One of the only real effective security measure after 9/11 was to reinforce cockpit doors to prevent forced entry. Almost everything done on the ground was just theater of the off, off, 20 zip codes removed from Broadway type.
Well since they are claiming they have excess $$$$ there is no competitive disadvantage to giving extra money to the gov't. You can only really have a competitive disadvantage when the circumstances cause an undue burden on your company vs someone elses. These millionaires/billionaires, on the other hand, and just stating they have too much money and wish the government would take more of it for their pet projects.
If I buy a $15 pizza for supper and you have a $2 PB&J that doesn't put me at a competitive disadvantage; I just chose to spend my disposable income in a different matter than you. The same is true if millionaire #1 decides to give an extra few percent of their income to the gov't and millionaire #2 decides to buy a new yacht.
It may have something to do with the fact that when Android started and every phone had their own connector people were used to it so Apple was just part of the crowd but as Android evolved and most manufacturers started using the current 'standard' USB connector people saw that as Apple refusing to play ball.
Even if the standard changes people are more willing to see Android in a favorable light because the standard they use is the same as ever other computer peripheral manufacture. At pretty much every level when Android adopted to the newest USB format a lot of people didn't have to swap out all their cables because either they could get a cheap adapter anywhere or they already had several cables from their other devices.
I have an LG phone but I honestly can't tell you where my LG charger is. At my office I have a Blackberry and Samsung charger. In my living room I have another Blackberry charger (Playbook chargers do an amazing job) and in my computer room I use my headphone cable. When I go visit my mother I don't really stress if I bring a cable with me or not because I can use her printer cable or the cable from her headphones to charge my phone. (Come to think of it, I may have actually left my LG charger at her house last Christmas)
When my brother and nephew visit, at some point there is always a frantic search for a cable to charge up their iPhones because, well one, they always misplace cables, and two, there have no alternatives.
I don't know where you are but I know around here (Canada) a top of the line S7 Edge is $1000 even and the regular S7 is $900.
To get close to that price you'd have to get the base model 6s (16GB) for $915 or the 64GB for $1055. If you go flagship to flagship you'd have to get the 6s+ for either $1055 (16gb) or $1195 (64gb) or $1355 (128gb).
So at best, comparing the Edge vs the cheapest 6s you save $85 on the iPhone; almost every other comparison favors the Android. Top vs top you'd have the Edge @ $1000 and 6s+ (128) @ $1355. To make it fairer you could add the $150 for a 200GB sd card to the edge giving you a 232GB Edge @ $1150 vs a 128GB 6s+ @ $1355.
Since for 99% of people Edge is mostly a gimmick while 6s to 6s+ is much more fundamental difference in phones, a reasonable comparison would be between the regular S7 and 6s+. So at the base level you save $155 over the 6s+ 16gb, $295 over the 64GB and $455 over the 128GB. In each case you could add a 200GB sd and still save money.
That means if you grab two random people off the street in Australia there is less than 10% chance that those two people don't share significant cultural similarities.
Australia's fractionalization rating is 0.093 (yes that's zero point zero nine three) with a population that is 92% white. That means if you grab two random people off the street in Australia there is less than 1% chance that those two people don't share significant cultural similarities. Using a different more favorable methodology, Australia moves all the way up to 0.149, giving it the rank of 140th most diverse country in the world.
The Unites State on the other hand rates a 0.49 (the same using both systems) ranking it 85th.
Just for comparison, Canada (where I'm actually from) rates a 0.71 (or.59 using the other system) which gives us the 60th spot on the diversity rankings.
I should actually apologize for my erroneous comparison to the Swedish Bikini team since Sweden, being ranked 128th, actually ranks higher in diversity than Australia.
So you're honestly trying to compare a country with 1/10th the population, 1/10th the population density and the ethnic diversity of the Swedish Bikini Team to the US.
