Slashdot Mirror
Government Finds New Emails Clinton Did Not Hand Over
PolygamousRanchKid writes with this Reuters report that The U.S. Defense Department has found an email chain that Hillary Clinton failed to turn over to the State Department despite her saying she had provided all work emails from her time as Secretary of State.The correspondence with General David Petraeus, who was commander of U.S. Central Command at the time, started shortly before she entered office and continued during her first days as the top U.S. diplomat in January and February of 2009. News of the previously undisclosed email thread only adds to a steady stream of revelations about the emails in the past six months, which have forced Clinton to revise her account of the setup which she first gave in March. Nearly a third of all Democrats and 58 percent of all voters think Clinton is lying about her handling of her emails, according to a Fox News poll released this week.
Clinton apologized this month for her email setup, saying it was unwise. But as recently as Sunday, she told CBS when asked about her emails that she provided 'all of them.' The emails with Petraeus also appear to contradict the claim by Clinton's campaign that she used a private BlackBerry email account for her first two months at the department before setting up her clintonemail.com account in March 2009. This was the reason her campaign gave for not handing over any emails from those two months to the State Department. The Petraeus exchange shows she started using the clintonemail.com account by January 2009, according to the State Department.
Clinton apologized this month for her email setup, saying it was unwise. But as recently as Sunday, she told CBS when asked about her emails that she provided 'all of them.' The emails with Petraeus also appear to contradict the claim by Clinton's campaign that she used a private BlackBerry email account for her first two months at the department before setting up her clintonemail.com account in March 2009. This was the reason her campaign gave for not handing over any emails from those two months to the State Department. The Petraeus exchange shows she started using the clintonemail.com account by January 2009, according to the State Department.
Right, so that's the best Fox could dig up? Email from before she was in office? Before her duty to keep all the emails!
"The emails with Petraeus also APPEAR to contradict the claim by Clinton's campaign that she used a private BlackBerry email account for her first two months at the department"
*Appear* is a get out word here, because if she had 2 email accounts, and continued to use the Blackberry as her main email till she took office that would also fit the bill, without any MASSIVE CONSPIRACY.....
And Fox then tries to pad it with a push poll. Which is just political marketing.
Seems a bit thin, watch them do a 180 on Trump when Trump gets chosen as the Republican candidate. They'll be fawning all over him.
social conservatism is mostly hypocrisy and easy shallow judgment. faced with the same problems, all of those spouting holier-than-thou fire and brimstone would probably commit the same "sins". it's all about making yourself feel superior for reasons which are paper thin. social conservatism is a character defect: judge others in a do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do manner
and i love the current pope as he makes mincemeat of the propaganda plutocrats have successfully sold to conservative morons for years about the environment and the poor. of course, i don't like his stand on abortion and gay marriage, but i like the fact he shows the propagandized morons what actual conservatism really looks like: care and concern for the poor and the environment. true conservatism has more to do with bernie sanders than it does with the plutocrat loving bullshit the corporate propaganda channels have sold to the conservative retards. it costs money to pay for the crap they dump in our air and water, and it costs money to pay workers a decent wage. so rather than doing that, they'd rather sell conservaitives on perrenial wedge issues like abortion to ge them voting for them, then abandon them and pursue their agenda of robbing the conservative retards in their paycheck and polluting their air and water
i was going to say there is no compassion in conservatism, that anyone with actual compassion and a brain inevitably becomes a liberal, but that's not actually true. what is true is that the caring side of conservatism has been buried under corporate and plutocrat agendas. i look forward to a reawakening on the right in terms of social justice, actual care and concern for the poor, a long standing pillar of genuine conservatism. it's possible. i could just be blindly optimistic, but bernie sanders recently visited extremely conservative liberty university in virginia, and just came out of the gate with "we don't agree about abortion and gay marriage. now let's talk about income equality"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
it's a start
i'm rather hopelessly optimistic, but an awakening on the right about how they are being robbed and cheated blind by an agenda which uses them and doesn't give a shit about them would be wonderful
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Dear me, what is actually wrong with Americans and their politics? Maybe you guys need a Jeremy Corbyn to change the tone - somebody who has the temerity to shuffle along in slippers and speak plainly, but politely about things that actually matter to people. I thought it was amazing to watch him during the first PMQ - no jeering, no cheap point scoring. You can respect a guy like that.
