Slashdot Mirror
WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails
PvtVoid writes: The Wall Street Journal now has a page up that encourages readers to sift through and tag Hillary Clinton's emails on Benghazi. Users can click on suggested tags such as "Heated", "Personal", "Boring", or "Interesting", or supply their own tags. What could possibly go wrong? I'm tagging this story "election2016."
Read this link..
You MIGHT learn something.
Although your addle-brained Fox Derangement Syndrome doesn't correlate well with intelligence.
"Just another tabloid rag."
Gotta compete with the NYT.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I say not relevant for a different reason. The emails that have been released are those that Clinton decided should not be deleted, so unless she made a mistake, there shouldn't be anything incriminating left to find. And to make sure, after extracting and turning over all the safe emails, sorry I meant official emails, she wiped the disks. Maybe there was nothing there, but her actions sure look like those of a guilty person, so either she is stupid or she is guilty. I don't want either in the White House (again).
It's the paper for business-oriented conservatives. Their news sides has always been pretty good (it's not smart to invest on what you want to be true), but the editorial side has never been what non-business conservatives would describe as "sane."
They're always convinced the world would be a paradise of joy if only the big bad government would let businessmen have their way with everyone else. During the Civil Rights movement they were squishy about Dr. King on their best days, they were the ones beating the "FDR is a Commie" drum when he created Social Security, etc.
Ah yes I remember how the WSJ and FOX went after Bush, Cheney, Libbey and Rove when they used a private email server (gwb43.com) for a private email server for use in the White House whose stated purpose was to avoid FOIA requests. You know the instance where Bush and Rove were embroiled in two competing scandals — the Valerie Plame scandal, in which operatives for Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, including Rove and Scooter Libby, were accused of unmasking Valerie Plame, a CIA specialist in the black market for weapons of mass destruction, for purely partisan reasons, and the U.S. Attorney purge, in which Rove’s political operation in the White House was accused of ordering Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to purge eight U.S. attorneys who were qualified prosecutors and replace them with political hacks with little or no prosecutorial experience. During the investigation, it came to light that Rove’s server had been used to send official, non-political emails — correspondence that was required by law to be preserved under the Presidential Records Act. On April 12, 2007, Rove’s operation admitted that it had deleted at least 5 million emails from the server. In December 2009, technicians who had examined the server reported that the number of emails that had been deleted was far greater — 22 million.
It is not an Ad Hominem attack nor addle-brained Fox Derangement Syndrome when the group we are complaining about the attacks on Clinton, but under similar if not identical circumstances they didn't attack Bush, Cheney and Rove
Okay, post-acquisition, did WSJ make a point of investigating the Sarah Palin private yahoo e-mail that she used for business while in power as the Governor of Alaska to circumvent Alaskan law? I don't remember coverage of that being terribly strong. I also don't remember WSJ asking the public to comb through through the gwb43 e-mail personally.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The justification for going to war was based on all the bad intelligence pushed by the Bush administration. For example Colin Powell said that his incorrect statement to the United Nations were "a 'blot' on his record."
The Blair government in England published the September Dossier claiming that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium and that it could used weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes, It was found to be completely wrong: "Without exception, all of the allegations included within the September Dossier have been since proven to be false". An inquiry after the war was told by Major General Michael Laurie, one of those involved in producing the dossier: "the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."
The British, like the Bush administration, deliberately lied. They did not, in fact, have credible or actionable intelligence.
I pointed out not only that they were wrong about everything, but that they had previously stated intentions to topple Saddam Hussein. If it was a crime investigation, this would supply clear motive.
You have quoted nothing. Your reply is an opinion with no external references. I made a point to quote sources like Wikipedia that have some claim to objectivity.
Bush, Cheney, all the people who signed the PNAC statement, are far right ideologues who instigated an unnecessary war of aggression. They used propaganda and lies to achieve their ends. The result is an unmitigated disaster that has destabilized the Middle East. You are an accessory after the fact and you share their guilt. You are known by the company you keep.
Why is Snark Required?