One reason there is no comparison is the US has almost as many illegal immigrants (and in some estimations more) than Aus has residents and while in the US that number generally rises, in Aus last year there was 0 illegal immigration for the first 6+ months. Illegals greatly dampen the wage market because if in large supply it's easier for businesses who don't care to hire cheap illegal workers than pay high wages for a legal worker that will also require extra costs in benefits. It sux but it's a simple fact.
Aus is also as close to a closed system as you can get so almost any policy put in place there can't be well transferred to any other place on earth. No matter how ridiculous they make their minimum wage there is only so far employment can fall. All societies require a certain level of service and in Australia's case, you either get it in house or not at all so there is a lot less fluctuation in the job market in response to federally mandated changes in wages.
In other parts of the world, people have choices and if their local area isn't providing a good or service at a reasonable rate they can easily move or simply make a short trip to get it someone else. For example, if you're anywhere near the 12,000+ km of border (excluding coasts) in the US you can simply drive a few minutes to get to a Mexican or Canadian town to get cheaper services (and vice versa), if local pricing is too high. In Aus, you have 0 cm of border and your closest neighbor is boat ride or flight away making a quick round trip if not an impossibility for most, much more problematic. It's so easy to cross the Can/US border I have friends that routinely drive to the States to pick up parcels (so they can use US shipping rates) and be back to their offices before lunch. I've know people to cross over because their favorite burrito place uses a different spice mixture in their US franchises than their Canadian ones.
The Seattle example I gave above is a real world example of how an much more open system reacts to artificial forces. In Australian terms it would be the equivalent of 1 neighborhood in Melbourne deciding to raise their minimum wage to $20 while the all the others left it at about $13.50. While many businesses are geographically tied to their customer base, those that had the option decided to move/expand in the cheaper parts of town.
Powell used a private account because the email systems at State at the time were apparently archaic. He was responsible, at least in part, for upgrading the systems while he was there. It was also considered acceptable practice at the time to use private email as long as someone with a state.gov address was cc'd and so far no one has shown any example of any Powell email to anyone outside of State that doesn't include that cc. For actual top secret emails he only used the internal secure server and not his personal account.
Rice apparently never used email although she did have a.gov address. Some of her assistants did have external email accounts but once again, no top secret emails were found (and State looked all the while claiming in court to not have resources to review Hillary's emails).
The closest dirt they could find on Powell and Rice were some internally classified State department emails on Powell's account and Rices assistants accounts. The big difference between Hillary's cache and Rice and Powell's is while each of them as the SoS can declassify any State documents (Powell claims his weren't classified at the time and possibly not even now), they have no authority to declassify documents created by other departments and most of the exposed documents from the Hillary invesitagation have been from external sources (NSA, CIA, foreign governments).
At the McD's around here the machines handle custom orders just fine. They also offer design your own burger options that would take days to explain to a cashier.
So I can get a burger, with real cheddar (instead of processed) crispy onions, grilled mushrooms, lettuce and 1 or more of the available sauces (from ketchup to aioli) and never have to talk to anyone. As an added bonus it's delivered to my table instead of having to wait at the counter.
So now, instead of 5 tellers plus 2-3 runners (people grabbing things behind the counter and putting them on trays or in bags) they have 2 tellers, 2 runners and a 'hostess' for the table service.
So they went from 7-8 full time positions at the counter to 5 + 8 touchscreens.
People who can't figure out the button that says "Big Mac Meal" with a giant picture means they get a big mac, fries (or salad) and a drink can still go to the counter but the rest of us can just press a couple buttons and go sit down or wait till our number is called.
We have a real world example of minimum wage laws taking place right now in Seattle. Seattle implemented new minimum wage laws last year and have since seen employment drop half a percent. Their neighboring areas, having not implemented these new laws, have seen historic employment increases.
Support for minimum wage laws illustrates the economic and historical illiteracy that is so widespread in this country
Actually you've got that backwards, fighting against minimum wage laws illistrates economic and historical ignorance at the highest level.
Historically they were associated in a huge increase in the middle class. What you're arguing for is the creation and maintenance of an underclass to keep the wealth centralised in the current upper classes.
