Condoleeza Rice didn't use email (though she did have a.gov address) and so far the only thing dug up about Colin Powell were a couple of State Dept. documents on his personal email that were later classified (very low level stuff like calendars and such). He claims, and no one has been able to show otherwise, that all his handling of classified material, especially sourced from outside agencies, was completely managed through use of the internal classified mail servers.
Clinton, on the other hand, had emails on her private server that contained information that was only available on the secure server. At one point the investigators were supposedly questioning her subordinates about how they managed to access the data (they did not have clearance to log in) and the leading theory was she gave someone at the office her login credentials and they used that to transcribe the information into emails they would then send to her private account.
Most of the classified material discussed previously was not created by State but was just State handling outside agency information. There was some wholly owned State Dept. material in the bunch but a lot of that was declassified after the fact to try to minimize the damage.
After this mess came to light the State department started going around to all the other agencies (NSA, CIA, etc...) to try and get them to declassifying their material to make Hillary's case look better but most, if not all, refused to play ball so yes, this was a case of her downloading and mishandling other peoples classified material.
Sanction can include jail time, fines as well as revocation of security clearances and the inability to ever get them back. It doesn't all have to be related to the job.
The SoS can only declassify materials originating withing the State Department itself. They have no authority to declassify any material originating within any other government agency or foreign source which was why when this first started up there was a parade of State Dept. personnel going to each other federal agency pleading for them to declassify their data to cover for Hillary. As far as I know, none of the other agencies complied.
Seriously, at what point does gross negligence become criminal?
When dealing with classified information it's right in the statute that it is immediately criminal. Comey even said in his statement that anyone else under the same circumstances would face sanctions but they weren't recommending any because no prosecutor would bring them to trial.
According to the statues there is no difference between negligence and intent so yes, except for volume, Clinton and Snowden were in violation of most of the same statues concerning classified materials. Snowden may have extra charges related to the means he used to extract the data and some actions he took afterward but the underling violations concerning the data itself are the same.
The problem is for the statutes she was accused of violating there is no distinction between intent and negligence. Merely being aware of the existence of her server was technically a violation of the statues if not reported let alone being an active participant in their use. Then of course their is the know cases of document destruction which itself violates several statues.
Comey even went so far as to say that anyone else in the same situation as Clinton would most likely face sanctions but that they weren't suggestion any against Clinton simply because "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case".
Looks like he was driving a newer Jeep with the terribly designed electronic shifter which were effectively recalled because of so many reports of people thinking they put their cars into park actually put them in neutral instead.
Who sets the price is one of the least important aspects of determining who is a contractor or employee. Contractors rarely get to arbitrarily set their own prices. Sure they can ask whatever they want but once they decide to take a contract they have to agree to the terms and conditions of the person who they are contracted with and that will usually involve the price of the good or service they provide.
Often at places like farmers markets or sporting events the price of the sold good is at least partially set by the venue since they often receive a percentage of profits as part of the lease agreement and they also don't want to have uneven pricing across individual stalls. That doesn't necessarily make the workers at the individual stalls employees of the venue.
In the case of Uber the drivers could say they will not work unless Uber ups their rate or gives them a larger share but once they accept Uber's offer then they are bound by Ubers rules, which includes pricing structure, for as long as they decide to accept ride requests from the app.
The actual rules for determining contractor vs. employee are very gray. There are about a dozen or more conditions that are looked at and almost every job will meet conditions that would define their position as both a contractor and employee. There is no clearly defined line as to how many conditions have to be met to be one or the other which is why the courts get involved.
Unless the funding for the claimant is directly tied to the defendant (possible fraud or insurance scam) then there is no reason the funding for the lawyers ever has to be know. Who pays for something should be irrelevant to the case and the judgement that is rendered, including damages.
If Thiel was directly paying Hogan to going forward with the lawsuit then that would be relevant as it would go towards damages Hogan sustained due to Gawkers actions (direct damages would be loss of earnings minus any amounts paid to him by Thiel) but no one is saying that happened, merely that Thiel paid for the legal expenses.
