Slashdot Mirror

Fake news is not an imaginary thing.

When only 7% of journalists are Republicans in a country as evenly divided as ours, there is NO WAY the news is unbiased or biased in favor of the right.

When those almost totally left wing reporters then provide coverage of a Republican president that is more than 90% negative even as the economy is booming and consumer confidence is at an 18 year high it's a sign that something is off-balance in the newsrooms.

When those same left wing journalists (who insist they are "main stream" and unbiased) make error after error after error against that Republican president but somehow amazingly not in his favor, after spending 8 years performing virtual analingus on Obama, it's a sign of a problem.

You can whine and complain all you want that people to your political right believe that much of the "mainstream" news is actually just fake propaganda, but they have more ammunition for their beliefs than you have for yours.

Get back to me when the "journalists" currently panicking that ONE former Fox news reporter is a State Dept spokesperson and ONE former Fox News producer is about to take the White House communications director job decide to retroactively panic at the HUNDREDS of Google people who went back-and-forth between White House jobs under Obama and their Google jobs, or the numerous ties between Obama admin people and ALL the non-Fox news networks. Try looking up all those Obama-era media connections... if you have an honest bone in your body you'll be shocked.

You forgot to mention the meeting between Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, and Bill Clinton... which happened 5 days before Hillary Clinton testified.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/index.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-224972

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/08/07/documents-show-doj-was-in-panic-mode-after-loretta-lynch-meeting-with-bill-clinton-was-exposed-n2364588

https://sharylattkisson.com/2016/11/06/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/

Let's not forget about the Sharyl Attkisson story. She is still in legal battles over the illegal invasion of her phones, computers, and life because she reported some uncomfortable facts about the Obama administration.

Now, what would you expect someone that was trying to avoid scrutiny to do, at this point, when they received the first official request for those emails? I'm pretty sure the answer is anything but "promptly and immediately start handing them over."

This is a convoluted way to say "When asked for the emails, Hillary Clinton promptly and immediately handed them over." And I can only say: [citation needed]

If you are going to claim this, please provide references documenting this prompt and immediate handover.

I claim the opposite: that Hillary Clinton did not promptly and immediately hand anything over, but late and grudgingly. And I will provide references.

The gold standard is Sharyl Attkinson's timeline:

https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/

The Benghazi incident happened right before the election in 2012. Judicial Watch filed an FOIA request immediately after this, and Sharyl Attkinson filed one as well in December 2012. These FOIA requests included requests for Hillary Clinton emails related to Benghazi. So our clock starts ticking in November 2012.

February 2013: Judicial Watch sued the State Department for failing to respond to the FOIA requests.

August 2013: the Congress subpoenaed Benghazi-related documents.

2014: Judicial Watch files another FOIA request, then files another lawsuit when it gets no response.

Now, the key happened in December 2014. I'll quote it exactly instead of paraphrasing:

Dec. 5: Clinton privately turns over copies of 30,490 "work-related" emails to the State Dept. totaling 55,000 printed pages. No date has been provided as to when she deleted her "private" emails, but it is presumed to be around this time frame.

So two years after the first FOIA requests, Hillary Clinton finally turned over emails... printed on paper with minimal email header information. She and/or her team deleted literally tens of thousands of emails and then wiped the server. She claimed that these were personal emails, not work-related, but wiping the server was highly improper (actually illegal, I'm pretty sure, but nobody took action against her for it).

Note that the federal document retention laws required her to turn over copies of all work related communications on or before her last day as Secretary of State. She did not turn anything over until forced to, two years later, and she turned over printed paper. If she had simply used the government email system, the government would already have had all her emails; that's why she was supposed to be using the government email system. (She never asked for or received permission for deviating from the normal way of doing things, but those who knew what she was doing never did anything to stop her.)

And then, the FBI revealed that they had found another 15,000 work-related emails that Hillary Clinton had failed to turn over (she turned over 30,000, so that's not a small number of emails). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/22/the-fbi-found-15000-emails-hillary-clinton-didnt-turn-over-uh-oh/

In the 30K emails turned over (printed on paper) there weren't any emails related to Benghazi. In the 15K emails recovered by the FBI, 30 Benghazi-related emails were found. That means Hillary Clinton deleted Benghazi-related emails rather than turn them over, and of course the original FOIA requests were specifically looking for Benghazi-related emails.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/293837-fbi-recovers-30-clinton-emails-involving-benghazi-attack

Quote from that article:

Presented FYI: https://sharylattkisson.com/th...

I would be interested to know if there is anything in that timeline you believe isn't accurate.

Are you really quoting Elijah Cummings as your source? Are you making a joke?

The subpoena happened in August 2012, her deletion happened in December 2015. You are an outright liar, yes I said it. People like you are the problem with this country.

Timeline

Is it credible that she - who appears to have been rather incompetent with her email server - has managed to eradicate only the really bad bits out of how many emails and documents?

Who said she eradicated only the really bad bits? There almost certainly are a lot of benign work-related emails that were deleted as well.

And why does it surprise you the results were scrubbed clean? Her people had over two years after the first FOIA request to go through them before she finally released them. And you don't exactly have to be a rocket scientist to make extra sure you didn't miss any by searching for all the standardized classification tags, terms like "Clinton Foundation," and a shortlist of no-no email addresses, now do you?

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.

why not post refs even if you're anon?

Just angry, I guess. I never troll... that's deliberately wasting other peoples' time and I don't think that's funny. Being falsely slapped down for trolling makes me less willing to go the extra mile and write solid posts with references.

But I'll start pretending to be a grownup again. Here are some references.

"clintonemail.com" was registered on January 13 2009, 8 days before she was confirmed as Secretary of State.

https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/

NSA email discussion was in February 2009.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-request-for-secure-smartphone/

Q.E.D. She did not set up clintonemail.com as a response to not getting a secure phone; she set it up for some other reason. And I can't prove what she was thinking but the obvious one is to dodge FOIA requests.

She has claimed that she went to the unusual trouble of setting up her own personal email server because she wanted the convenience of carrying only one device; she must have forgotten that she already said, in public, that she routinely carries an iPad, an iPad Mini, an iPhone, and a Blackberry.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/03/11/hillary-clinton-last-month-i-have-an-ipad-a-mini-ipad-an-iphone-and-a-blackberry/

There are may choices that boost immune function. Eating right with more vegetables and fruits, exercising regularly (including treadmill workstations), sleeping well, laughing more, getting sunshine or vitamin D supplements, getting enough iodine and other vital nutrients, taking certain herbs regularly or drinking elderberry juice, being spiritual in some ways, and many other things all boost the immune system (see Dr. Fuhrman and Dr. Weil and many others). So does nursing children through age two years or further, as recommended by WHO. Periodic fasting may also boost the immune system long-term.

There are many lifestyle choices that also weaken the immune system or increase disease transmission risk. This includes things to avoid like smoking, breathing second-hand smoke, excessive drinking, various addictions and other high risk activities, and so on. Long-term exposure to woodsmoke from older wood-burning stove decreases overall health. Choosing to live in a walkable location with sidewalks increases health overall (see the book/website "Blue Zones"), meaning a choice to live where you are car-dependent increases health risks. Homeschooling reduces the risk of the spread of communicable diseases, since compulsory public schools are a huge disease transmission routes. Even the choice to *optionally* go to big social gatherings like DisneyWorld increases the risk of disease transmission (as in this case). Choosing to commute into a city for work on public transportation rather than work from home also probably increase disease transmission risk.

Many people (most) do not do *all* these good things and refrain from doing all the risky things. Why be so fixated on vaccinations -- especially because some, like an annual flu shot, are clearly debatable as risk vs. reward for meany people? Does your family do all those good things above as applicable and refrain from every one of the bad ones? Every single one? If you don't do even one, for whatever reason, should we ostracize you because you have broken the "social contract"?