That's why Seattle with their new minimum wage laws is doing so well.... oh... sorry.. their numbers have dropped and they're actually losing jobs.
Prior to the new minimum wage Seattle employment numbers were roughly in line with national numbers but once their minimum wage laws kicked in they started a pretty significant drop with the unemployment number climbing half a percent in just a couple months. The surrounding areas, which usually stay pretty close to Seattle's numbers but who did not implement the new minimum wage laws, oddly enough, in the same time frame saw historic rises in employment.
Sure they love to publish stories about how great the Seattle employment scene is but if you look closely, all of those stories draw in the surrounding areas to inflate their numbers.
Most of the classified emails made public so far (after appropriate scrubbing) were classified at the time they were sent.
Things like foreign intelligence information, CIA asset details etc. are considered 'born classified' meaning the documents were classified as soon as they were created. Other things like State Department schedules can be retroactively classified if something important happens and they want to cover up who was present. Since both types of documents exist in Hilary's email cache the 'retroactively classified' defense died a very quick death almost as soon as it was made, and it's only repeated by die hard Hillary supporters (usually the same people who claim sexism as a defense for every attack).
The State department has been spending a considerable amount of effort to get things declassified to try and save face for Hilary but since they were not the source for many of the classified emails on Hilary's server they have no power to do so.
Powell used email in it's infancy at the State department when simply cc'ing a.gov address was considered ok. He was partially responsible for starting the move to update the email systems at State. There have also been no reports of any external agency classified emails present in any of his records the State department has searched, and they did, all the while claiming NOT to have the resources necessary to meet the court mandated date to search Hilary's.
I deal with classified and top secret information everyday at my office. The first rule is even if it's not marked classified but contains information on certain subjects assume it's classified and treat it as such. The number of encrypted emails my group gets because someone just wasn't sure is probably doubling the demands on our email server.
Emails containing troop movements, high level inter governmental communications as well as naming specific foreign intelligence sources (all of which were present in Hilary's email cache) don't require any marking for even the newest intern to know they are to be treated with kid gloves and reported if not handled properly.
We're not talking about simple slips of the keyboard where a line or two should have been deleted, were talking about actual names of CIA assets.
I wasn't even discussing your post. I was replying to the AC's claims about how everything would be fixed by going back to 1930's tax rates by pointing out they were never actually paid by anyone.
Technically she is already guilty as the statutes regarding the handling of classified materials don't really care about intent or any other factors, just the mere existence of classified materials on her server are enough.
Since several thousand classified emails (most originating outside of the State department meaning she had no authority to change their classification) have already been identified the only question is will the DoJ bother to press charges.
A lack of conviction does not equal not being guilty, especially in political circles.
We know Powell used a private email service (not sure which one) because email rules weren't well developed when he was SoS. He claims (and no one has yet to prove otherwise) that all his work related emails included a cc to a state department address which was considered adequate at the time.
Rice, apparently, rarely used emails and had a.gov email address.
The State department reviewed both Powell's and Rice's emails (which wasn't requested by anyone) while simultaneously claiming in federal court to not have time to review Hilary's (which they have a standing judicial order to do) and found a few classified documents but they were all State dept documents which the SoS has authority to classify or declassify at will, as opposed to Hilary's which contained all levels of classified documents from several outside agencies.
Also telling, they had access to Powell and Rice's emails while, until this whole fiasco broke, they had no access to Hilary's.
Markings are irrelevant. Classified materials are classified regardless of markings and are generally easily identifiable as such (by subject matter or sources) and it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the receiver to identify possibly classified materials and contact the required authorities if (s)he receives them on an unsecured service.
That's besides the fact that in at least a few of the pieces of correspondence that have been reported on Hillary herself instructed underlings to remove the classification to make it easier to get the info she wanted sent to her.
Hillary also deleted her emails originally, then destroyed the servers, then handed over printed copies of the emails she deemed worthy of review. It was only after initial investigations had begun that it was found that she had given a copy to her lawyer and that drive was taken into custody.
