Slashdot Mirror


Clinton Surrendering Email Server/Data To Feds After Top Secret Mail Found

An anonymous reader writes: Hillary Clinton's lawyer has surrendered three thumb drives with copies of emails from her server to the Justice Department, which is also where the controversial Clinton personal email server is destined as well. The FBI determined that Clinton's lawyer could no longer retain the thumb drives after two emails from a small sample were found to contain information classified as "Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information," which would also taint the server. There is no evidence that encryption was used to protect the emails. From the limited reviews to date, Secretary Clinton and her aides exchanged emails containing classified information with at least six people with private email addresses. So far four of Clinton's top aides have turned over emails to the State Department, and there are demands that six more do so. The State Department's inspector general has stated that his office is reviewing "the use of personal communications hardware and software by five secretaries of state and their immediate staffs." Current U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has stated, "it is very likely" that China and Russia are reading his emails.

62 of 676 comments (clear)

  1. What a clusterfuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Republican presidential lineup this year has been a source of near endless amusement, but they have NOTHING on the Dems throwing their weight behind Hillary. She should be whiling away her time behind bars, not running for POTUS. What a fucking mess.

    1. Re:What a clusterfuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is being reported that 4 of the e-mails found so far were classified, and of those 4, 2 of them were classified "Top Secret." So yes, an enormous breach of duty going on here. I'm not sure if it's prosecutable or not but it very well may be and that would effectively end her campaign.

    2. Re:What a clusterfuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Idiot. The emails were "unmarked." That means not stamped with a classification. More, they reached her on an unclassified network. Clinton had every reason to believe they contained no classified information. Indeed, the claim that they do contain classified information remains unsubstantiated.

      WHY THE FUCK WAS SHE CONDUCTING OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS ON A PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!

    3. Re: What a clusterfuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      She didn't want to carry around a second device because it's just so inconvenient. Literally her excuse. Just pathetic.

    4. Re:What a clusterfuck by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Informative

      What's even scarier is that this was apparently the standard deal for all her predecessors. Still, at least they might be able to claim some degree of ignorance - but I think it's safe to say that by 2008 anyone with half a clue could have explained what a colossally stupid idea it was, especially given that the private email servers for both the Obama and McCain campaigns had already been hacked prior to the election:
      http://www.theguardian.com/glo...

    5. Re:What a clusterfuck by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is, indeed, the question. Basically, she ignored all the rules, because a Clinton is above the rules.

      Seems that Teflon Bill has a better coat of Teflon than Hillary has. Some of that shit is finally beginning to stick to her.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:What a clusterfuck by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 3, Informative

      WHY THE FUCK WAS SHE CONDUCTING OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS ON A PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!

      Because state department servers are not secure. The Clinton family learned from experience that their political opponents have free access to dig through anything that's stored on official servers.

      --
      I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
    7. Re:What a clusterfuck by JWW · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is ABSOLUTELY against federal records law for a civil servant to carry on federal business over a non-federal system. Just business, not classified business, or top secret business, ANY business.

      All e-mails containing governmental decisions need to be maintained and controlled by the government entity responsible for them.

    8. Re:What a clusterfuck by TykeClone · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll waste a little more bandwidth, and ask, name three things that Hillary has ever done. Just three accomplishments. You can't name three. You'll have to stretch hard to even try it.

      - She made $100k in cattle futures from $1k seed money in a very short time. - She was anointed Senator - She was secretary of state and at least avoided selling out our allies to terrorist states.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    9. Re:What a clusterfuck by MikeMo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First she claimed she did no official business on that server, then claimed it was only for convenience, then claimed there was no classified emails on it, then claimed it had all been erased. Turns out none of that was true. Massively lying, she had to know she was going to get caught.

      This implies there is something there she is desparate to hide. If she is not hiding something, why all the lies?

      Even if there is nothing there except highly classified material, then she has broken the law and lied about it repeatedly. Does that make her a qualified Presidential candidate, or a criminal?

