gwb43.com was a campaign website that people who worked for Bush's reelection campaign used. Some of Bush's political appointees worked for both the campaign and the government simultaneously. Others who worked for Bush quit their White House jobs to work for the campaign and were hired back after he won.
While working on the campaign, they WEREN'T ALLOWED to use the official server. (You can't use government resources for your campaign.) That's why the server was there in the first place. It was a campaign server intended for campaign work.
The other difference is that there was no satellite imagery on gwb43.com
All the things that you called "likely" are true. However, there was a leak. Some emails that Sydney Blumenthal wrote that were sent through this server were published by one of the Gawker affiliates after one of the Gawker guy's buddies hacked the server.
Right... except that she tried to delete the emails and failed, which is why the FBI says they have 100% of the deleted ones as well. They called the deletion attempt "completely unprofessional," which is exactly the kind of IT services that need to be provided to servers that secure servers that hold information classified above top secret.
I have a Tivo with a cable card. I can already access all my channels and all the Over the Top services (including Comcast's video on demand stuff and pay per view, if I wanted that.) This exists now. How is this different than that?
Without knowing what these e-mail contained I'm not going to jump to the conclusion Hilary Clinton was mailing the real world identities of th CIA's chief spies in the Kremlin to her friends in clear text.
The FBI has leaked that there were Human Intelligence emails on her server that made it obvious who the source was, and if revealed to whoever they were spying on, it would put the source in danger.
Because no ex post facto law means that since the emails were not classified and were on a government owned server for unclassified emails and documents at the time means that Clinton isn't guilty of squat, any more than the entire US government is guilty because they owned the servers that these "classified" documents resided
You're doing it wrong here in a number of ways.
First off, Hillary had a privately owned server. She owned it, not the government.
Secondly, using a privately owned server to do Official Government Business is a crime even if the work is unclassified. (It violates the Freedom of Information Act, which says that the people have the right to demand records from the government so they can check for corruption.)
Also, the documents were classified when they were sent. The State Department is lying to protect Clinton when they tell you otherwise.
No, she's unelectable because what she did was criminal.
OK Mr Smartass conservative, if what she did is criminal, then why have charges not been filed? The New York Times broke the story on March 2, 2015, and the physical server was given to the FBI in August 12, 2015. In all of that time, they have release no evidence.
The FBI has leaked plenty of evidence. Also, supposedly there's an indictment coming.
Wait, CLINTON is UNELECTABLE because she may or may not have sent emails from a personal server that though not top secret secure has no evidence anything was leaked - and have proven through the non-redacted bits that her means were ignorant of technology but her intent was just to get shit done.
Except for "Clinton is UNELECTABLE" everything in this paragraph is bullshit. If you can't understand what the problem is, you're a fundamentally stupid person. I hope you can't vote in this election.
The State Department is running interference for their old boss.The Times got played on this story. (NPR probably knew what it was doing and is covering for the Clintons on purpose.)
Hillary Clinton had Talent Keyhole satellite imagery classified higher than TOP SECRET on her secret email server. All actual Talent Keyhole images are codeword classified because revealing the images would reveal the capabilities of the Talent Keyhole satellite. This is confirmed by the FBI.
Clinton also had highly classified HUMINT on her server. (Again, above Top Secret.) HUMINT is "Human Intelligence," in other words, intelligence gathered by a mole inside wherever but working for the US. The reason it was so highly classified is because its improper disclosure would put the source in danger. There was no security in place on the server (which was hacked by China and Russia.) Clinton very well may have gotten this source killed. (The FBI confirmed this part too.)
Finally introduce a "-1, Factually Incorrect" mod.
THIS. Most times when I downmod something, it's because the information contained in the post is wrong. It usually winds up as "Flamebait" but that doesn't really cover what's wrong with it.
The RIGHT (as endowned by the Creator to all free people) is "freedom of the press" generally. Since the US Government aspires to govern free people (or at least they did in the Second Congress), they established the CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION forbidding the government specifically from "abridging the freedom of the press."
Other than the difference between the First Amendment and the underlying right, I'm not really clear on what you're saying. Most of the "people being wrong about the First Amendment" that I see claims that the amendment is narrower than it really is.
