Slashdot Mirror

In 2007, when Congress asked the Bush administration for emails surrounding the firing of eights U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales revealed that many of the emails requested could not be produced because they were sent on a non-government email server. The officials had used the private domain gwb43.com, a server run by the Republican National Committee. Two years later, it was revealed that potentially 22 million emails were deleted.

Where to start?

OK, how about we start with the firing of eights U.S. attorneys? - They were political appointees, and they served at the pleasure of the President.

Now, what about many of the emails requested could not be produced because they were sent on a non-government email server? They were discussing political appointees on a private server explicitly created to ensure that political business was kept off government servers, AKA to comply with federal law, not to avoid it. (Do Democrats conduct Democrat party business on government servers? No, to do so would be a crime,)

And finally, what about Two years later, it was revealed that potentially 22 million emails were deleted And then, a few months later all the "missing" emails were found with the help of federal investigators, experts from Microsoft, and the Republican party - all 22 million of them.

Not really the same thing, not really a problem - but hey, it helps the low-information Democrat voters feel good about their criminal politicians. Here's a link that might help you.

Uh yeah, you paid into it for a purpose, you're entitled to get that back.

And who again promised you this entitlement? Weren't me.

The key problem here is that many people are taking out several times what they put in.

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 - more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

People keep saying this, but they have no reason to believe it. You only get prosecuted in a case like this, if they can show that you had intent to trade national secrets.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

https://www.marinecorpstimes.c...

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

I haven't seen any evidence that the wiping was done during the email investigation; do you have a citation that says otherwise?

It wasn't done during the FBI investigation, but it seems to have been done after the State Department requested her emails pursuant to an investigation by the House about Benghazi.

According to Clinton's lawyer, the emails must have been deleted sometime between December 5, 2014 and March 27, 2015. That article is from last year, so perhaps they've managed to narrow the window further.

As discussed in the New York Times timeline on the investigation, the select committee in the House to investigate Benghazi was formed in May 2014 and began negotiating with Clinton in July 2014 to obtain all of her emails. The State Department turned over "a handful of emails from Mrs. Clinton, all from her private account" in August 2014, and the House committee requested the remainder of the emails. As noted in the Politifact story above, Clinton's lawyer said the "review" of Clinton's emails to separate personal correspondence, etc. happened in fall of 2014. Clinton apparently finally turned over (what she claimed to be) the remainder to the State Department in December (almost two years after leaving office), after which she deleted the rest. On March 10, 2015, the New York Times reported that Clinton had deleted 32,000 emails. After finding classified information, the FBI began its investigation in July 2015.

So, yes, the emails were deleted before the FBI investigation began. But they were deleted after repeated requests to turn over all her correspondence by the House committee.

Personally, I have my doubts that there was some sort of "evil memo" smoking gun to be found in this mass of stuff, but the fact is that the server was wiped AFTER an investigation (at that time limited to Benghazi) and official government request for all her email happened. It at least has to go in the "somewhat shady" category that Clinton only gave paper copies of emails and wiped the server clean at this point. (Why they were delivered on 55,000 pages of paper is still unclear, but it would have potentially erased a lot of metadata -- the redigitized email I've seen had no detailed headers. Oh, and the redigitization process required more than 2400 man-hours of work.)

It seems more likely (to me) that if there were anything "shady" going it, it was probably to delete personal correspondence -- rather than State Department business -- that would make her look really bad if it ever got out. But I guess we'll never know.

It looks like a Russian operative infiltrated the Trump campaign and "worked behind the scenes to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces".

It looks like a Russian operative infiltrated the Trump campaign and "worked behind the scenes to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces".

Conservative spinners keep spinning the "What difference does it make" comment. Here's more detail and quotes:

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

My interpretation was that she was saying a category classification of "terror" versus "non-terror" was a premature and/or irrelevant question JUST right after the attacks had taken place. The terror/protest dichotomy was something the news cycle created, and is possibly useless (especially being it was likely a combination of both: a smaller plan expanded by the existence of protesters).

But, pundits frame it as a summary dismissal of the question.

Do these satellites see into basements to find the permanently unemployed underclass of poor people who lost their jobs as soon as Obama was elected and have been unable to find work since?

You might want to check your timeline. Obama took office at the end of January, 2009. There were a million jobs lost in September and October of 2008, before the election took place.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/0...