    10. Re:What a clusterfuck by JWW · · Score: 3, Funny

      Umm, lets see

      1) Marry Bill
      2) Destroy Monica Lewinsky
      3) Misspell "reset"

      Oh, wait, you mean three positive accomplishments...

    11. Re:What a clusterfuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This has got to be the most stupid fucking response I have ever seen regarding this whole email thing.

      So she avoided official servers because they are subject to FOIA requests and Congressional Subpoenas. That's exactly what you dumb shits have been saying is NOT the case.

    12. Re:What a clusterfuck by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And still legions will support her because she promises to keep the Federal spigot on full.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    13. Re: What a clusterfuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      She didn't want to carry around a second device because it's just so inconvenient. Literally her excuse. Just pathetic.

      If people would think about this for 2 seconds, she should be laughed out of the race. It is easier to set up your own exchange email server than set up two email addresses on their phone?? Really?

    14. Re:What a clusterfuck by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I don't have clearance, if I don't have any reasonable access to classified/secret documents, if I don't have any reason to suspect that the document I am in possession of is classified/secret, and if there is no reasonable suspicion that I have illegally attempted to obtain such documents, then there is little reason to go after me.

      Clinton had clearance, access to classified/secret documents, and promoted the use of her personal server for storing those items instead of one that was provided for the purpose of handling secure information. Plus, there is suspicion that she did this in order to hide political information for a future run for office.

      Big difference.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    15. Re:What a clusterfuck by fey000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      - She made $100k in cattle futures from $1k seed money in a very short time.

      - She was anointed Senator

      - She was secretary of state and at least avoided selling out our allies to terrorist states.

      Why the fuck do you anoint your senators? Aren't they slippery enough already?

    16. Re:What a clusterfuck by Jhon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not true. Legions will support her because she has a "D" after her name. Seriously, a hen could be running and get 30% of the vote if it had a "D" after it's name. Same is true for the republicans and an "R" after there name.

      The problem is we are voting for PARTY above the PERSON. Biggest flipping mistake a human can make in selecting leaders.

    17. Re:What a clusterfuck by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What a bunch of crap! She was 'in charge', she had all the available briefings and security clearance. Not only should she have known, she was breaking the law by conducting official business on a private server. I had a Top Secret SCI clearance for years. The first rule is 'if there is the potential that information is classified' treat it as it were classified and safe guard it until such time it is deemed not classified. If I had done what she has I would be in Leavenworth! Its always the same with Clintons they can do what ever the hell they want and idiots will defend them. What do you think would happen to a Military member or even a civil servant if he was caught have sex with subordinate in his office? Bill Clinton was the commander in chief of the armed forces! What a Clinton says one day is no longer true latter. First she said: "I didn't have classified information on it, it is all personal correspondence". Then she said: "None of it was classified at the time" Then she said : "It wasn't marked" Newsflash! If I tell you verbally something classified, its still classified even if I don't have a classification stamp on my forehead! The idiots are those gullible to believe anything she says!

    18. Re:What a clusterfuck by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unlike you or me, Sec of State has a DUTY (briefed by the FBI) to keep national secrets safe. Ignorance is not an excuse, and trying to invoke it here is pretty short sighted. But let me just give you a bit of advice, next time a (R) gets caught, and says "I didn't know", you need to go full on defensive for them. Otherwise, you're just a partisan hack.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    19. Re:What a clusterfuck by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Informative

      the correct term is duty which carries more weight than responsibility. You can shirk responsibility, but you better not shirk your duty.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    20. Re:What a clusterfuck by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      She told those lies so that by the time the real story came out, her followers would already be deep in the belief that this is all a Republican conspiracy. There is also a large portion that will be bored by the story by the time the truth comes out and wonder why we haven't moved past this. Attention spans run quite brief nowadays.

    21. Re:What a clusterfuck by sociocapitalist · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Does that make her a qualified Presidential candidate, or a criminal?"

      Is there a difference?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    22. Re: What a clusterfuck by SecurityGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If carrying 2 phones to support national security is too much work, being president really isn't for you.

