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.
and found no wrongdoing. Why are we still talking about this?
Bill Clinton was impeached over a minor sex scandal using a superficial and extremely dubious "perjury" hook. I Have no idea what the "Tyson payoff" was, but the other scandals you mention are fabricated. Whitewater was extensively investigated by a special prosecutor hostile to the Clintons (the one that eventually changed the subject to Monica Lewinsky because he couldn't find anything in Whitewater - the weird bit is that this should have been obvious from the beginning, the Clintons were victims, not beneficiaries, of Whitewater.) Foster was a close personal friend of the Clintons and there's no evidence or reason to believe he did anything other than commit suicide. Ron Brown is just another name thrown in by the lunatics who were trying to invent the Vince Foster accusations.
I'm surprised you didn't throw in a Benghazi for extra credit.
Two notable observations one can make:
1. Evidence thus far is that the Clintons are held to a higher standard than most other politicians. That's true in emailgate too. Clinton followed previous secretaries of state in not using government email. And right now this article is worded to make what was probably an oversight look like a grand conspiracy because Clinton. If every lunatic accusation made by some fringe wacko ends up with sizable numbers members of Congress demanding investigations, that's not an example of "the laws (not applying to) the Clintons". That's an example of someone being persecuted.
2. The fact that clearly fabricated conspiracies are invented every five minutes by Clinton's opponents, and brought up over and over again long after they've been extensively debunked (or look ridiculous from the start. Vince Foster, really?) is why at this stage, if a real conspiracy came to light involving the Clintons, the chances are it would be laughed out of the public arena.
emailgate appears, thus far, to be a nontroversy, a made-up conspiracy whose advocates cannot show anything beyond minor issues of judgement (and then only dubious issues) as bad for Clinton (or Clinton's staff.)
Give it up. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton for President. Alas, oddly enough, most of those reasons apply to progressives, Republicans probably wouldn't have an issue with 99% of them...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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!