Can you give an example of Freedom of the Press being used as an excuse to harass private citizens?
There's no hypocrisy there. Bork's position was that the Constitution doesn't include a "right to privacy" generally, it only protects privacy in certain contexts (i.e. It protects the government from seizing your papers to charge you with a crime.)
The "right to privacy" that some people assume is part of the Constitution is really just an excuse that activist judges use point to in order to make sure the side they favor wins. Outside that context, it's too hard to define what it means. (By contrast, everyone knows what "freedom of the press" means.) The US doesn't have a monopoly on not being able to define privacy, look at the fight over the EU's Right to be Forgotten law/rule/whatever.
Bork favored a strict interpretation of laws that exist. Congress went through the process of passing a new law to replace the old one, which is fine. What would have been wrong would have been a judge pretending there was a law protecting his video records when there was not.
The US Federal government isn't as pro-free speech as it used to be (nor as it is supposed to be.) But stack the US government against any other government in terms of "stay out of the way of free speech" and there isn't anyone, anywhere with a better track record You can register a website to complain about the US Federal Government (whether you're American or not) and ICANN isn't going to stop you.
Face it. The EU will screw this up. Europe will screw this up. The UN will screw this up.
There's nobody better to do the job of running ICANN anywhere in the world than the US Federal Government.
Also, I thought Republicans didn't like the government interfering in business?
We don't. Trump is a RINO, someone who claims to be a Republican at election time but acts like a Democrat the rest of the time. Economic Protectionism (which is what this is) is a left-wing idea. Its opposite, free trade, is endorsed by conservatives. Free trade is popular enough that a number of otherwise-lefty Democrats endorse it. (For example, Bill Clinton supported NAFTA. It passed the House with the support of 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats, and passed the Senate with the support of 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. This was in 1993, before Clinton and the Democrats lost big in the '94 midterms and "triangulated" to the center.)
This is a lot of misinformation packed into one post. For example, Hobby Lobby is NOT preventing their employees from using any kind of contraception the employee wishes (subject to the advice of the employee's doctor in cases that require a prescription.) Hobby Lobby won't PAY FOR certain contraception methods via their corporate insurance plan, but employees can use their own money (or their spouse's insurance or whatever) to buy the other contraception methods, and Hobby Lobby won't fire them or anything.
A public company is one owned by the government. A private company is one owned by private citizens who invest in it. Google is a publicly traded company, which means it's a private company with a specific way for investors to invest in it. But Google is not owned by the government and is not obliged to help the government in ways not required by law.
Donald Trump becomes president, enforces his "Scare the Muslims away" policy by requiring them to wear clearly visible marks on their clothing
This isn't a Trump proposal. Organizations in favor of terrorism committed by Muslims* are sending protesters to Trump rallies to disrupt the rallies, get kicked out, and claim Trump wants to force Muslims to wear identifying clothing to a credulous media. But that's just trolling and not something Trump is actually saying.
*CAIR, the organization which puts a lot of the protesters up to this, was an unindicted co-conspiritor in the Holy Land Foundation's support to Hamas. While of course not all Muslims are pro-terrorism, CAIR certainly is.
This is not merely about having embarassing porn exposed - someone may use a mac for top secret work, close the application, and hand it over to someone with lower clearance.
Sincerely, the guy in charge of Hillary Clinton's email server.
I love Slackware, but this isn't true. Old versions of Slackware ARE only supported for a few years. Nobody is supporting the 23 year old versions of Slackware.
You responded "Clinton aides were the only ones who had accounts on the server. Anyone who introduced information to the server was either Clinton or one of her aides"
But that's besides the point, in other words it doesn't backup your claim or answer why you think the markings weren't removed before Clinton's aides got their hands on the information.
Clinton aides were the only ones who had accounts on the server. Anyone who introduced information to the server was either Clinton or one of her aides.
Are you prepared to tell me that all 1,000 redacted emails consisted entirely of material that was improperly marked BEFORE it was sent in emails through the secret, illegal server. (Keep in mind, some of this stuff is supposed to get you fired if you handle it improperly.) Any difference is the responsibility of whichever Clinton aide put it in an email in the first place. Right?