    23. Re:What a clusterfuck by blue9steel · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not a Republican and frankly I thought they were just muckraking till now, however if this information is correct then she is likely guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information (if not other laws and oaths as well) and should be tried and punished appropriately. Since she's one of the elite it will likely get swept under the rug instead.

    24. Re:What a clusterfuck by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hillary isn't ignorant, she knows exactly what she is doing. Hillary is calculating, corrupt, and evil.

    25. Re:What a clusterfuck by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

      that would effectively end her campaign.

      You don't depose the queen just because a few peasant get hunted for sport.

      She can (and will if necessary) run the U.S. from inside federal prison.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    26. Re: What a clusterfuck by danlip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Especially when you have a team of assistants following you around carrying all your stuff for you anyway.

    27. Re: What a clusterfuck by Feyshtey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it would have been ignored and we passed by it, then there would have been ANOTHER disservice to the American people. Any other non-politician/celebrity that did what she has done, even if they came out immediately and apologized, we have faced a range of repercussions ranging from termination to imprisonment. Why should Hillary be treated differently than any other average American?

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    28. Re: What a clusterfuck by Ramze · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The point of the Clinton server was to shield the Clintons from Freedom of Information Act requests. It was intentionally set up to prevent both the government and the people from ever prying into their communications. Her office had a duty to secure and store those communications for posterity for the National Archives, and she rebuffed it.

      This was not an accident, nor something set up on a whim to make life more convenient. It was deliberate -- and her office was warned multiple times that it was not acceptable before and during its use. Hillary's own office sent out e-mails to her staff advising them not to use their own private e-mail WHILE she was using her own private e-mail against the advice of the State Dept.'s own security experts.

      She's only now sending the server to the feds -- since it's verified she crossed a line with top secret info on it that's been sent unencrypted over the internet to others. I would not be surprised if that server has been scrubbed top to bottom with any incriminating evidence purged and over-written with excuses galore over why data is missing or not retained (and unrecoverable).

      Still, slap her with a fine and send her on her way -- and make it an impeachable offense for future Secretaries of State to ever do this again. Worse case scenario, they charge her with intentionally divulging top secret info and give her a suspended sentence.

    29. Re:What a clusterfuck by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Before or after they were retro-actively declared classified.....

      That's not how it works. You are expected/required to be able to recognize classified information that is not marked as such and mark it yourself.

    30. Re:What a clusterfuck by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Repetition of DNC talking point noted.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    31. Re:What a clusterfuck by Coren22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But yet, the TEA party, which stands on the platform of shrinking the federal government is labeled as wackos by the media. It makes you wonder what they think will be the logical conclusion of a constantly growing federal government.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    32. Re:What a clusterfuck by Straif · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The 'retroactively classified' was simply a pr lie Hillary's team has been pushing from the beginning.

      2 IG's reviewed a small handful of her emails and found information that was always considered classified by various intelligence agencies. These latest emails supposedly contained the type of information that goes beyond general classification of 'top secret' to the point that only people officially 'read in' are allowed to view it.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    33. Re:What a clusterfuck by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not a particularly big fan of Obama, but he is definitely not the biggest user of executive orders

      Well, SORT of true. He's been abusing Presidential Memorandums ...which carry basically the same weight, but allow him to say "I'm not using as many EO's as the previous guys have.".

      Add the memos and the EO's together...and that changes the number a bit.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    34. Re:What a clusterfuck by DaHat · · Score: 3, Informative

      none of these emails was classified at the time she sent/received it. These are documents that later were marked as top secret.

      That's not what the Office of Inspector General spokesperson says: the emails were "were classified when they were sent and are classified now."

    35. Re:What a clusterfuck by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Informative

      The information was not deemed classified until long after the emails were sent.

      False on the face of. Enough so that there's no explanation for you saying that other than you know you're deliberately lying.