Or maybe you're suggesting that he destroyed the economy before he became president. Somehow. Sort of like how Rudy Guiliani says there were no terrorist attacks on US soil until Obama took office.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

How do you know the problem is nonexistent if nobody has to show any ID? After every national election there are reports of counties that lost votes, others that banned one party from watching the counting, and others that have more votes than they do citizens.

Well, you see, one thing that would happen is that people would show up at the ballot box, and ask for a ballot, based on their name, and sooner or later, somebody would create a conflict. Right? And no, your reports are grossly mistaken.

Besides, you're suggesting a very inefficient method of corrupting an election. That would involve a lot more people. Why would anyone do that, when they could just corrupt the elections officials? You know the ones you complain about losing votes.

Showing ID is one way to have more fair elections, and anyone against it obviously has the agenda that NOT showing IDs will benefit their party.

Or requiring ID is obviously part of an agenda that will benefit their party, and who cares about it being fair?

There's a reason why gun licenses are ok, but college ID wasn't. It wasn't to make elections more fair.

Let’s set the facts straight.

1: A CEO’s role (in a publicly traded firm) is to MAKE MONEY.. Jobs just happen to be incidental to that. (ie: we need to expand, and we can’t automate everything.. or the cost to automate would be too high, so we hire people... but if we can get them cheaper, lets do so.. which includes H1B’s, chopping salaries as much as possible, and in the case of Donald.. constant law suits and stiffing those he has a financial obligation to). The president is beholden to the ENTIRE country.. both the big and the small.. and in some cases, can't just abort/reverse course on the military/economic actions of his predecessors.

I’m not trying to sway anything here, but lets be realistic.. its not like the clock resets when a new president enters the office.. and almost NO president has ever “immediately reversed course” from an action of his predecessor.. most roll with the punches, work around it, or let it expire/laps

2: A CEO has (as much as Labor/OSHA laws and other legal/industry rules allow) total control over the a wide number of factors.. however they seldom have direct control over their customers choosing their business.. they can market/advertise/lobby.. but at the of the day, they are beholden to a customer that can be fickle. The president has, in the actual world, very little power.. he can suggest, propose, pen, even push bills through executive order.. but ultimately its going to come down to the Senate and Congress (and in the case of executive order, Judicial review on even if he CAN do that) So the president in most cases is a figure head.. or the king in chess, the most critical piece, but certainly NOT the most powerful.

Now on to your "sucking up to Terrorist Bill Ayers" comment. Well, that's just not even remotely true and certainly shows a lack of reading/wanting to understand the facts. So I would suggest some homework. Perhaps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and http://www.factcheck.org/2008/... and even http://www.snopes.com/politics....

And finally the whole "Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright", again, I refer you to some homework: http://www.politifact.com/pund..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The problem is that government is absolutely the worst group to be distributing money like this. There is no oversight so any such government agency would be rife with fraud.

Do you have a citation for this, or is it just the usual anti-government religion? Because most charities have a lot less oversight than governments.

Folks have done a lot of studies on welfare, medicare/medicaid, and unemployment fraud. Many of the studies were funded by people who really want to prove that governments are inefficient. Most of the studies show very low fraud rates (low single digit percents, like 2%). The exception is that Medicare has a fairly high fraud rate, but that's mostly doctors defrauding the system for more payments, not the poor folks or government officials. Here is one story about this.

But maybe you have a peer-reviewed study that shows that governmental aid for the poor is "rife with fraud"?

The republicans must be up in arms over this ruling, not to mention these anti-free enterprise laws passed by democratic state legislatures. Right?

And those Democrats! Why - we've even got a Democratic president, for gosh's sake. What does he say?

I'll bet if the Democrats and Republicans wanted to, they could pass a law that would have bipartisan support, and then the Democratic president could sign it into office.

Hah hah hah! I'm kidding.

Obama (the Democrat in charge) gave the telecoms immunity in return for campaign donations.

There's no reason to believe that he wouldn't veto the bill in return for more campaign donations... to Hillary, for instance.

You mean voter fraud like this? Or this? Or this?

Since you say that voter fraud is "well known" and "documented every goddamn election", perhaps you can share some of these documented cases that have been investigated and found to be true and describe the prison sentences the criminals who committed this fraud received.

