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?
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!
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.
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.
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?
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