      The inspectors looked at a tiny sample of the mail she cherry-picked, and in just a few dozen, found material that was already graded "Top Secret," and would have been obviously such to anyone with any experience - let alone the person who is the nation's top appointed diplomat and the executive in charge of all of our foreign affairs, someone who is briefed daily on highly sensitive material. We're talking about emails with satellite imagery, etc. Your "retroactive" meme is the worst sort of BS because even you know it's not true, but you're repeating it anyway.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  2. I call bullshit by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those two emails were classified retroactively. This isn't a new story.

    --
    I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
    1. Re:I call bullshit by Mycroft-X · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's bullshit too. Do you think a case officer's notes of a meeting with an agent aren't classified just because the case officer doesn't carry around a big red "CLASSIFIED" stamp? Information is classified based on the information and source, not the markings. Classified information not so marked isn't unclassified information, it's misidentified information and anyone with a security classification is trained to recognize and address that issue.

    2. Re:I call bullshit by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you think a case officer's notes of a meeting with an agent aren't classified just because the case officer doesn't carry around a big red "CLASSIFIED" stamp?

      Actually yes. The case officer is responsible for classifying and labelling any document they write before it's distributed.

      --
      I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
  3. move along, nothing to see by slashdice · · Score: 5, Funny

    just more of that vast right wing conspiracy's war on women.

    --
    Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
  4. What's a cyber? by jdharm · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kerry quote from the article: "...the latest means of spying is to be going after peoples' cyber."

    I have a cyber? Where is my cyber? What does my cyber look like? How would I go about finding my cyber? Sounds like it could be fun. I wanna play with my cyber. But I have to protect my cyber so other people can't spy on my cyber. My cyber is private. Only my doctor can touch my cyber. No means no.

  5. I would expect to be arrested if I did this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Posting as AC for some degree of anonymity. Knowing what a clearance like a TS/SCI entails, her responding to, and handling classified mails, in her private mail system shows either a complete ignorance of what she took an oath to protect, or complete disregard for her oath. Either is just so troubling.

  6. There "is" no classified material on her server. by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She said so. Anybody saying anything differently is part of a vast right wing conspiracy. Unless they say "was," which is different than "is," the meaning of which depends on which Clinton you're talking to.

    It's not even about the risky, lazy handling of her official government documents, or the years she waited before turning her cherry-picked selection (no official emails sent for two months while dealing with Libya, really?) from her collection over to State as she was required to - at the very latest - as she left her office. It's about how dumb she's trying to pretend everyone is, and how phony her attempt to dismiss this is - it's about as sincere as the on-demand phony southern accent (or her Urban Church-y dialect) she uses depending how how she assesses the audience she thinks she's talking to that moment. The condescension would be galling if it weren't so transparent and (you'd think!) embarrassing. But she's so impervious to embarrassment over hypocrisy or being caught lying that it really doesn't matter at this point - she's been working on not letting that bother her since before she started putting up with Bill's abuses in Arkansas.

    I'm not sure what the DoJ thinks they're going to find on an Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind wiped server, though.Those drives are cleaner by now than the day they were manufactured.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  7. Re:Smoke meet fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually it is every federal member's job to ensure the protection of classified information. That includes self-identifying if the information is classified or not and reporting it immediately. Secret level information can be sometimes confused with FOUO or even full out unclassified, but TS/SCI is awfully easy to spot (would the release of this information cause substantial damage to the United States).

  8. Re:I thought she said she destroyed it? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Informative

    You'll notice that they handed over flash drives with copies, not the original storage. Because the remapped sectors on the original storage probably contains the evidence the prosecutor is looking for.

    But that's OK - Hillary is a bona fide member of the protected spook/bankster class; she need not fear consequences, only maintain the charade well enough for the narrative to continue.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  9. It MUST be in there! by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Funny
    Certainly, somewhere in those email archives we'll find:
    • Clinton's email to Obama about getting the Illuminati Reptoids ready to seize power next December after the elections
    • Clinton's email correspondence with Obama about when the Benghazi attack should begin
    • Clinton's emails to her husband reminding him of the age of consent for whichever state or country he is visiting
    • Clinton's emails to her lesbian lover(s)

    Yep, it's all there. We'll see 'em all soon, for sure.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  10. Convenient by plazman30 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now if there was suspected classified information on anyone else's mail server, would the government wait for proof or seize the server, look through it, and then say "My bad!" and give it back to you.