But anyway, if you wanted to steal an election, I don't think voter impersonation would be the way to do it. Attacking electronic voting machines that have lax, minimal, or no security would probably be less risky and harder to prove if you attacked whatever logging mechanism was present.

We got it a couple years back and I refused any information beyond what the regular census requires. I got a phone call where I explained I didn't trust them to secure my information. So far, I haven't been prosecuted for it, nor have I heard back from them. Came down to it, I'd be okay with being the test case.

Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews?

Yes I do. And the Pulitzer-Prize-winning site Politifact confirms the extent of his habitual lying.

Here's politifact dilligently checking Jeff Sessions' comment "there are about 350,000 people who succeed in crossing our borders illegally each year,".

[politifact:] The number of immigrants illegally in the country is staying the same or getting smaller. We rate Sessions’ statement False.

Let's go see what Wikipedia says about illegal immigration:

[DHS, from Wikipedia] Numbers of new illegal immigrants per year crossing the border illegally are not directly countable, and are estimated from the number who are caught trying. For FY 2015, DHS reported 337,117 apprehensions. [3] Using an estimated catch rate of 33%, the number crossing without detection would be 510,000 per year (337,000 / 0.67).

So, he's basically citing DHS numbers and being conservative, yet Politifact determined it was "false".

Additionally, note that the previous paragraph is not in the current version of the Wikipedia article, it was removed *after* Sessions' speech!

I took the trouble to look at the edit history right after the speech (wondering myself how many illegals come into this country each year), and noted that the page had not been substantially edited in over a month, and that paragraph had been there for quite a long time.

So I don't really see Politifact as a neutral observer any more.

I mean, they didn't even *bother* to look at Wikipedia pages that are available when they write their results!

What other things do they get wrong, and do they have a hidden agenda?

Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews?

Yes I do. And the Pulitzer-Prize-winning site Politifact confirms the extent of his habitual lying.

(And for comparison, you can see the record at Politifact for Hillary.)

I can't speak to "hatred", because that requires knowing what Trump is feeling, which is a superpower I do not have.

However, Trump's "general bad mouthing" is legendary, and it's puzzling how self-destructive he allows himself to be as he continues to inexplicably bad-mouth people. The latest example is his flamboyant bad-mouthing of Mr. and Mrs. Khan, which has been widely disavowed by many of his fellow Republicans in the past few days. Other particularly egregious examples include his bad-mouthing of the war service of John McCain, and his comments against Judge Curiel, which were called a "textbook definition of racism" by Republican Paul Ryan.

So, yes, I do remember his extensive bad-mouthing of many people over the past 9 months or so. Thanks for asking.

Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews?

Yes I do. And the Pulitzer-Prize-winning site Politifact confirms the extent of his habitual lying.

(And for comparison, you can see the record at Politifact for Hillary.)

I can't speak to "hatred", because that requires knowing what Trump is feeling, which is a superpower I do not have.

However, Trump's "general bad mouthing" is legendary, and it's puzzling how self-destructive he allows himself to be as he continues to inexplicably bad-mouth people. The latest example is his flamboyant bad-mouthing of Mr. and Mrs. Khan, which has been widely disavowed by many of his fellow Republicans in the past few days. Other particularly egregious examples include his bad-mouthing of the war service of John McCain, and his comments against Judge Curiel, which were called a "textbook definition of racism" by Republican Paul Ryan.

So, yes, I do remember his extensive bad-mouthing of many people over the past 9 months or so. Thanks for asking.

Exactly. The attack machine on Hilary has failed. They can't make anthing stick, and they've tried forever. Just as Ken Starr wasted millions virtually proving Bill innocent (no, getting him to lie about a totally unrelated personal matter doesn't count) they can't find anything on Hilary who is one of the most truthful politicians we've got.
  http://www.politifact.com/pers...
yes, truth has a liberal bias.

By the way, Ken Starr just resigned his position for covering up rape. Too bad all that moral outrage over Clinton was nonsense.

Have you looked at Trump's track record for truthiness (and thanks Colbert)? Clinton actually lies a lot less, which is terrifying.

You mean besides the part where the Benghazi embassy requested extra security and she along with her underlings said there wasn't any money for it? But they could come up with the money for electric car chargers for the embassies in Europe?

WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?

I'm not even sure if they were making a tradeoff, there's an actual security budget which suggests the electric car chargers came from a completely different pool of money than security. (though I could see a valid security argument for the chargers)

Second-hand cigarette smoke has not reliably been shown to increase cancer risk or cause respiratory damage to healthy individuals even when those individuals are children raised in smoker households.

I'm no scientist, but whenlots of scientists say something sciencey, and statisticians back them up, I tend to believe it, even if it's something I wish were untrue. You may make different choices. (I picked that link because I've been using Politifact a lot the last few months and while I sometimes disagree with their results I like that they explain their process and carefully list their sources.)

The secondhand smoke numbers are not as solid as, say, measurements of gravity; it's a very hard thing to measure directly, so the studies are mostly doing indirect statistical analyses. So it's always possible that there is another factor there that we are overlooking. But the vast preponderance of evidence points one way, and it's not the way you say it does.

All reports I've heard said the deletions occurred after the State Department requested the emails: http://www.politifact.com/pund...

It does not appear you felt the need to read the page you linked to. It wasn't merely that they were deleted after the request, they were deleted after fulfilling the request. In other words the state department had them before they were deleted. If the state department did not retain the emails from a former employee, that is a different matter than what you allege here.

she burned the emails as soon as she possibly good

Burned them to where? Optical media somewhere? Sure, she's a bit on the older side for a presidential candidate but I'm pretty sure her email server doesn't run directly on fire.

Yeah, people mass scour/delete 30,000 emails on a regular basis

You're trying to read deeper into that statement than where it actually goes. Being as you couldn't be bothered to read the piece you linked to earlier enough to realize that it does not support your allegation, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this misread either.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the emails were lost after the subpoena was issued.

THAT's your standard of guilt? That's like the crackhead desperately flushing the drugs down the toilet with the cops knocking at the door. All reports I've heard said the deletions occurred after the State Department requested the emails: http://www.politifact.com/pund...

She knew she was under investigation, and she burned the emails as soon as she possibly good before anybody could question what she believed were the only relevant emails. What she did screamed guilt. Even her statement was sketchy as hell (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html):

I turned over everything I was obligated to turn over. And then I moved on,â Clinton told Keilar on Tuesday. âoePeople delete their personal emails, their work-related emails, whatever emails they have on a regular basis. I turned over everything that I could imagine.â

Yeah, people mass scour/delete 30,000 emails on a regular basis -- right. I would like to see some kind of historical account showing she's engaged in this behavior in the past. Or even since. I'd bet a dime to a donut she hasn't deleted shit in the past (if she did, how would she accrue tens of thousasnds of emails?)

to me, unless you can show the integrity of the original messages was compromised, then the "who did it" does not matter as much as "what the emails say".

now, if the messages were altered to promote an agenda, I agree with the Hillary Camp.

Imagine how much dirt they would have found if they'd hacked and dumped some of Trump's emails. Only an amateur has to lie to smear an opponent.

...

So what kind or rank amateur lies about why she got her name?

Clinton "confessed that her mother, Dorothy Rodham, had read an article about the intrepid Edmund Hillary, a one-time beekeeper who had taken to mountain climbing, when she was pregnant with her daughter in 1947 and liked the name," the Times wrote. " ‘It had two l's, which is how she thought she was supposed to spell Hillary,’ Mrs. Clinton told reporters after the brief meeting on the tarmac, minutes before her Air Force jet flew past the peak of Everest itself. ‘So when I was born, she called me Hillary, and she always told me it's because of Sir Edmund Hillary.’ "

...

Within a few years, though, the story attracted some attention on the Internet when someone realized a key discrepancy -- the mountain climber achieved worldwide fame six years after Clinton was born.

You really think THAT is more qualified to be President?

What's she done, besides marry Bill? (And I'm beginning to think she lied about that, too.)

And no, you can't count slut-shaming the multitude of women who've accused her husband of sexual harassment and even rape.

Can you imagine your outrage if Roger Ailes had tried slut-shaming the women accusing him of harassment?

But Crooked LIAR Hillary! can do it all she wants?

I think you meant "Trump's campaign manager"...

http://www.politifact.com/glob...

The only social nets I can spot currently are keeping banks and other "important" entities propped up. Can't identify any normal people in there.

I'm pretty sure it's not the banks who are signed up for Obamacare. Or GW Bush's prescription drug benefit expansion. Companies pay into Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance, not receive money from them.

I know it's cool and hip to say that the US government helps nobody except banks or something - usually not a charge leveled at Democratic administrations, but whatever - but it's not true and contributes nothing positive to the discussion. In the 2015 US Federal budget including discretionary and nondiscretionary spending, 53% of all spending goes to Health and Human Services or Social Security. (Education accounts for 3% and veterans spending accounts for another 4% if you want to consider those as part of the social safety net, which would bring the total to 60%.) By contrast, the military and homeland security receive 16%. So, yes, the "social safety net" is alive and bigger by percentage of spending than before.

What was he before?

Trump was a Republican from 1987 to 1999, a member of the Independence Party from '99 to '01, a registered Democrat from 2001 to 2009, switched to independent, in 2011, and then Republican in 2012.

Source

I keep coming back to the time when Obama flip-flopped on telecom immunity during the run-up to the 2008 election.

People kept pointing out that this one act caused the telecoms to donate more money to him, which got him elected. Given the closeness of the 2008 election, it's plausible that if Obama *hadn't* done this that he would not have become president.

People also pointed out that: "it was necessary to get elected - he can't implement hope and change unless he wins".

It was a rationalization based on "the ends justify the means".

I shudder to think that Pence was chosen simply for this reason - an expedient choice to increase the odds of Trump being elected, and not for his opinions, competence, or experience.

My soul is fading, I am become like the Democrats.

Just look at this blatant example of their biases. They try to keep the reader from thinking through the natural results of the clear text of the bill AND the page is decorated with photos of bullets and an AK-47 magazine to get their left readers frothing and scared.

Or this joke where they get to claim Trump is only half true in citing the piles of cash Hillary has gotten from evil regimes - by pretending that Hillary and Bill's massive money laundering outfit The Clinton Foundation is not tied to Hillary. They say, in effect, "her CAMPAIGN is legally banned from taking foreign money" but of course Trump did not say her CAMPAIGN was getting rich from tyrants. Politifact does this crap all the time to help their fellow Democrats.

Remember: Politifact is a child of the Tampa Bay Times, hardly a friend to any real conservative, libertarian, or Republican. When an organization is not internally politically and philosophically balanced, it's people are in a thought bubble and cannot possibly be unbiased. There's simply no way a George W Bush's campaign team could have given unbiased reviews of Barack Obama. There is simply no way that Trump's campaign team could be unbiased in judging Hillary Clinton. Similarly there is no way the Democrats running Politifact can be unbiased, and it shows all over the place on that site if you just pay attention to all the strawmen they use in their analyses. They frequently re-scope or re-define what they are analyzing and then analyze their version instead. They also like to re-interpret the content of the supposed objective material they are usingin their analysis, which is how thay can do things like interpret a bill that proposes to require all ammo transfers to be by licensed dealers, and pretend that a claim that it would interefere with hunters sharing ammo as false. They are further aided, often to the benefit of the political left, by disconnecting things. So, if the governor of CA signs 5 gun control bills into law and a sixth is proposed, they analyze the 6th in total isolation from the effects of the other 5 which have already been in place - a fundamentally dishonest thing to do when everybody KNOWS that the EFFECT of the new bill is what's actually the core of the argument they are "fact checking".

Just look at this blatant example of their biases. They try to keep the reader from thinking through the natural results of the clear text of the bill AND the page is decorated with photos of bullets and an AK-47 magazine to get their left readers frothing and scared.

Or this joke where they get to claim Trump is only half true in citing the piles of cash Hillary has gotten from evil regimes - by pretending that Hillary and Bill's massive money laundering outfit The Clinton Foundation is not tied to Hillary. They say, in effect, "her CAMPAIGN is legally banned from taking foreign money" but of course Trump did not say her CAMPAIGN was getting rich from tyrants. Politifact does this crap all the time to help their fellow Democrats.

