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.
"What difference, at this point, does it make?" I mean, sure, she lied, she exposed sensitive government information to foreign spies, and she may have covered up some "private" dealings. But, hey, doesn't she deserve to be president? She is a woman, after all, and she only really cares about us, the people! She can't save us if we don't cut her a little slack?
While the subject line specifically pertains to the email challenge for Clinton's campaign the pattern is the same. Say nothing until forced to, assume a disengaged electorate will forget, or not care to begin with, then crank out the next "talking point" all on her terms.
The laws only apply to the little people, not the Clintons. If Whitewater, the Tyson payoff through bogus "futures investing", the Vince Foster murder, the Ron Brown murder and all the rest didn't even touch her, then a little thing like breaking a bunch of national security laws and lying about it isn't going to affect here either.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Belt, Colonel or Steve?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
and found no wrongdoing. Why are we still talking about this?
You may not be a native english speaker, so please take this as helpful information. The expression is "bald-faced lie" or "bare-faced lie", not "bold-faced lie"; a gem brought to you by the world's most mystifying language. Most likely the origin of "bald-faced lie"/"bare-faced lie" refer to (figuratively) wearing no mask.
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. Thus in tiny pieces a language is corrupted. Apologies to Mark Twain's observations.
Lots of folks here on Slashdot are serious IT professionals. We deal with things like security policies and instances every day. A private email server in a basement somewhere, managed by a what the fuck yahoo, and totally not being able to be audited . . . that's grounds for firing in most companies is this world. If you ask your security folks, "What is the biggest security threat to your company?" They will answer, "The loose nuts behind the keyboard!"
Hilary Clinton is like Leona Helmsley, if anyone here is old enough to know who she was. She and her husband cheated left and right on their taxes, and then gave as an explanation, "Taxes are for little people!". Security policies are for little people. Yeah, but not for folks with sensitive knowledge of our foreign policy.
That is more or less what Hilliary said: "Yes, the government of the USA has security policies for employees, but they do not apply to me, because I am Hillary Clinton, and I am important!"
Sorry Hillary, if you are sending and receiving email on my server, you will abide by the rules, like everyone else, whoever you are. If you want to do government business on an unsecured email server . . . why don't you send your mail direct to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un . . . ?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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.
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
Problem with today's American politics right wing america has gone batshit crazy.
No. The problem is that the wing-nuts on BOTH the right and left have gone batshit crazy. They make 99% of the noise but account for 5% of the population, if that. The rest of us are somewhere in the center and can't get a damn word in in edgewise.
Unlike Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, let's see, who'm I leaving out?...Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich...
If someone had said that about another religious leader and dangerous propaganda spewing fool, say, Benjamin Netanyahu, you would piss yourself in fury.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Except if the server were hacked, we would have read the emails months ago.
When kiddies hack the server . . . they brag about it on Facebook. When professionals hack a server . . . they don't say anything, so they can keep getting intelligence from the server.
I find it the most stupidest thing in the world, that when people say, "Hey, Hillary's mail server was safe . . . otherwise we would have heard about it!"
Idiots.
The best spies in the world . . . you have never heard of . . . because they didn't get caught. If you rob the Bank of America of 10 million dollars . . . you don't brag about it it online in Facebook.
Do you think the Secret Squirrels in Russia or China would brag about hacking Hillary's emai? No, they will rather keep reading it.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Wouldn't it be nice (a naive thought) if we had a politician who:
1. We could trust
2. Put the country's best interest above his/her own
3. Wasn't in the pockets of the rich
Instead we have trump and clinton.
Maybe they should get married.
They both are the exact opposites of points 1 thru 3 above.
I wonder why people are feeling they are not represented?
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."
Then we're treated to the entire BJ lie once again - as if the person who brought it up has any idea what actually transpired.
Systematic sexual harassment at the workplace. If every 16 year old female who has sex with a 19 year old male was 'raped' then the law should be enforced evenly. When a Chief Executive engages in sexual relations with a subordinate, the power dynamic is clearly in play.
Why do the rules change when the horndog happens to be a Liberal hero?
If you have the choice between the devil which lies to you, and the perceived greater devil which lies to you and might make your situation more miserable (by removing benefits, by de-funding planned parenthood, by holding the government hostage and stopping its funding etc...etc...) then maybe people do not vote FOR democrats as much as they vote AGAINST republican. Just sayin'.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Hillary has claimed that when she assumed the Secretary of State position she didn't spend a lot of time thinking about what email she would use, with the clear implication being she was too busy to think about such things... Meaning she wants us to believe she was 'so busy' that she arranged for a private email server, hiredxsomeonevto managevit, and paid a monthly stipend/salary for services rendered because it was easier than using a state department email account .
Reminds me of the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, wherein it was claimed the reason the IRS workers were asking so many probing, illegal questions of certain tax-exempt organizations was because the office was simply over-whelmed with applications. As seen in the email server scandal, the claim is that their natural reaction when overwhelmed with work is to take on additional, in some cases illegal, additional work...
And there is an alarming segment of the population that will parrot those illogical claims as a defense of possible illegal, at best improper actions.
Ken
No it was not. The democrats did not have a super majority at the time. They relied on 2 independents to get pass the filibuster.. The house didn't like the senate bill and only agreed to pass the senate version of the bill by using reconciliation to amend the law before sending it to the president. This is because Brown had taken office and would have provided the vote necessary to filibuster any future votes on the amended law. The reconciliation process bypassed the ability to filibuster the amendments which allowed a simple majority of democrats to pass it.
That's just the facts. You are entitled to your opinion but not your facts. The democrats used out of the ordinary tactics to get the PPACA passed into law and had to do it in ways that would bypass legislative norms in order to get around the republicans. Hell, even wikipedia has an accurate accounting of it. Try reading a bit before believing whatever idiot told you different.
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!
You mean Reuters. The only involvement I could see in the article by Fox was a poll.
People need to stop frothing at the mouth at the mention of Fox. Even some of the articles on their site are not from them; they are from other sources such as Associated Press.