    This was all done to make sure she had time to clean that server up and make it presentable, so no Clintons end in jail.

  11. Security Clearance Revocation by captain_nifty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any normal person would have their security clearance revoked after a breech of much lesser magnitude, which interestingly makes you unable to perform a job that requires handling classified material, it's one of the few ways to actually get fired from a government job.

    Just another facet of our societies aristocracy, they are above the rules. (note this has nothing to do with party, both side get far too many free passes)

    1. Re:Security Clearance Revocation by flink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Any normal person would have their security clearance revoked after a breech of much lesser magnitude, which interestingly makes you unable to perform a job that requires handling classified material, it's one of the few ways to actually get fired from a government job.

      This is an interesting dilemma. Suppose someone is elected by the people and their office requires the handling of classified material. Then suppose their background investigation reveals problems that, if they were an ordinary bureaucrat or contractor, they would not be issued a clearance. Or suppose they had previously mishandled classified information and had too many black marks on their record.

      What can you do in that situation? The law and constitution outline specific circumstances where you can remove someone from office, and I don't think "not approved by clearance investigator" is one of them.

  12. For Unclassified is Fed IT diff from Corp IT? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not a Federal employee and I work in "Corporate America" and I know that if I told people to not use my bob@corporateemail.com but instead send it to bob@gmail.com or bob@myprivateserver.com, I would be terminated pretty fast. Regardless if the content I was reading was marked as public, classified or highly classified. Even when we have new employees who do not yet have a corp ID/email address yet and want to use their own laptop for the first week, we cannot send them email to their personal accounts.

    How did she get away with this basic violation regardless if there are classified or non-classified emails.

    How did she get people to send email to her personal server? Did she just set up her federal account to forward it to her automatically or did she start also telling people (lots of people), "Please send it to hillary@clintonemail.com?

  13. Re:What a cluster**** by ewhenn · · Score: 3, Informative

    She's accomplished one thing very well: harming American tech workers.

    Traitor politician Hillary Clinton brought TATA into Buffalo, NY, on the guise of "creating jobs for NYS." Sure, TATA has a FANTASTIC (sarcasm) track record when it comes to creating jobs in the U.S.! They almost exclusively employ Indian nationals on temporary worker visas OR they ship the work offshore to India.

    http://www.nriinternet.com/NRI...

  14. Re:I thought she said she destroyed it? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But that's OK - Hillary is a bona fide member of the protected spook/bankster class; she need not fear consequences, only maintain the charade well enough for the narrative to continue.

    She doesn't even need to maintain the charade. She just has to stall long enough to employ the strategy that many politicians (including her husband) have used to great success in the past.

    Step 1: Deny. "I didn't do it. I did nothing wrong."
    Step 2: Stonewall. Delay. Wait.
    Step 3: As evidence trickles out slowly, provide some kind of perfunctory defense. It doesn't have to be a strong defense, and actually shouldn't be a very good one. It should be just good enough that the people who want to support you can maintain their state of denial.
    Step 4: When enough evidence, come clean, but underplay the importance. "Well yes, I did it, but so what? This is old news, and people have been after me for years about this stuff, and nobody cared. Sure, I said I didn't do it before, but all my lies and my attempts to defend myself were so stupid, you must have known I was lying, and you didn't care. If you didn't care then, why would you care now?"

    Somehow we're all so stupid that we fall for this kind of thing all the time.

  15. She's not alone. by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news:

    - Donald Trump has been sending all of his email to a server in Mexico because it's cheaper than handling it in the USA.
    - Chris Christie is still using Hotmail, and last week he had the entire service shut down for four days to spite everyone who hasn't endorsed him in the primaries.
    - Ted Cruz was using the email address "tcruz@bell.ca" up until 2014. He insists he had no way of knowing it was Canadian.
    - Jeb Bush has technically never received an email in his life. He has an intern print each item in his inbox and read it out loud to him. Sometimes he asks for pictures to go with it.
    - Carly Fiorina also had her email printed for her, but she removed all of the printers from her office in 2004 as a cost-cutting measure.
    - Rand Paul supports the abolition of mail servers entirely, and believes that each individual email should make its own decision as to how it is going to be delivered.
    - Rick Santorum last received email in 2003 when his last name started being blocked by profanity filters.