How much does it actually matter that she sent some emails from her home server? And before you get into hysterical overdrive, remember that the people of America actually elected a self-confessed ex-drunk like GWB into that office, and got perilously close to letting Sarah Palin into power. And there are people right now who seriously consider voting for a windbag like mr Trump. So, how much of this email hype is actually about the seriousness of having been a bit lax with her emails, and how much is about trying to paint her in a bad light no matter what the objective reality is?
It is no wonder that all your politicians seem to be somewhat out of contact with the real world, because nobody in possession of their full, mental capabilities would voluntarily subject themselves to the sort of treatment they get from the press and the lobbies - with the willing, not to say eager participation of You the People. As a side note, next time anybody from the US suggests that 'Democracy' should be introduced in country X, remember that the way you do those things does not look all that attractive to foreigners.
The fact is that when news like this hits, everybody goes to their default positions and defends it like they know what's going on. You imagine you know what was in that email and that lying about emails or a blow job is so much worse than lying about WMDs or outing spies to distract a news cycle. You pick your position and you stick with it forever because you can't help it. The reality is you're never going to know what was in an email that you're not supposed to see. It could be her grandmothers muffin recipe, you just don't know.
"Only" hope?
Obviously Someone has not heard about John McAfee 2016.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
You can rest easy, though. So many illiterate people have taken up "bold-faced" in lieu of "bald-faced"/"bare-faced" that it is rapidly becoming perfectly accepted.
This is a very specific linguistic phenomenon, known to usage experts these days as an eggcorn (itself a reference to people using the term eggcorn rather than acorn). There's an entry for bold-faced lie in the Eggcorn Database.
Eggcorns are interesting from a linguistic perspective, because they often involve three mechanisms which reinforce the change: (1) the new word or phrase sounds very similar to the old one, (2) the new word or phrase incorporates new elements that have a certain logical relationship to some meanings of the old word/phrase, and (3) the new components often substitute for archaic words or usage that often only have stuck around in obscure English idioms. (In this case, "bald" and "bold" sound similar, these types of lies often involve a sort of "boldness," and nobody uses the term "bald-faced" anymore outside of that idiom.)
Thus in tiny pieces a language is corrupted.
Meh. "Corruption" in language is a matter of perspective. Language naturally evolves. These types of "corruptions" have often been around for decades or even centuries. If they happen to date back more than a century or two, they're usually accepted as "legitimate English," even if their origin is as screwed up as your example (and often more so). If Shakespeare said it, by definition it's okay.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to hold to "standards," particularly in formal writing. But at some point these things become a lost cause. (See, for example, the word "decimate," which comes from a Latin practice of reduction by 1/10th, i.e., reducing to 90% of the original strength or size. NOBODY uses the word to mean this anymore -- instead implying a much greater reduction in size, if not complete destruction -- and if you try to imply the original meaning outside of describing Roman army practices, no one would understand your meaning. Outside of specific historical usage, "decimate" simply means something else now.)
And sometimes the people who complain about linguistic "decay" and "corruption" are the worst offenders -- in their zeal to "fix" English and stamp out usages that sound wrong to them, they often end up creating their own stupid errors.
It's one of the reasons English spelling is so screwed up. See here for a few quick examples of common English words where pretentious idiots tried to make English conform to a mistaken "rule" and added silent letters to words for no apparent reason.
TL;DR -- You're right, and careful writers should take heed. But easy on the "corruption" rant, lest you become a greater danger to English than those you criticize.
I am sorry but the Pope is largely ignorant about most of the 'issues' he talks about. He should probably stick to religion. Anytime anyone from the media seriously questions him about issues, its clear he does not know who the players are and has not really thought it thru. I mean he admitted to having not given much thought to the middle class. I don't know you can put your self out there as an authority on income inequality without having thought about the middle class.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/...