It's not my speculation that using non-official email servers makes FOIA evasion easier. It's Congress's speculation, which is why the practice is illegal. Look into the Federal Records Retention Act.
In my last post, the one you replied to without giving any indication that you read it, I explained to you EXACTLY how the Clinton Foundation was used to illicitly fund Clinton's campaign. Please make some reference to those facts in your next post.
Slashdot Mirror
While working on the campaign, they WEREN'T ALLOWED to use the official server. (You can't use government resources for your campaign.) That's why the server was there in the first place. It was a campaign server intended for campaign work.
The other difference is that there was no satellite imagery on gwb43.com
All the things that you called "likely" are true. However, there was a leak. Some emails that Sydney Blumenthal wrote that were sent through this server were published by one of the Gawker affiliates after one of the Gawker guy's buddies hacked the server.
Right... except that she tried to delete the emails and failed, which is why the FBI says they have 100% of the deleted ones as well. They called the deletion attempt "completely unprofessional," which is exactly the kind of IT services that need to be provided to servers that secure servers that hold information classified above top secret.
Once again, the FBI has leaked this.
I have a Tivo with a cable card. I can already access all my channels and all the Over the Top services (including Comcast's video on demand stuff and pay per view, if I wanted that.) This exists now. How is this different than that?
Without knowing what these e-mail contained I'm not going to jump to the conclusion Hilary Clinton was mailing the real world identities of th CIA's chief spies in the Kremlin to her friends in clear text.
The FBI has leaked that there were Human Intelligence emails on her server that made it obvious who the source was, and if revealed to whoever they were spying on, it would put the source in danger.
Because no ex post facto law means that since the emails were not classified and were on a government owned server for unclassified emails and documents at the time means that Clinton isn't guilty of squat, any more than the entire US government is guilty because they owned the servers that these "classified" documents resided
You're doing it wrong here in a number of ways.
First off, Hillary had a privately owned server. She owned it, not the government.
Secondly, using a privately owned server to do Official Government Business is a crime even if the work is unclassified. (It violates the Freedom of Information Act, which says that the people have the right to demand records from the government so they can check for corruption.)
Also, the documents were classified when they were sent. The State Department is lying to protect Clinton when they tell you otherwise.
No, she's unelectable because what she did was criminal.
OK Mr Smartass conservative, if what she did is criminal, then why have charges not been filed? The New York Times broke the story on March 2, 2015, and the physical server was given to the FBI in August 12, 2015. In all of that time, they have release no evidence.
The FBI has leaked plenty of evidence. Also, supposedly there's an indictment coming.
Wait, CLINTON is UNELECTABLE because she may or may not have sent emails from a personal server that though not top secret secure has no evidence anything was leaked - and have proven through the non-redacted bits that her means were ignorant of technology but her intent was just to get shit done.
Except for "Clinton is UNELECTABLE" everything in this paragraph is bullshit. If you can't understand what the problem is, you're a fundamentally stupid person. I hope you can't vote in this election.
Hillary Clinton had Talent Keyhole satellite imagery classified higher than TOP SECRET on her secret email server. All actual Talent Keyhole images are codeword classified because revealing the images would reveal the capabilities of the Talent Keyhole satellite. This is confirmed by the FBI.
Clinton also had highly classified HUMINT on her server. (Again, above Top Secret.) HUMINT is "Human Intelligence," in other words, intelligence gathered by a mole inside wherever but working for the US. The reason it was so highly classified is because its improper disclosure would put the source in danger. There was no security in place on the server (which was hacked by China and Russia.) Clinton very well may have gotten this source killed. (The FBI confirmed this part too.)
Finally introduce a "-1, Factually Incorrect" mod.
THIS. Most times when I downmod something, it's because the information contained in the post is wrong. It usually winds up as "Flamebait" but that doesn't really cover what's wrong with it.
Other than the difference between the First Amendment and the underlying right, I'm not really clear on what you're saying. Most of the "people being wrong about the First Amendment" that I see claims that the amendment is narrower than it really is.
Can you give an example of Freedom of the Press being used as an excuse to harass private citizens?
The tax is the Universal Service Fund tax, which is an additional tax added on top of phone bills to subsidise Internet service.