I know several people who have had out of warranty service covered by their respective car dealers. At least one for a drive belt issue, one for a suspension issue (both GM) and another for something to do with his electric windows (Ford).
Personally, my Kia Optima had the wheel bearings wear out in one wheel and the dealership looked at them and told me outright that while they aren't covered under warranty (since like brake pads they are considered a normal wear and tear component) they thought the wear was premature and that they would push for Kia Canada to cover the replacement. Total cost of repair to me = $0
I use the voice commands on my Xbox One all the time to control my TV and have yet to have Microsoft break into my house to steal all my remotes. I also use voice commands to control a lot of features in my car even though there are also buttons on my display that do the same thing. I'm assuming from the level of vitriol against voice controls in your post that Google offered them to you only if you were willing to give up your thumbs. In that case, and pretty much only in that case, I can see your point.
I don't use voice controls on my phone most places because I simply don't like talking to my phone in public (as opposed to talking on my phone) but every now and then I find it much more useful to just say a search term then try and spell it out. As far as I'm aware adding voice doesn't limit using the manual entry options.
She violated several statues concerning the handling of classified email as well as the various document retention statues which apply specifically to any work product for high level government officials. Neither of those sets of laws are department specific and apply to all federal agencies.
The laws and statues concerning handling of classified materials are especially damning because they don't even require intent to be found guilty. Merely having classified material outside of secured authorized channels is enough to be in violation. The mere existence of her server as well as the thumb drive she gave her lawyer were immediate proof of a violation as soon as the first classified piece of email was found.
No corporation has any responsibility to be fair and balanced but when you advertise a product using very specific terms (like "trending") then like it or not you have to live up to your claims or face possible repercussions. It's like the difference between advertising a beer as "tastes great, less filling" which is meaningless adspeak vs 'lite' which in many jurisdictions has a specific legal requirement.
As for bias, the fact that Fox is the #1 goto bogyman for commentators defending Facebook's deception is very telling. In pretty much all media surveys/studies Fox News does come on the conservative side of the scale but with the exception of ABC news and a couple CNN news programs they are routinely closer to center than almost all other news sources (which are almost all on the left). There are studies from Harvard, PEW and even NYT using various methodologies that all show very similar results. People that think Fox News is far right are usually so far to the left that to them center is an ultra conservative view. Of course that's for the regular news programs, opinion shows are an entirely different matter since by definition, they are just one person, or possible a hand picked panels, opinions.
"Fair and Balanced" are subjective terms. They are hard to define and what person A believes is fair and balanced Person B might not. There is so much leeway in how they are interpreted as to be almost meaningless. Is a 30 second rebuttal to an argument fair enough or does it require an uninterrupted 10 minutes? For example, just try asking a liberal what "fair" share means when talking about how much the rich should be taxed.
"Trending" is a much more objective term. By the excepted definition it means a topic that is being discussed or shared a lot in a relatively short period of time. There can be some play as to how low the trending bar can be set but by the accusations Facebook's definition was "stories we like whether anyone else was talking about them or not". If they just called their sidebar "Stories of interest" then there would be no issue.
They'll investigate Facebook for bias but not Fox News.
They're investigating Facebook for what is effectively false advertising. Claiming that their "trending" feature is an actual representation of trending stories amongst users and not a filtered and modified list of stories of personal interest of a select few reviewers. If it was just about bias where are the requests for MSNBC and CNN to appear?
They'll investigate Clinton for operating an email server, but not Rice or Powell, who also operated their own email server.
They're investigating Clinton for storing classified and top secret information outside of legal channels and neither Rice of Powell had their own servers. Rice barely used email at all (though some of her aides did) and Powell came in when the rules allowed for outside services (but not for classified info and as of today no one has pointed to any classified info in Powell's emails) as long as a.gov email address was cc'd; a practive he claims to have followed and no one has been able to show otherwise. He was also at least partially responsible for forcing the State Dept to update their email systems because apparently they were so antiquated at the time as to be more of a hindrance.