Remember: Politifact is a child of the Tampa Bay Times, hardly a friend to any real conservative, libertarian, or Republican. When an organization is not internally politically and philosophically balanced, it's people are in a thought bubble and cannot possibly be unbiased. There's simply no way a George W Bush's campaign team could have given unbiased reviews of Barack Obama. There is simply no way that Trump's campaign team could be unbiased in judging Hillary Clinton. Similarly there is no way the Democrats running Politifact can be unbiased, and it shows all over the place on that site if you just pay attention to all the strawmen they use in their analyses. They frequently re-scope or re-define what they are analyzing and then analyze their version instead. They also like to re-interpret the content of the supposed objective material they are usingin their analysis, which is how thay can do things like interpret a bill that proposes to require all ammo transfers to be by licensed dealers, and pretend that a claim that it would interefere with hunters sharing ammo as false. They are further aided, often to the benefit of the political left, by disconnecting things. So, if the governor of CA signs 5 gun control bills into law and a sixth is proposed, they analyze the 6th in total isolation from the effects of the other 5 which have already been in place - a fundamentally dishonest thing to do when everybody KNOWS that the EFFECT of the new bill is what's actually the core of the argument they are "fact checking".

Obamacare is a conservative plan

Umm, no: http://www.politifact.com/pund...

Aside from the fact the Republican legislation you're referring to was from 1993 , it didn't even have a majority of Republicans behind it. And there remain differences between it and ACA in its current form. But 1993...really? You're trying to use 23 year old legislation as a barometer for current day conservatism? Do you want to look up Democrat stances from the early 90s? They backed wealthy tax cuts back then, and supported defense spending: http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...

Hillary's opposition to TPP goes back to when Trump started using it against her a couple months ago; before then she supported it

Actually, she announced this posture in October of last year.

The truth, of course, is actually quite more nuanced than that, and had little to do with Trump. During her tenure as secretary of state, though, she did her job and represented the view of the administration that was employing her. After leaving that job, in 2014, she started to say she'd reserve judgment until the final deal was announced.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

What she did was illegal, and what she did should disqualify her from having a clearance. Far less connected people have done much the same and gotten 2 years probation and $7500 fine. Petraeus did much the same and got 2 years probation and $100,000 fine. There is plenty of evidence of her breaking the law. The problem is that no one will prosecute it because Hillary is rich enough to afford lawyers that could get her off, and it would just make it look political.

According to news reports: 7 of these e-mails pertained to CIA Drone strikes news which we insist on classifying even though they have been reported by news paper and news wires. The 8th one pertains to a visit from the new Malawi President. Matters related to foreign head of states are always classified as a rule. YAWN.

You're sleepy. I suppose that's why you didn't look into the other 102 classified emails.

""In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received."
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Do you even try to fact check your comments before making them? It is like you are playing from Clinton's playbook, which has already been proven to be lies.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

No, Rice didn't really use email, and Powell had a personal email account, but used State email, and the few messages that ended up on his personal email, he handed over before leaving. Clinton waited nearly 2 years, and only turned them over when she received a subpoena.

Not true. He stated 8 had classification markings, all of which contained paragraphs marked with (c) designating them as confidential.

"In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.
Even so, Clinton and her team still should have known the information was not appropriate for an unclassified system, Comey said.
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said of some of the top secret chains."
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Markings are not required. Some information is classified by its very nature and does not need an explicit mark. State department personnel and other authorized to handle classified information are well instructed on these facts.

For anyone interested, here is a link to an article on the topic: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Politifact has a good backgrounder on the kerfuffle also...

You said it yourself: Hillary is "a shrewd political veteran who wouldn't make things easy for Putin". That is, according to you, she is going to get tough on Putin and antagonize him. That is what makes her dangerous. (Furthermore, there is nothing "unforeseen" about Hillary's dangerous behaviors; she has a long track record.) If "Putin can play that halfwit manchild like a cheap fiddle", great: that means less opportunity for conflict. I don't want the US president, whoever it is, to mess with Russia over the next several years, so if your primary complaint about Trump is that he is a "halfwit manchild", that's just fine with me.

"Not make things easy for" does not mean "antagonize." There is middle ground between being played like a fiddle and antagonism. Unless you think it's best that the next president just rolls over for Putin to minimize the chance of conflict at any cost to the US. I'd like to see Hillary's track record of dangerous antagonism.

You mean the same kind of "war crimes" that Bush and Obama have engaged in, and that Hillary would certainly continue: drone killings of civilians and various "enhanced interrogation" techniques?

No, I mean worse - such as killing terrorists' families, and new and (unspecified but) more brutal forms of torture. Torture which Obama ended and Trump would restart.