The "right to privacy" that some people assume is part of the Constitution is really just an excuse that activist judges use point to in order to make sure the side they favor wins. Outside that context, it's too hard to define what it means. (By contrast, everyone knows what "freedom of the press" means.) The US doesn't have a monopoly on not being able to define privacy, look at the fight over the EU's Right to be Forgotten law/rule/whatever.
Bork favored a strict interpretation of laws that exist. Congress went through the process of passing a new law to replace the old one, which is fine. What would have been wrong would have been a judge pretending there was a law protecting his video records when there was not.
Face it. The EU will screw this up. Europe will screw this up. The UN will screw this up.
There's nobody better to do the job of running ICANN anywhere in the world than the US Federal Government.
And, what's the plan for the primary comms?
Belichick will be jamming those.
Also, I thought Republicans didn't like the government interfering in business?
We don't. Trump is a RINO, someone who claims to be a Republican at election time but acts like a Democrat the rest of the time. Economic Protectionism (which is what this is) is a left-wing idea. Its opposite, free trade, is endorsed by conservatives. Free trade is popular enough that a number of otherwise-lefty Democrats endorse it. (For example, Bill Clinton supported NAFTA. It passed the House with the support of 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats, and passed the Senate with the support of 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. This was in 1993, before Clinton and the Democrats lost big in the '94 midterms and "triangulated" to the center.)
This is a lot of misinformation packed into one post. For example, Hobby Lobby is NOT preventing their employees from using any kind of contraception the employee wishes (subject to the advice of the employee's doctor in cases that require a prescription.) Hobby Lobby won't PAY FOR certain contraception methods via their corporate insurance plan, but employees can use their own money (or their spouse's insurance or whatever) to buy the other contraception methods, and Hobby Lobby won't fire them or anything.
A public company is one owned by the government. A private company is one owned by private citizens who invest in it. Google is a publicly traded company, which means it's a private company with a specific way for investors to invest in it. But Google is not owned by the government and is not obliged to help the government in ways not required by law.
Donald Trump becomes president, enforces his "Scare the Muslims away" policy by requiring them to wear clearly visible marks on their clothing
This isn't a Trump proposal. Organizations in favor of terrorism committed by Muslims* are sending protesters to Trump rallies to disrupt the rallies, get kicked out, and claim Trump wants to force Muslims to wear identifying clothing to a credulous media. But that's just trolling and not something Trump is actually saying.
*CAIR, the organization which puts a lot of the protesters up to this, was an unindicted co-conspiritor in the Holy Land Foundation's support to Hamas. While of course not all Muslims are pro-terrorism, CAIR certainly is.
This is not merely about having embarassing porn exposed - someone may use a mac for top secret work, close the application, and hand it over to someone with lower clearance.
Sincerely, the guy in charge of Hillary Clinton's email server.
I love Slackware, but this isn't true. Old versions of Slackware ARE only supported for a few years. Nobody is supporting the 23 year old versions of Slackware.
I said "Can you backup your claim?"
You responded "Clinton aides were the only ones who had accounts on the server. Anyone who introduced information to the server was either Clinton or one of her aides"
But that's besides the point, in other words it doesn't backup your claim or answer why you think the markings weren't removed before Clinton's aides got their hands on the information.
There were two paragraphs in my response, champ.
Clinton aides were the only ones who had accounts on the server. Anyone who introduced information to the server was either Clinton or one of her aides.
Are you prepared to tell me that all 1,000 redacted emails consisted entirely of material that was improperly marked BEFORE it was sent in emails through the secret, illegal server. (Keep in mind, some of this stuff is supposed to get you fired if you handle it improperly.) Any difference is the responsibility of whichever Clinton aide put it in an email in the first place. Right?
It's not my speculation that using non-official email servers makes FOIA evasion easier. It's Congress's speculation, which is why the practice is illegal. Look into the Federal Records Retention Act.
In my last post, the one you replied to without giving any indication that you read it, I explained to you EXACTLY how the Clinton Foundation was used to illicitly fund Clinton's campaign. Please make some reference to those facts in your next post.
Can you backup your claim?
Yes
Speculation on your part?
No
Speculation on your part?
No
Do you see how obnoxious that is? Please use the freaking quote button, unless you want me to think that you are omitting the context on purpose..