Frankly I think the current Pope is a dangerous propaganda spewing fool. It would have been wiser to arrange a CIA hit, than invite him to speak to congress.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
the point is he speaks on the environment and the poor. both concerns are actually ancient principles of conservatism
since when did you hear a prominent conservative care about either thing?
never in the usa at least, empty lip service and bait-and-switch doesn't count. name one prominent conservative in the usa that, as an actual bedrock passion, that the poor and the environment is repeatedly emphasized?
not that they don't exist. they just aren't funded. the plutocrats and corporations select the obedient fake "conservatives" that can be used to bring in the votes, and then forgotten about, underpaid, and choked on pollution. because paying people well and not polluting costs money
oh yeah, forgot that part. you're an asshole and a moron. not empty insults, you are these things objectively, based on such a comment. that somehow your comment currently stands at a 3 is only a testament to the quality of this site slipping
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Clinton dismissed the notion that she set up the private
account and server to make it more difficult for her government
officials or her political enemies to gather information on her record
as she seeks the White House."
“That’s totally ridiculous, that never crossed my mind,” Clinton said."
OK, now we've crossed over into the Onion Zone. Parody Writers couldn't come up with better stuff if they tried.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
There are some potentially sensible candidates on the left and right, but no one's paying much attention to them right now. It doesn't really matter who becomes president as long as Congress remains broken. Voters are largely indifferent because the two party system is effectively rigged to keep those two parties in power. I could see Trump getting elected on name appeal alone. It's still pretty early, though. I suspect Trump and Hillary will end up getting ejected from the race. Whatever happens, it's going to be a wild ride.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Email is just one of many communication tools. Just like sending a postcard, making phone calls, sending text messages, smoke signals, hand signals, twitter, Internet Relay Chat, HipChat, WhatsApp, or just plain using your voice to talk to someone face to face.
Did you know that Hillary had also been using a telephone (*shock*), to actually talk to people using her voice over long distances?!?!. Why aren't the Republicans demanding full audio recordings of every phone call she has ever had since 2009 (like they are demanding of her emails)? She _could_ have given classified information to her powerful friends in Saudi Arabia using this fancy telephone invention, you know.
It is no wonder that politicians see nothing wrong with the invasive spying that NSA does against American Citizens -- the politicians are being conditioned on the inside that there is no such thing as privacy, and that Republicans must have legitimate access to every fucking piece of data about Hillary that they can get their hands on as part of their fishing expedition.
They did. But, that doesn't cover all the internal e-mail to her staff that used the same server (Huma), or e-mail to anyone not using a U.S. Government computer.
It also doesn't cover the face-to-face meetings she had with her staff, the phone calls with her staff, etc. The "missing emails" amount to 0.003% of all the communication that she did. Even if you had every last shred of every email she has ever sent, you would still only have about 5% of all the communication that she has done.
Email is just one of many many communication mechanisms that people use, and it is nowhere near being the most popular form of communication either.
But lets have an "email-gate" and pretend that Hillary was the head of some big/scary conspiracy, while ignoring the fact that the government does not even try to record the vast majority of communication that their own employees do.
I think McAfee is awesome and he and I have a lot in common, actually. However, I'd absolutely be unwilling to vote for him. He's crazier than I am and that's quite an achievement. I mean, yeah, I might vote for him because I enjoy "lulz" but, honestly, were I a caring individual who wanted to exercise his rights to help form a better society then, by no means, would I consider actually voting for John. I'd party with him. I'd snort hookers and screw blow with him. I'd even go out target practicing with him or travel with him for a while. Vote for him? The only reason I'd vote for him is because I'm secure and don't actually like my fellow citizens a great deal.
In my defense, in the past 15 years my fellow citizens have elected Bush twice, Obama twice, and now Trump and Clinton are both 'serious' candidates. I don't like my fellow citizens because they're astonishingly short sighted and stupid.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."