Slashdot Mirror
Edward Snowden Kills Team Trump's Conspiracy Theory By Explaining How The FBI Can Quickly Comb Through Email (geekwire.com)
FBI director James Comey told Congress Sunday that the further investigation of emails related to Hillary Clinton didn't turn up anything that would cause the bureau to recommend charges against her. The FBI had reviewed over 650,000 emails under nine days. Upon hearing this, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and his supported started to question whether the FBI could go through all those emails in such a short period of time. We will never know for sure until the FBI explains its process to us all (which is unlikely to happen), so people turned to Edward Snowden over the weekend for answers. And Mr. Snowden didn't disappoint. From a report on GeekWire: How easy would it be to cull out the duplicate emails? Outspoken journalist Jeff Jarvis posed that question to Snowden in a tweet, and got a quick response: "Drop non-responsive To:/CC:/BCC:, hash both sets, then subtract those that match. Old laptops could do it in minutes-to-hours."
Snowden didn't do shit. As much as we all "love" him for his previous leaks, he didn't shoot ANYTHING down. He only answered how to dedup a list to make it smaller, not answer how large the list would be after the fact or how long it would take to comb through said remaining list.
Guy answers high school freshman-level tech support question. We'll have details on this exciting story as they develop.
The point is that Trump's supporters have no solid evidence that there was not enough time to review the emails.
Their extreme view of it is that all 650,000 emails were relevant, and that therefore it should have taken 18 months * 650,000 emails / 80,000 emails = 146.5 months to review them.
The other extreme of possibilities is that the FBI filtered the emails by "To/From 'Hillary Clinton', date within period of being secretary of state, not a duplicate of any of the already reviewed emails" and the output of the filter was 0 emails.
The truth is likely to be somewhere between the two, it's also likely to be towards the very low end of the range.
the point is, if they can do it this quickly, why did take some many months the first time they investigated this?
Because the first time, they had tens of thousands of emails, none of which were duplicates of ones they already had, and all of which were sent to or from Hillary Clinton, and all of which were sent during her time in office as Secretary of State. Further, they had to investigate several different avenues for finding more emails.
This time, they have hundreds of thousands of emails, only a small percentage of which were sent to or from hillary clinton, only a small percentage of the remaining were sent while she was in office as secretary of state, only a small percentage of the remaining were not duplicates of existing emails that they had already reviewed. The result is that even though the original number was larger than the original cache they had to search, it's likely that they only had to look through a couple of hundred in the end this time.
I don't get why people are having such a hard time grasping this.
Their extreme view of it is that all 650,000 emails were relevant, and that therefore it should have taken 18 months * 650,000 emails / 80,000 emails = 146.5 months to review them.
Had it actually taken that long, they would have claimed that there was a conspiracy to delay an indictment.
No, that despite your ridiculous false equivalencies (hint: Clinton isn't even in the same universe as Trump and his alt-right revisionists) and a concerted misinformation campaign, and despite electoral interference from our secret police, I mean FBI, Hillary Clinton was still elected.
Assuming that is the outcome, which, while the alternative is unthinkable, is far from a foregone conclusion.
Because it took that long to go through 33,000 emails.
They didn't have to go through 650,000 this time. They could just analyze the data to see if any were new from the prior set.
Which is exactly what you know, the original fucking article you decided not to read says.
and we will pity sheeple like yourself for thinking it's ok to have a corrupt felon running your country.
A felon is a person convicted of a felony
Thus, OBJECTION YOUR HONOR!! Reference to facts not in evidence anywhere!
I don't think anyone can actually understand what he's saying. His supporters pick out the good bits of his word salads and declare him a genius, his opponents pick out the bad bits (not exactly a hard job), and declare him a dangerous idiot. There never really was a serious effort to put out a message or a coherent set of policies. It was just sound bites wrapped up in some sort of bizarre alpha male charisma schtick. Trump was the product of a whole lot of peoples' imaginations. Honestly, up until the last week or so, he hasn't even acted like someone who had the vaguest hope that he'd ever be president, and to wait until the last week of an election before you decide you're going to behave with some self control and dignity indicates to me that you're either a complete idiot or you never seriously wanted the job to begin with.
Trump has wasted a vast number of the GOP's resources, probably harmed a number of downticket races, enough that it's likely the Senate will either be deadlocked or at least marginally in the Democrats' hands, not to mention the damage done to the GOP's efforts in states like Florida and Arizona to reach out to minority voters. And for what? To be a hit with a demographic that the GOP has recognized for eight years now will fade in importance?
Any Republican angry at what will transpire tomorrow shouldn't blame Clinton, they should look at the fools in their own party that put one of the most unsuitable presidential candidates in modern US history in the place he's in right now.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The FBI already said that Hillary mismanaged the handling of confidential documents via her illegal private server.
We already KNOW this to be fact. The FBI admitted such.
The fact is that none of it matters. The power that be decided they would not prosecute because of lack of "intent". Destroying evidence apparently is not "intent".
Hillary has been bought by Wall Street and numerous foreign entities via her foundation. Anyone that has the means to buy political influence has bought their piece of Hillary.
Hillary's supporters simply do not care about any of this. They aren't electing Hillary - they are electing an ideology. More global interventionist policies, larger and more intrusive government, and a supreme court that will rubber stamp all of it.
This is what Hillary's supporters are electing. The candidate and the associated crimes committed by that candidate are irrelevant.
That you elected a lying bitch instead of a lying asshole?
That you elected someone who has no real accomplishments because the other guy has no real accomplishments?