  16. Re:Smoke meet fire by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not its not her job. However the security of the Nation is and so she should still be aware when handling sensitive information. She should better than most be in a position to recognize when something that is unclassified perhaps ought to be and care about that. She could enough about operational security to care a second cell phone for personal/family matters if that is what it takes.

    I don't really care what happens to Hillary in her personal life, if she gets fined/goes to jail/is given a president medal of freedom for her service, none of that matters to me!

    I do care if she is elected president after she had demonstrated reckless behavior that many of us would have lost our jobs over. She isn't fit to serve and this is proof of that much. The standard of being suitable to lead the free world ought to be a little higher than "well technically she isn't a felon".

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  17. Re:Alternative to Clinton? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Personally, I would love to see Trump vs Sanders. And perhaps a good showing from a Libertarian Candidate to really screw up the Electoral College.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  18. Re:Party loyalty is a huge problem ... by Ramze · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The 99% are not in control. They simply get to choose between the options left after the 1% has chosen which candidates the 99% get to pick from. You cannot possibly believe that the 20 or so candidates for president are the best out of a pool of millions of Americans that could do the job. How did we get THESE candidates? Money. Only rich people or those backed by rich people can afford to run a presidential campaign. Recently, Rick Perry ran out of cash and his people are working for free while his SuperPAC takes over the advertising. I doubt he'll be in the race much longer as his funding has dried up.

    When you have a 2 party system where both candidates are bought by special interests and 1%'ers, your choices are between a rock and a hard place. The Party is indeed what matters most -- because the funding for those candidates came from party supporters who have agendas to push for that party. I would vote for a chicken with a D on it before I'd vote for most Republicans in the race (Maybe Bush as the exception.. he seems more sane on immigration, gay rights, and healthcare than the rest).

    If we had a sane voting system where a vote for one candidate was not the same as a vote against all other candidates, we might be able to support a multi-party system -- or even multiple candidates for the same party all the way up to the general election. Say, a Likert scale -- each candidate gets a vote from 1 to 10, we average out all the votes and the one that gets the highest score wins. 3rd parties wouldn't steal votes... and we'd have more room for moderates.

  19. Re:Alternative to Clinton? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trump's popularity is a mile wide and an inch deep - it's all name recognition. Once people start to hear some of the other candidates, you're going to see that lead erode, and fast.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  20. Re:Party loyalty is a huge problem ... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is really why the GOP is pissed at Trump. He's supposed to pay for someone else to run as President, not actually use his own money and do it himself.

  21. Re: classification markings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Having served as a Security Manager in the United States Navy, I can with clarity and proper knowledge clearly state that when creating any document, the drafter of the document is responsible for taking appropriate steps to properly classify said document. There is no excuse for not knowing because to gain assess to classified information, you must acknowlede in writing after completing training that you are aware of the above. There is no excuse. Anyone else would already be in jail.

  22. Elephant in the room by Lost+Race · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Everybody seems to be ignoring the most important questions:

    1. What kind of server was it?

    2. What OS?

    3. Which MTA?

    I mean, if she rescued some old Sun pizza box from the dumpster, installed Gentoo and a heavily patched Qmail, then she gets my vote for sure! If it was a Dell running Windows Server and Exchange ... well ... that bitch can go straight to hell.

  23. Re: classification markings by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    She's not anyone else. She's Hillary. Laws are for little people.

  24. Misleading by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sounds like you read "How to Lie with Statistics", since the sheer number of EO's means nothing compared with the contents.

    When the next president has "only" 33 but they are packed with hated directives, I'm sure you will be similarly sanguine...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley