

“In my view, ‘strategic patience’ was a polite term for sitting back and watching while North Korea continued to build up its nuclear weapons program,” said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear non-proliferation expert at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

If in the future Stephen Hawking has his science proven wrong is he then considered ignorant? Isaac Newton was proven wrong, he was ignorant. Did anyone prove Trump wrong? Or is it just opinion that doesn't have scientific merit?

Isaac Newton was so close to "right" that we still use Newton's equations instead of Einstein's 100 years after Einstein proved Newton wrong. Hawking is probably "wrong" in a similar way.

OTOH, Trump has proved himself wrong each time he has contradicted himself. If someone emits a pair of contradictory statements, then one of the pair must be false, and in most of Trump's cases, there's no room for "so close to right." So how often has Trump emitted contradictory pairs? See this list. I know you may disagree with the politics of the source, but if Trump made those statements, then Trump is wrong - in a big way - hundreds of times.

There are two different versions of list-pimping that are going on regarding e-mail lists:

It can be sold/rented for a fixed amount ($X).
OR
It can be sold/rented for a fixed percentage of the incoming donations (Y%).

An older article on Politico (Dec 2015) details the issue, where the candidate on the e-mail may not receive any of the money being donated.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

It's a darn awful shame I never reveal my full hand when discussing thing such as these, it makes it far more fun later when the less informed opt to challenge me.

She often used the phone.

Phones, plural... and the iPad.

Anyhow, until somebody finds direct evidence of deletion, it's hearsay. Gaps are only curiosities, NOT direct evidence. You don't seem to know the diff.

It is acknowledged, a block of ~31,000 emails which Hillary directed to be deleted which she deemed as 'personal'. It is also acknowledged that she turned over some 55,000 pages of emails were turned over in printed form which were deemed 'work related'.

Even if we ignore the multiple demonstrably false statement she has made with regards to her server usage (most of which you ignored out right, and one you were wrong on (more on that later))... we need to trust that she was honest and turned over all work related emails.

Did she?

Reports say no:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

At the very least, that's perjury given she certified that she had turned over everything... worse if the FBI's recovery attempts turn up additional work related emails which she failed to turn over... something you or I don't have access to, but that available info is supportive of and you have federal felony charges under the Federal Records Act.

Are you that confident in your use of the delete key? I'm not when 10 years per document is the potential result.

There's been no direct evidence that her server was actually hacked during her tenure. Sorta kinda looked like is still sorta kinda. (Could have simply been a DOS or mass spam attack, based on some of the symptoms I've read about.)

Knowing for 100% sure that they were successfully hacked is not a requirement, only that it *may* have happened. Given the emails reported by the IG, again we see Clinton and her team were negligent with regards to not reporting the potential incident.

Re satellite photos, the articles from reliable sources merely say that information "obtained FROM satellite photos may have made it's way" into her emails. It's indirect and speculative.

Reliable sources not cited... seems to be a trend with you.

How much does being a Clinton shill pay? Because if you actually read up on the subject you'd know this was false, even a year ago.

Most seriously, the inspector general assessed that Clinton’s emails included information that was highly classified—yet mislabeled as unclassified. Worse, the information in question should have been classified up to the level of “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN,” according to the inspector general’s report.

And that's just an early version of the report. Again, clearly you haven't read this weeks.

I guess I don't have common sense then.

Clearly not, you read as if you've spend quite a bit of time as an unsuccessful defense attorney, ie "isn't it perfectly PLAUSIBLE that my client was on the planet Mars at the time of the shooting?".

I've read her explanation of the "remove headers" event several times and it's a perfectly PLAUSIBLE explanation. We in the public don't have the actual "results" of that changed version yet, so I will give her the benefit of the doubt until it's directly proven she did someth

It's a darn awful shame I never reveal my full hand when discussing thing such as these, it makes it far more fun later when the less informed opt to challenge me.

She often used the phone.

Phones, plural... and the iPad.

Anyhow, until somebody finds direct evidence of deletion, it's hearsay. Gaps are only curiosities, NOT direct evidence. You don't seem to know the diff.