She's cooperated much in the same way an inmate on death row 'cooperates' during his execution; never by choice, only because she was forced into having no alternatives.
Patreus handed some classified materials to his biographer who also happened to have classified clearance, just not the right ones for some of the materials she apparently was given.
Some of the emails released, though heavily redacted (up to 100%), from Hillary's emails cache were code-word classified meaning they were generally only to be seen by a very short list of people and only in a secure viewing room. Some of it was so highly classified that the IGs doing the initial investigation weren't even permitted to read them and had to go to the source organizations to have them reviewed.
The fact that these were on her unsecured server, shared with several underlings without codeword clearance as well as then handed to her lawyer (who also did not have all the required clearances) who stored them in his office without the proper level of security for the types of documents that existed on the storage drive shows a complete disregard for the proper and legally required handling of classified materials.
The only people who made that claim were Hillary reps and State department officials who have been trying to slow the entire review process down and cover her and their own asses.
Of the now thousands of emails found to be classified or above most were classified at the time. Many are what are generally called 'born classified' meaning they contain information that by it's very nature, is always considered classified.
While the State Department can classify/declassify their own internal documents (which has happened) they have been trying, and failing miserably, at getting the various intelligence organizations to agree to retroactively declassify their materials so that they can make the claim that no classified materials exist in her emails.
People keep citing the grand ole' 90% tax rates as if they were ever actually paid. The effective rate (what was ACTUALLY paid) has pretty much always capped out around 39-45% for the top earners even when the actual rate was 91%. There were so many ways to move money around back then that no one with any cash actually ever paid 90% taxes. That's why taxes, as a percentage of GDP, have pretty much stayed the same for the past 70+ years.
Raising the rate to 90% now would result in the same thing as back then, a sudden boom in newly incorporated businesses with a single stake holder who draws a modest salary well below the 90% tax threshold.
Of course, living in your imaginary world where people are incapable of moving to avoid paying outrageous federal taxes, I guess you could just start taxes businesses at 90% too.
At times in the past the SC officially had as few as 6 positions and government functioned just fine. With recusals there are often less than 9 judges rendering verdicts so leaving a seat empty until the next President can nominate a replacement will hardly make a difference.
For a lot of voters having an exiting President appoint a lifetime nominee to such an important position is a bit distasteful and thinking about who each candidate will nominate will become an important part of deciding who to vote for.
From 2003 (the full implementation of the Bush tax cuts) to 2007 (when Dems took over congress) federal revenue increased every single year. The deficits also decreased every year after 2004.
Revenues didn't start decreasing until 2008 (mid bubble burst) but deficits skyrocketed to previously unheard of trillion dollar levels. Revenues have only recently gotten back to 2007 levels and beyond but deficits are still historically high, though slightly better.
The US, in general, doesn't have a revenue problem, tax breaks or no tax breaks, it has an enormous spending problem because the Federal government tries to be all things to all people instead of leaving well enough alone and letting the States deal with their own stuff the way the system was meant to work.
For every level of government added to 'solving' a problem you add untold additional millions to pay for the myriad of unaccountable bureaucrats and you're just as likely to cause more trouble in the solution than the original problem because those bureaucrats are just too far removed. As everyone has seen, if you add a new dept at the federal level to deal with an issue it's almost impossible to get rid of that dept later on when either the original issue has been resolved or it's been shown the dept itself is either ineffective or redundant.
Obama should scare you more because his abuse of EO's and Presidential Memorandum actually were put into action. Trump is so egotistical and crazy that it could actually be a good thing if, heaven help the world, he ever was elected because the legislative branch would finally step in and put and end to blatantly unconstitutional use of EO's and PM's. The one thing that could possibly unite both Reps and Dems would be passing legislation to limit the President Trumps (shiver) executive overreach.
The US might finally get back to the way the government was suppose to operate with the legislative making the laws and the executive faithfully enforcing them.
I'm also pretty sure a President Trump would do something to get himself impeached within the first 2 years anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the only real effective security measure after 9/11 was to reinforce cockpit doors to prevent forced entry. Almost everything done on the ground was just theater of the off, off, 20 zip codes removed from Broadway type.
Well since they are claiming they have excess $$$$ there is no competitive disadvantage to giving extra money to the gov't. You can only really have a competitive disadvantage when the circumstances cause an undue burden on your company vs someone elses. These millionaires/billionaires, on the other hand, and just stating they have too much money and wish the government would take more of it for their pet projects.
If I buy a $15 pizza for supper and you have a $2 PB&J that doesn't put me at a competitive disadvantage; I just chose to spend my disposable income in a different matter than you. The same is true if millionaire #1 decides to give an extra few percent of their income to the gov't and millionaire #2 decides to buy a new yacht.
It may have something to do with the fact that when Android started and every phone had their own connector people were used to it so Apple was just part of the crowd but as Android evolved and most manufacturers started using the current 'standard' USB connector people saw that as Apple refusing to play ball.
Even if the standard changes people are more willing to see Android in a favorable light because the standard they use is the same as ever other computer peripheral manufacture. At pretty much every level when Android adopted to the newest USB format a lot of people didn't have to swap out all their cables because either they could get a cheap adapter anywhere or they already had several cables from their other devices.
I have an LG phone but I honestly can't tell you where my LG charger is. At my office I have a Blackberry and Samsung charger. In my living room I have another Blackberry charger (Playbook chargers do an amazing job) and in my computer room I use my headphone cable. When I go visit my mother I don't really stress if I bring a cable with me or not because I can use her printer cable or the cable from her headphones to charge my phone. (Come to think of it, I may have actually left my LG charger at her house last Christmas)
When my brother and nephew visit, at some point there is always a frantic search for a cable to charge up their iPhones because, well one, they always misplace cables, and two, there have no alternatives.
I don't know where you are but I know around here (Canada) a top of the line S7 Edge is $1000 even and the regular S7 is $900.
To get close to that price you'd have to get the base model 6s (16GB) for $915 or the 64GB for $1055. If you go flagship to flagship you'd have to get the 6s+ for either $1055 (16gb) or $1195 (64gb) or $1355 (128gb).
So at best, comparing the Edge vs the cheapest 6s you save $85 on the iPhone; almost every other comparison favors the Android. Top vs top you'd have the Edge @ $1000 and 6s+ (128) @ $1355. To make it fairer you could add the $150 for a 200GB sd card to the edge giving you a 232GB Edge @ $1150 vs a 128GB 6s+ @ $1355.
Since for 99% of people Edge is mostly a gimmick while 6s to 6s+ is much more fundamental difference in phones, a reasonable comparison would be between the regular S7 and 6s+.
So at the base level you save $155 over the 6s+ 16gb, $295 over the 64GB and $455 over the 128GB. In each case you could add a 200GB sd and still save money.
Oops, missing a zero above, it should be:
That means if you grab two random people off the street in Australia there is less than 10% chance that those two people don't share significant cultural similarities.
Australia's fractionalization rating is 0.093 (yes that's zero point zero nine three) with a population that is 92% white. That means if you grab two random people off the street in Australia there is less than 1% chance that those two people don't share significant cultural similarities. Using a different more favorable methodology, Australia moves all the way up to 0.149, giving it the rank of 140th most diverse country in the world.
The Unites State on the other hand rates a 0.49 (the same using both systems) ranking it 85th.
Just for comparison, Canada (where I'm actually from) rates a 0.71 (or .59 using the other system) which gives us the 60th spot on the diversity rankings.
I should actually apologize for my erroneous comparison to the Swedish Bikini team since Sweden, being ranked 128th, actually ranks higher in diversity than Australia.
So you're honestly trying to compare a country with 1/10th the population, 1/10th the population density and the ethnic diversity of the Swedish Bikini Team to the US.
One reason there is no comparison is the US has almost as many illegal immigrants (and in some estimations more) than Aus has residents and while in the US that number generally rises, in Aus last year there was 0 illegal immigration for the first 6+ months. Illegals greatly dampen the wage market because if in large supply it's easier for businesses who don't care to hire cheap illegal workers than pay high wages for a legal worker that will also require extra costs in benefits. It sux but it's a simple fact.
Aus is also as close to a closed system as you can get so almost any policy put in place there can't be well transferred to any other place on earth. No matter how ridiculous they make their minimum wage there is only so far employment can fall. All societies require a certain level of service and in Australia's case, you either get it in house or not at all so there is a lot less fluctuation in the job market in response to federally mandated changes in wages.
In other parts of the world, people have choices and if their local area isn't providing a good or service at a reasonable rate they can easily move or simply make a short trip to get it someone else. For example, if you're anywhere near the 12,000+ km of border (excluding coasts) in the US you can simply drive a few minutes to get to a Mexican or Canadian town to get cheaper services (and vice versa), if local pricing is too high. In Aus, you have 0 cm of border and your closest neighbor is boat ride or flight away making a quick round trip if not an impossibility for most, much more problematic. It's so easy to cross the Can/US border I have friends that routinely drive to the States to pick up parcels (so they can use US shipping rates) and be back to their offices before lunch. I've know people to cross over because their favorite burrito place uses a different spice mixture in their US franchises than their Canadian ones.
The Seattle example I gave above is a real world example of how an much more open system reacts to artificial forces. In Australian terms it would be the equivalent of 1 neighborhood in Melbourne deciding to raise their minimum wage to $20 while the all the others left it at about $13.50. While many businesses are geographically tied to their customer base, those that had the option decided to move/expand in the cheaper parts of town.
Powell used a private account because the email systems at State at the time were apparently archaic. He was responsible, at least in part, for upgrading the systems while he was there. It was also considered acceptable practice at the time to use private email as long as someone with a state.gov address was cc'd and so far no one has shown any example of any Powell email to anyone outside of State that doesn't include that cc. For actual top secret emails he only used the internal secure server and not his personal account.
Rice apparently never used email although she did have a .gov address. Some of her assistants did have external email accounts but once again, no top secret emails were found (and State looked all the while claiming in court to not have resources to review Hillary's emails).
The closest dirt they could find on Powell and Rice were some internally classified State department emails on Powell's account and Rices assistants accounts. The big difference between Hillary's cache and Rice and Powell's is while each of them as the SoS can declassify any State documents (Powell claims his weren't classified at the time and possibly not even now), they have no authority to declassify documents created by other departments and most of the exposed documents from the Hillary invesitagation have been from external sources (NSA, CIA, foreign governments).
At the McD's around here the machines handle custom orders just fine. They also offer design your own burger options that would take days to explain to a cashier.
So I can get a burger, with real cheddar (instead of processed) crispy onions, grilled mushrooms, lettuce and 1 or more of the available sauces (from ketchup to aioli) and never have to talk to anyone. As an added bonus it's delivered to my table instead of having to wait at the counter.
So now, instead of 5 tellers plus 2-3 runners (people grabbing things behind the counter and putting them on trays or in bags) they have 2 tellers, 2 runners and a 'hostess' for the table service.
So they went from 7-8 full time positions at the counter to 5 + 8 touchscreens.
People who can't figure out the button that says "Big Mac Meal" with a giant picture means they get a big mac, fries (or salad) and a drink can still go to the counter but the rest of us can just press a couple buttons and go sit down or wait till our number is called.
We have a real world example of minimum wage laws taking place right now in Seattle. Seattle implemented new minimum wage laws last year and have since seen employment drop half a percent. Their neighboring areas, having not implemented these new laws, have seen historic employment increases.
Actually you've got that backwards, fighting against minimum wage laws illistrates economic and historical ignorance at the highest level.
Historically they were associated in a huge increase in the middle class. What you're arguing for is the creation and maintenance of an underclass to keep the wealth centralised in the current upper classes.
That's why Seattle with their new minimum wage laws is doing so well.... oh ... sorry.. their numbers have dropped and they're actually losing jobs.
Prior to the new minimum wage Seattle employment numbers were roughly in line with national numbers but once their minimum wage laws kicked in they started a pretty significant drop with the unemployment number climbing half a percent in just a couple months. The surrounding areas, which usually stay pretty close to Seattle's numbers but who did not implement the new minimum wage laws, oddly enough, in the same time frame saw historic rises in employment.
Sure they love to publish stories about how great the Seattle employment scene is but if you look closely, all of those stories draw in the surrounding areas to inflate their numbers.
Most of the classified emails made public so far (after appropriate scrubbing) were classified at the time they were sent.
Things like foreign intelligence information, CIA asset details etc. are considered 'born classified' meaning the documents were classified as soon as they were created. Other things like State Department schedules can be retroactively classified if something important happens and they want to cover up who was present. Since both types of documents exist in Hilary's email cache the 'retroactively classified' defense died a very quick death almost as soon as it was made, and it's only repeated by die hard Hillary supporters (usually the same people who claim sexism as a defense for every attack).
The State department has been spending a considerable amount of effort to get things declassified to try and save face for Hilary but since they were not the source for many of the classified emails on Hilary's server they have no power to do so.
Powell used email in it's infancy at the State department when simply cc'ing a .gov address was considered ok. He was partially responsible for starting the move to update the email systems at State. There have also been no reports of any external agency classified emails present in any of his records the State department has searched, and they did, all the while claiming NOT to have the resources necessary to meet the court mandated date to search Hilary's.
I deal with classified and top secret information everyday at my office. The first rule is even if it's not marked classified but contains information on certain subjects assume it's classified and treat it as such. The number of encrypted emails my group gets because someone just wasn't sure is probably doubling the demands on our email server.
Emails containing troop movements, high level inter governmental communications as well as naming specific foreign intelligence sources (all of which were present in Hilary's email cache) don't require any marking for even the newest intern to know they are to be treated with kid gloves and reported if not handled properly.
We're not talking about simple slips of the keyboard where a line or two should have been deleted, were talking about actual names of CIA assets.
I wasn't even discussing your post. I was replying to the AC's claims about how everything would be fixed by going back to 1930's tax rates by pointing out they were never actually paid by anyone.
Technically she is already guilty as the statutes regarding the handling of classified materials don't really care about intent or any other factors, just the mere existence of classified materials on her server are enough.
Since several thousand classified emails (most originating outside of the State department meaning she had no authority to change their classification) have already been identified the only question is will the DoJ bother to press charges.
A lack of conviction does not equal not being guilty, especially in political circles.
We know Powell used a private email service (not sure which one) because email rules weren't well developed when he was SoS. He claims (and no one has yet to prove otherwise) that all his work related emails included a cc to a state department address which was considered adequate at the time.
Rice, apparently, rarely used emails and had a .gov email address.
The State department reviewed both Powell's and Rice's emails (which wasn't requested by anyone) while simultaneously claiming in federal court to not have time to review Hilary's (which they have a standing judicial order to do) and found a few classified documents but they were all State dept documents which the SoS has authority to classify or declassify at will, as opposed to Hilary's which contained all levels of classified documents from several outside agencies.
Also telling, they had access to Powell and Rice's emails while, until this whole fiasco broke, they had no access to Hilary's.
Markings are irrelevant. Classified materials are classified regardless of markings and are generally easily identifiable as such (by subject matter or sources) and it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the receiver to identify possibly classified materials and contact the required authorities if (s)he receives them on an unsecured service.
That's besides the fact that in at least a few of the pieces of correspondence that have been reported on Hillary herself instructed underlings to remove the classification to make it easier to get the info she wanted sent to her.
Probably US Fish and Wildlife services.
Hillary also deleted her emails originally, then destroyed the servers, then handed over printed copies of the emails she deemed worthy of review. It was only after initial investigations had begun that it was found that she had given a copy to her lawyer and that drive was taken into custody.
She's cooperated much in the same way an inmate on death row 'cooperates' during his execution; never by choice, only because she was forced into having no alternatives.
Patreus handed some classified materials to his biographer who also happened to have classified clearance, just not the right ones for some of the materials she apparently was given.
Some of the emails released, though heavily redacted (up to 100%), from Hillary's emails cache were code-word classified meaning they were generally only to be seen by a very short list of people and only in a secure viewing room. Some of it was so highly classified that the IGs doing the initial investigation weren't even permitted to read them and had to go to the source organizations to have them reviewed.
The fact that these were on her unsecured server, shared with several underlings without codeword clearance as well as then handed to her lawyer (who also did not have all the required clearances) who stored them in his office without the proper level of security for the types of documents that existed on the storage drive shows a complete disregard for the proper and legally required handling of classified materials.
The only people who made that claim were Hillary reps and State department officials who have been trying to slow the entire review process down and cover her and their own asses.
Of the now thousands of emails found to be classified or above most were classified at the time. Many are what are generally called 'born classified' meaning they contain information that by it's very nature, is always considered classified.
While the State Department can classify/declassify their own internal documents (which has happened) they have been trying, and failing miserably, at getting the various intelligence organizations to agree to retroactively declassify their materials so that they can make the claim that no classified materials exist in her emails.
People keep citing the grand ole' 90% tax rates as if they were ever actually paid. The effective rate (what was ACTUALLY paid) has pretty much always capped out around 39-45% for the top earners even when the actual rate was 91%. There were so many ways to move money around back then that no one with any cash actually ever paid 90% taxes. That's why taxes, as a percentage of GDP, have pretty much stayed the same for the past 70+ years.
Raising the rate to 90% now would result in the same thing as back then, a sudden boom in newly incorporated businesses with a single stake holder who draws a modest salary well below the 90% tax threshold.
Of course, living in your imaginary world where people are incapable of moving to avoid paying outrageous federal taxes, I guess you could just start taxes businesses at 90% too.
At times in the past the SC officially had as few as 6 positions and government functioned just fine. With recusals there are often less than 9 judges rendering verdicts so leaving a seat empty until the next President can nominate a replacement will hardly make a difference.
For a lot of voters having an exiting President appoint a lifetime nominee to such an important position is a bit distasteful and thinking about who each candidate will nominate will become an important part of deciding who to vote for.
From 2003 (the full implementation of the Bush tax cuts) to 2007 (when Dems took over congress) federal revenue increased every single year. The deficits also decreased every year after 2004.
Revenues didn't start decreasing until 2008 (mid bubble burst) but deficits skyrocketed to previously unheard of trillion dollar levels. Revenues have only recently gotten back to 2007 levels and beyond but deficits are still historically high, though slightly better.
The US, in general, doesn't have a revenue problem, tax breaks or no tax breaks, it has an enormous spending problem because the Federal government tries to be all things to all people instead of leaving well enough alone and letting the States deal with their own stuff the way the system was meant to work.
For every level of government added to 'solving' a problem you add untold additional millions to pay for the myriad of unaccountable bureaucrats and you're just as likely to cause more trouble in the solution than the original problem because those bureaucrats are just too far removed. As everyone has seen, if you add a new dept at the federal level to deal with an issue it's almost impossible to get rid of that dept later on when either the original issue has been resolved or it's been shown the dept itself is either ineffective or redundant.
Obama should scare you more because his abuse of EO's and Presidential Memorandum actually were put into action. Trump is so egotistical and crazy that it could actually be a good thing if, heaven help the world, he ever was elected because the legislative branch would finally step in and put and end to blatantly unconstitutional use of EO's and PM's. The one thing that could possibly unite both Reps and Dems would be passing legislation to limit the President Trumps (shiver) executive overreach.
The US might finally get back to the way the government was suppose to operate with the legislative making the laws and the executive faithfully enforcing them.
I'm also pretty sure a President Trump would do something to get himself impeached within the first 2 years anyway.