Well. Some accomplishments. Electing someone smart enough to (apparently) get away with killing bunches of people and lots of other illegal stuff over 30 years vs. someone who managed to somehow bankrupt a casino -- even after getting loans from his father and not paying people for all the work they did. Someone smart vs. someone stupid. Someone inclusive vs. someone divisive. Hmm... :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
How would a Republican president, even Trump, be different in curtailing "More global interventionist policies, larger and more intrusive government, and a supreme court that will rubber stamp all of it."
What has Bush Jr. (the last Rep. prez) , or the republican congress done in the last, say 16 years, done to stop or slow any of these things?
Snowden is lying. My son is seven. So good at cyber. Cyber so good. China beating cyber. Hashtag winning. Hashtag crooked Hilary. Cyber.
because the entire investigation was to check whether Clinton's use of a private server had in some way broken the law
No, the FBI was looking into whether SHE broke the law(s). And as Comey pointed out in July (and hasn't changed since), she demonstrably did things that would result in any other government employee facing punishment. This isn't about "the server," it's about the double standards. That she mishandled classified information is established. That she lied about it, repeatedly, is established. That she's being held to a different standard is established. Anyone else applying for a high-level, sensitive job in the government with her track record would never, ever be hired (presuming they were out of jail and able to apply in the first place).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I don't get why people are having such a hard time grasping this.
They're not. They're having a hard time accepting it because they don't want it to be true.
Democrats said he was an outstanding, honest man when he dropped the case (while Republicans decried him as dishonest). When the case came back up, the Democrats and Republicans both completely flipped positions. I don't know if he's playing politics or not, but it seems obvious that everyone's hatred/love is tied to their party rather than the truth.
In any case, what could he have done differently? He announced the case closed going into election season. If he didn't mention the new evidence at all, then congress would have him for perjury sooner or later. If he released after and Hillary won, everyone would say he killed the investigation so Hillary could win. If he released before and Trump won, he would be accused of bringing up the investigation again so Hillary would lose.
Given that Hillary looks to win the election, he can claim that his release didn't adversely affect the election. That's about the best outcome he could hope for.
That you don't find the things Trump has done unethical is a bit disturbing. I hope, for both our sake, that whoever is elected president doesn't screw things up so much that they can't be repaired in four years when, hopefully, a more sane candidate will be on the opposing side.
My point is that even though she has been found unofficially not-guilty by the lack of recommendation to indict I still don't trust her.
To further my point: Even though Casey Anthony wasn't found guilty of killing her kids, would you still trust her to babysit your children? Because I wouldn't.
You did know that the false equivalency gambit has been thoroughly debunked. Right? All the bad things that Clinton might have done is not, in any way, shape or form, the same has all the bad things that Trump has done, in public or on "tape". His record in this area is so deplorable that those Republican leaders who still "support" him won't even say his name. That is pathetic enough, but we haven't even started to compare actual qualifications, and we hardly need to. One candidate has thirty years of public service with any enviable record of success, experience that, by virtually all credible accounts, makes her the most qualified candidate ever to seek the office. The other has a string of spectacular business failures and lawsuits against him and his companies.
Trump is way worse than a lying asshole.
1. He is a facist - populist us vs them mentality (muslims), denounces anything said about him as lies & blames others, whips up the armed/racist minority.
2. He hates the constitution. Wants to change 1A, 4A, and sure as hell the 19A.
3. He's a racist - see twitter war with Jon Stewart, see endoresments by David Duke & KKK, see his talk in MN yesterday
4. He's a power abuser - see every business dealing ever, see how he grabs women by the pussy because he can get away with it
5. He wants to take us straight to war - see his comments on why we can't 'bomb the shit out of the Middle East'.
6. He's an exploiter - uses & abuses every religious, ethnic, regional divide he can
7. He hates America - he detests freedom of speech - in others, he hates freedom of religion - in others, he tries to get people to stop Americans from voting - 'help watch out for a rigged election'
He is as bad as any other dictator in the world today. He has single handedly torn America apart to stroke his own ego.
You can hate Hillary all you want, I won't disagree with you, hell I'll probably mostly agree with you. But she is the lesser of two evils, and it's not re-fucking-motely close.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opi...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
If congress stays GOP (likely), guess who will be 'holding him in check'?
The same idiots that let him take control of their party, and have a psychopath running for president.
So, why would that happen AFTER he gets into office, when it didn't happen before?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
As much as you may wish to hope you can stop it the trajectory is towards liberalism, this is why even with the odd hiccup such as Brexit and possibly a Trump victory they're still ultimately only blips on the overall timeline of history. Trump and Farage alike are entirely dependent on people who will be dead in 10 - 20 years to even remotely achieve the numbers they need to reach the goals they want. Beyond that they and their mindsets are well and truly done.
Liberalism goes hand in hand with intellectualism, as people become better educated on average, more knowledgeable on average, they want more freedom, more rights. They're never going to vote for someone who wants to create interment camps, who calls for political opponents to be assassinated, who hates people over arbitrary and meaningless traits such as sex, sexuality, skin colour and so on. The only way you can stop this tide of change is by making people more stupid, and guess what happens when you do that? you lose the global geopolitical race to someone who hasn't made their population more stupid, and who is progressive, does respect intellect, and in turn pushes human advancement forward with or without you, at which point you adapt and follow or face poverty and irrelevance.
Human advancement is a basic instinct that no amount of conservatism can put a stop to. Japan and Germany didn't lose World War II because of any particular military strategy, because of bad luck, and so forth, but because when you don't respect intellectuals, those that do get things like the atom bomb instead, and then they win.
When you understand this, you'll understand why liberalism is such a powerful and effective force that you should probably embrace, rather than continue to fight a war you will never win, as much as a handful of ultimately irrelevant short term victories many excite you.
This is why liberals have nothing to worry about. They're not losing, and human progress ensures that will always be the case - it's been the overarching trajectory throughout the entirety of human history.