It is acknowledged, a block of ~31,000 emails which Hillary directed to be deleted which she deemed as 'personal'. It is also acknowledged that she turned over some 55,000 pages of emails were turned over in printed form which were deemed 'work related'.

Even if we ignore the multiple demonstrably false statement she has made with regards to her server usage (most of which you ignored out right, and one you were wrong on (more on that later))... we need to trust that she was honest and turned over all work related emails.

Did she?

Reports say no:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

At the very least, that's perjury given she certified that she had turned over everything... worse if the FBI's recovery attempts turn up additional work related emails which she failed to turn over... something you or I don't have access to, but that available info is supportive of and you have federal felony charges under the Federal Records Act.

Are you that confident in your use of the delete key? I'm not when 10 years per document is the potential result.

There's been no direct evidence that her server was actually hacked during her tenure. Sorta kinda looked like is still sorta kinda. (Could have simply been a DOS or mass spam attack, based on some of the symptoms I've read about.)

Knowing for 100% sure that they were successfully hacked is not a requirement, only that it *may* have happened. Given the emails reported by the IG, again we see Clinton and her team were negligent with regards to not reporting the potential incident.

Re satellite photos, the articles from reliable sources merely say that information "obtained FROM satellite photos may have made it's way" into her emails. It's indirect and speculative.

Reliable sources not cited... seems to be a trend with you.

How much does being a Clinton shill pay? Because if you actually read up on the subject you'd know this was false, even a year ago.

Most seriously, the inspector general assessed that Clinton’s emails included information that was highly classified—yet mislabeled as unclassified. Worse, the information in question should have been classified up to the level of “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN,” according to the inspector general’s report.

And that's just an early version of the report. Again, clearly you haven't read this weeks.

I guess I don't have common sense then.

Clearly not, you read as if you've spend quite a bit of time as an unsuccessful defense attorney, ie "isn't it perfectly PLAUSIBLE that my client was on the planet Mars at the time of the shooting?".

I've read her explanation of the "remove headers" event several times and it's a perfectly PLAUSIBLE explanation. We in the public don't have the actual "results" of that changed version yet, so I will give her the benefit of the doubt until it's directly proven she did someth

The 9 biggest revelations in the State IG report on Clinton's emails

More like highlights since most of it has been known for months. There were a couple interesting new things though.

8. The server was briefly shut down over hacking concerns

This warrants more investigation. I'm curious what "someone was trying to hack us" actually means. Any thing facing the Internet is under constant attack, assuming the person knew what they were talking about I'm curious what made this attempt more serious.

9. Clinton and her staffers worried about being hacked but didn't report to security personnel
On May 13, 2011, the IG report states that "two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was 'hacking into her email' after she received an email with a suspicious link."

Hours after that discussion, an email William Burns, the then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, appeared in Clinton's inbox, carrying a link to a suspect URL and nothing else in the message.

Presumably this got dropped when someone who understood computers told them that either Burns or someone who had them both as contacts caught a virus. It's a bit of a concern if they didn't bring it up with Burns though.

Honestly my opinion remains largely unchanged. Clinton is an old person who didn't really understand email or the security issues around it, she may have thought she was fine or she was bending the rules though I'm not convinced she thought it was really illegal and there doesn't seem to any evidence of Clinton being made aware this was a serious issue.

There should have been someone around her who had both the knowledge to realize she was seriously screwing up and the a position where they felt comfortable in telling her that.

It's a hit on her general competence and ability to surround herself with a good team, but I don't see it as deserving of jail time.

Why Clintonâ(TM)s email problems are here to stay

Sorry for the repeated politico.com links. No affiliation, but I've reading my political news there lately. If you want to preserve your sanity, don't read the comments at that site.

The 9 biggest revelations in the State IG report on Clinton's emails

If you Google Zuckerberg, liberal, you will find several articles evidencing that he is a liberal. Your conservative friends should give you crap for this...for years. Here is one:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

The sad thing is, this got modded up to a 3 in the first place.

and why all the fire and brimstone of private email server usage when they themselves are doing the same thing? oh, yeah, the old smoke and mirrors trick. same thing goes for the Facebook news slant when they have the 24 hour tea party propaganda machine Faux News. i love hypocrisy.

You do know that government employees are not allowed to use government email for personal purposes, right? The intent there is to prevent the use of taxpayer-provided resources for campaign fund-raising efforts. And the intent of the rules against using non-government email for government business is to provide accountability and, in the case of sensitive information, a DoD-audited security environment. And yes, I know that a DoD-audited security environment is not proof against being hacked.Thing is, if you use the system and the information is compromised, you're not accountable; if you don't use the system, you're accountable even if the information isn't compromised.

Hillary used non-government email for everything. She did not use government email for anything. Given her position as Secretary of State, it is impossible that some of the traffic handled by her personal server was not classified Secret or Top Secret, whether or not it was marked as such (if this concept confuses you, google "born classified"). I believe that much has already been established by the FBI investigation. Oops, I mean, by the FBI "security inquiry".

The wording on your last sentence is slightly wrong enough to ensure that pedants will come out and tell you you're flat out wrong without acknowledging that the principle was right. Hillary and Powell used private email systems. Clinton, however, owned her own server while Powell didn't (so technically Powell didn't "have" his "own" private email server.)

But certainly neither used a government supplied email system, which is the point you were trying to make.

Rice, I believe, didn't actually use email to conduct official business.

Information on Powell here. Warning, Politico link. Doesn't tell us which email service Powell used, so until proven otherwise we have to assume Hotmail, because hilarious.

Even their director admitted there's "scant" evidence.

Citation? Because that's not the news making it's way around the internet today, as he did just shoot a hole in the talking points of the Clinton campaign today:

Clinton and her team have made a point of not describing the FBI's work as an "investigation," but alternately as a "security review" or "security inquiry." They've also noted that the issue was referred to the FBI not as a criminal matter but as an intelligence breach.

However, in response to a question Wednesday, Comey said he wasn't familiar with the term "security inquiry" that Clinton and her aides have used. The FBI chief said he considers the work agents are doing to be an "investigation."

"It's in our name. I'm not familiar with the term 'security inquiry','" the director said.

That doesn't sound like he said 'scant' evidence (of which there is plenty under a gross negligence standard for the lowest charge), even when taken with the last line of the article:

However, he passed up the chance to repeat a reporter's characterization of it as a "criminal" probe.

If it wasn't a criminal probe, why would you give immunity to a key staffer?

State Department claims it can't find any Pagliano email

Not deleting stuff would be nice.

Here's a few, for those who are not just trolling but are actually curious what she's accomplished over the years.

Trump will need 70% of the white male vote to win the election without votes from every other voting bloc that he so far had managed to alienate. Not happening.

The overwhelming fact about American general elections right now is that white male voters just aren't as powerful as they used to be. In 1980, when the electorate looked very different than it does today, Ronald Reagan cruised to an easy victory by winning 63 percent of white males, according to exit polls. In 1988, George H.W. Bush took 63 percent of that group in his rout of Michael Dukakis. By 2004, however, winning 62 percent of white men barely got George W. Bush past John Kerry in a squeaker. And eight years later, Romney won 62 percent of white men—and lost to Barack Obama by 3.5 million votes.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699

It doesn't help that 70% of women don't like him either.

Donald Trump's image among U.S. women tilts strongly negative, with 70% of women holding an unfavorable opinion and 23% a favorable opinion of the Republican front-runner in March. Trump's unfavorable rating among women has been high since Gallup began tracking it last July, but after rising slightly last fall, it has increased even further since January.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190403/seven-women-unfavorable-opinion-trump.aspx

Sure, but with Web 3.0, you don't ask for permission or worry about regulations, and do whatever you want, no matter how harmful.
It's the Eric Cartman school of business, and it seems to be very popular these days.

It's the "Uber guide to evading pesky governmental regulation" approach - you just buy "activists" and lobby local governments to keep the hounds at bay until your service gains critical mass and can't be legislated away.
http://www.politico.com/story/...