BTW on the nuances of promoting widespread vaccination: "Govt. Researchers: Flu Shots Not Effective in Elderly, After All"
http://sharylattkisson.com/gov...
"An important and definitive "mainstream" government study done nearly a decade ago got little attention because the science came down on the wrong side. It found that after decades and billions of dollars spent promoting flu shots for the elderly, the mass vaccination program did not result in saving lives. In fact, the death rate among the elderly increased substantially"

Contrast with: "Vitamin D Proven More Effective Than Both Anti-Viral Drugs and Vaccines at Preventing the Flu"
http://www.worldhealth.net/for...

Have you had your vitamin D level checked recently? If not, should we ostracize you and your family as an increased flu risk? If you have an elderly relative who had a flu shot, should we ostracize them (and you, by connection) because a study suggests it statistically negatively impacted their health?

As far as I can tell, there really wasn't a cover-up.

Come on man, take your head out of the sand. There are recovered tweets and emails showing that Learner directly targeted the groups, there's even a possible link that Dick Durbin was involved as well. And of course we can't miss the part where she targeted a senator either.

Sorry to repeat myself, but this was a late post to the first incarnation of this story.

Sharyl Attkisson (investigative reporter formerly with CBS) has posted some questions that should be asked:

• Please provide a timeline of the crash and documentation covering when it was first discovered and by whom; when, how and by whom it was learned that materials were lost; the official documentation reporting the crash and federal data loss; documentation reflecting all attempts to recover the materials; and the remediation records documenting the fix. This material should include the names of all officials and technicians involved, as well as all internal communications about the matter.
• Please provide all documents and emails that refer to the crash from the time that it happened through the IRS’ disclosure to Congress Friday that it had occurred.
• Please provide the documents that show the computer crash and lost data were appropriately reported to the required entities including any contractor servicing the IRS. If the incident was not reported, please explain why.
• Please provide a list summarizing what other data was irretrievably lost in the computer crash. If the loss involved any personal data, was the loss disclosed to those impacted? If not, why?
• Please provide documentation reflecting any security analyses done to assess the impact of the crash and lost materials. If such analyses were not performed, why not?
• Please provide documentation showing the steps taken to recover the material, and the names of all technicians who attempted the recovery.
• Please explain why redundancies required for federal systems were either not used or were not effective in restoring the lost materials, and provide documentation showing how this shortfall has been remediated.
• Please provide any documents reflecting an investigation into how the crash resulted in the irretrievable loss of federal data and what factors were found to be responsible for the existence of this situation.
• I would also ask for those who discovered and reported the crash to testify under oath, as well as any officials who reported the materials as having been irretrievably lost.

• Please provide a timeline of the crash and documentation covering when it was first discovered and by whom; when, how and by whom it was learned that materials were lost; the official documentation reporting the crash and federal data loss; documentation reflecting all attempts to recover the materials; and the remediation records documenting the fix. This material should include the names of all officials and technicians involved, as well as all internal communications about the matter.
• Please provide all documents and emails that refer to the crash from the time that it happened through the IRS’ disclosure to Congress Friday that it had occurred.
• Please provide the documents that show the computer crash and lost data were appropriately reported to the required entities including any contractor servicing the IRS. If the incident was not reported, please explain why.
• Please provide a list summarizing what other data was irretrievably lost in the computer crash. If the loss involved any personal data, was the loss disclosed to those impacted? If not, why?
• Please provide documentation reflecting any security analyses done to assess the impact of the crash and lost materials. If such analyses were not performed, why not?
• Please provide documentation showing the steps taken to recover the material, and the names of all technicians who attempted the recovery.
• Please explain why redundancies required for federal systems were either not used or were not effective in restoring the lost materials, and provide documentation showing how this shortfall has been remediated.
• Please provide any documents reflecting an investigation into how the crash resulted in the irretrievable loss of federal data and what factors were found to be responsible for the existence of this situation.
• I would also ask for those who discovered and reported the crash to testify under oath, as well as any officials who reported the materials as having been irretrievably lost.