Furthermore, this isn't a two person race anyway, there are other candidates besides Trump and Hillary.

Jill Stein? Good luck with that. The candidates for the two major parties are set, unless something wildly unforeseen happens.

If you look at the total number of mass shootings, you will see that they happen with much greater, and I mean MUCH greater frequency in the United States.

Of course they happen with much greater frequency in the US; the US is much, much bigger too.

If you'd like, I can post citations to back up my claim that John Lott's statistics are completely bogus.

You have shown time and again that you are incapable of distinguishing truth from fiction, so frankly, I wouldn't even bother following your links.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

That is very, very broken logic and shows the sickness that lies in the government.

You are very right. It is a sickness, and it shows, how outright tyranny can sip in, when the government is allowed to do as much as it currently is in the Western world.

We had the early warnings — things, the government could not force you to do straight, it forced you to do by attaching strings to the tax-based wealth-redistribution:

• States were forced to lower speed-limits and otherwise alter their own laws on pain of losing Federal highway funds. What a way to sidestep the 10th Amendment!
• Male students applying for financial aid were forced to register with Selective Service.
• Retirees applying for Social Security where forced to also switch to Medicaire — decades before the infamous "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance" lie.

The ultimate manifestation of this would be 100% taxation with the government kindly allowing you to pay less in exchange for obedience.

Can also take the approach into criminal justice system — saving billions in law enforcement costs — by making it illegal to live above, say, 20 years of age. The government would, of course, grant annual waivers to the well-behaved — those, who "maintain eligibility"... Scaremongering? You bet — but this idea is the same in principle with the current one: tax everyone, but spend the taxes only on the obedient.

When you make an allegation of corruption you need to back it up. Link to some source.

I'm not the OP (an AC), but for starters:
The Tampa Bay Times.
Forbes.

For those just tuning in, Rick Scott, Governor of the State of Florida, was previously the CEO of Columbia/HCA when it was found to have committed the largest Medicare fraud ever, up to that time ($1.7 Billion in 1997), leading to his resignation.

Here is the data for John Kasich:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 53%
Mostly False + False + Pants on Fire: 32%

drinkypoo,
It seems to me that AaronW is summarizing rather than "attempting to deceive" the Slashdot audience with "nefarious bullshit". In context (observe Bartle's joke), he is simply trying to show that Clinton is more honest than Trump. Bernie was mentioned just for completeness.

However, AaronW did make a significant mathematical error by excluding the 32% "mostly false" category for Clinton. Her net false rating is 59%, not 27%. That significantly weakens his implicit claim that Clinton is significantly more honest than Trump, at least until you delve down into the more fine-grained ratings.

Moreover, PolitiFact percentages don't add up to 100% (nor close enough to reflect rounding). Their about page implies that each claim can only be assigned to one category, so quite possibly there's an error in how they are calculating percentages.

At any rate, let's try to conduct these conversations without personal attacks. Well, excluding obvious Microsoft shills anways, because, heh... we're Slashdot after all. :-)

Cordially,
firewrought

And just for comparison, Bernie Sanders:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 51%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 30%

Not only is politifact biased, but your reporting of their reporting is shit. The most interesting thing about these ratings is not true+mostly true vs. false+etc. It's the pants on fire ratio. Politifact gives bernie a pants on fire score of zero but you've managed to conflate it there to make it look like he's a deceiver... because you're attempting to deceive. Luckily, I saw these charts this morning, so I know exactly what kind of nefarious bullshit you're up to.

Hillary Clinton:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 51%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 27%

Donald Trump:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 9%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 77%

And just for comparison, Bernie Sanders:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 51%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 30%

Hillary Clinton:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 51%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 27%

Donald Trump:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 9%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 77%

And just for comparison, Bernie Sanders:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 51%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 30%

Hillary Clinton:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 51%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 27%

Donald Trump:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 9%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 77%

And just for comparison, Bernie Sanders:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 51%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 30%

Reality is racist: Blacks have nearly 3 times higher rate of single-parenthood in the US, than other races. And that — being raised without a father — is one giant reason for much higher likelihood of criminality later in life.

Whatever the reasons for that, it is not Google's fault.

Honesty is not exactly Trump's forte. He literally says something, on tape, and then claims he never said that.