Does corruption by any other name stink as strongly?

The last war and/or global economy crisis that truely leveled the playing field is roughly 70 years - two full generations - ago. The market is completely staked out and capital sucktion is rampant. For millenials the game has been rigged from the beginning.

The efficiency of capitalism as we now it continues to decline. Any millenial feels this instictively. To be honest, I have grown more sceptical myself throughout the decades.

To anybody with a brain to think capitalism as we know it has run it's course. When even billionaires, or especially them, start calling it out, you can be sure that your strange feeling somethings wrong is spot on.

My 0.02 Euros.

We typically see negative knee-jerk reactions here when the idea of President Trump is brought up, but it turns out that President Trump has exactly what the United States of America needs in a leader today.

Charles Koch is on record that Hillary Clinton might be preferable than any of the Republican candidates for president.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/charles-koch-hillary-clinton-republican-white-house-222349

Yes but the reason Koch would prefer another President Clinton over a President Trump is NOT the same reason you or I would.

Spoiler: The Koch brothers want politicians they can buy.

We typically see negative knee-jerk reactions here when the idea of President Trump is brought up, but it turns out that President Trump has exactly what the United States of America needs in a leader today.

Charles Koch is on record that Hillary Clinton might be preferable than any of the Republican candidates for president.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/charles-koch-hillary-clinton-republican-white-house-222349

You thank Obama for slowing the recovery?

No. I blamed the Republicans for slowing the recovery. In fact, the Party of No has made Obama one of the most powerful presidents in peace time.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/barack-obama-gop-most-powerful-213814

Impeaching Trump after he gets sworn into office is a real possibility.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-impeachment-213817

Look! Squirrel!!!!

(Meanwhile, Hillary! runs an illegal email server with classified data (whether it's marked or not is irrelevant) on it that likely blew the cover of actual CIA agents.)

Impeaching Trump after he gets sworn into office is a real possibility.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-impeachment-213817

My wife did object to not being subject to the draft, FWIW, although I didn't observe any other woman doing so.

She should check and see if there's a prize for being the first one to do so. As for being over in 1971:

U.S. military draft ends, Jan. 27, 1973

On the day in 1973, as the Vietnam War drew to a close, the Selective Service announced that there would be no further draft calls. The decision came several months after President Richard M. Nixon had easily won reelection, running against Democratic Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota, an outspoken opponent of the war.

In the 1968 presidential campaign, Nixon had promised to end the draft. During his time out of office, the GOP nominee had become interested in the prospect of an all-volunteer force. Nixon was influenced by Martin Anderson, an associate professor at Columbia University.

Nixon thought ending the draft could be an effective political weapon against the burgeoning anti-war movement. He believed middle-class youths would lose interest in protesting the war once it became clear that they would not have to fight, and possibly die, in Vietnam.

The Administration may have failed to bring America's gasoline prices to the European levels. But the promise to bankrupt the coal-industry is coming fulfilled.

Maybe, he sincerely believes, coal is a poison and should go away. But it is far more likely, that he — or some of his more pragmatic allies in the party — are simply scheming to buy the companies for pennies on the dollar and then politically rehabilitate the fuel with the help of politicians grateful for their donations. And even ask taxpayers for assistance. Seriously, wouldn't Department of Energy be happy to issue grants and low-interest loans to something with "Green Coal" or "Clear Coal" on the first page of their brochure?

the Obama administration's environmental regulations raised operational costs

As the old adage goes:

1. If it moves, tax it.
2. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
3. When it stops moving, subsidize it.

The little scheme involves immense PROFIT to the well-connected cronies, who snatch the struggling businesses between the 2nd and the 3rd step.

The Verizon CEO ripped Bernie in a FB post, about his "contemptible" platform of trying to make business decisions into a moral issue. Probably the wrong response at the wrong time.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Bernie needs more endorsements like this.

If and asshole like that is bashing Bernie, he's doing a good job.

The Verizon CEO ripped Bernie in a FB post, about his "contemptible" platform of trying to make business decisions into a moral issue. Probably the wrong response at the wrong time.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...