In most countries what was shown in the papers was not illegal. In many cases the corporations, which existed outside of their country of residence, made all the income and the 'investors' were simply paid from that companies accounts. The only income they had to report was what they were paid; no evasion.
I'm assuming you're the same AC posting this same debunked claim from above so here's the same response;
Point #1, the suit in question wasn't against Fox news, it was a Fox tv affiliate. Point #2, the suit wasn't about the right to lie, it was a simple wrongful dismissal suit in which the fired couple made the claim the TV station was trying to lie.
Simply put, two reporters didn't have their contracts re-upped and they claimed it was due to their complaints about how the editors at the station edited one of the their stories. The final judgement was based on whether the firing was legal and had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the story (which the FCC classified as just a difference in editorial style and not an intention to mislead).
If you're going to try and make a point about how some entity is untruthful it would at least be a good idea to be using an example that itself isn't based on a lie.
The SoS can only (de)classify materials that originated within the State Dept. They have no authority to change classifications on material originating from other sources and most of the details that have been talked about in the press originated in the CIA/NSA/FBI or Dept. of Homeland Security.
The DNC and RNC dont' generally get to choose who appears on the ballot, they merely whittle down potential people they will back to 2 people and have the political apparatus in each state to make sure that choice can meet the requirements to be listed. If one of the 2 people they decide to back gets on the ballot but then drops out (for whatever reason) they don't generally have the option to just add another name. There are legal requirements to put your name on a ballot in all 50 states and timing is usually a very important one.
If the decision to drop out (or felony conviction/indictment) happens past the deadline to put your name on the ballot then simply put, either the original persons name remains on the ballot or no name is placed on the ballot representing the party in question. If Hillary is charged and the DNC decides to drop her like a hot potato there is a very real chance they would have to run a 'write in' campaign for their pick in several states.
Point #1, the suit in question wasn't against Fox news, it was a Fox tv affiliate. Point #2, the suit wasn't about the right to lie, it was a simple wrongful dismissal suit in which the fired couple made the claim the TV station was trying to lie.
Simply put, two reporters didn't have their contracts re-upped and they claimed it was due to their complaints about how the editors at the station edited one of the their stories. The final judgement was based on whether the firing was legal and had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the story (which the FCC classified as just a difference in editorial style and not an intention to mislead).
If you're going to try and make a point about how some entity is untruthful it would at least be a good idea to be using an example that itself isn't based on a lie.
Any classified information you receive is your responsibility, PERIOD. The law doesn't care about sender or receiver, just results. If you believe you should not be receiving this information in an unsecured system it is your responsibility to report it. Failure to report it and properly handle it after that point makes you just as guilty, legally speaking, as the original sender. The laws for handling classified materials are very strict and generally don't permit ignorance as an excuse.
That's all moot anyways as many of these emails originate within her gaggle of State department underlings who forwarded the information to her and in at least one case they are investigating how data that was only present on the secure server made it to her email when no one in her office had clearance to view the original. One of the theories was she gave her access credentials to an underling so they could forward the info to her by retyping it into an unsecure email (since they could confirm she was not in her office on the date of the email).
Slashdot Mirror
Condoleeza Rice didn't use email (though she did have a .gov address) and so far the only thing dug up about Colin Powell were a couple of State Dept. documents on his personal email that were later classified (very low level stuff like calendars and such). He claims, and no one has been able to show otherwise, that all his handling of classified material, especially sourced from outside agencies, was completely managed through use of the internal classified mail servers.
Clinton, on the other hand, had emails on her private server that contained information that was only available on the secure server. At one point the investigators were supposedly questioning her subordinates about how they managed to access the data (they did not have clearance to log in) and the leading theory was she gave someone at the office her login credentials and they used that to transcribe the information into emails they would then send to her private account.
Most of the classified material discussed previously was not created by State but was just State handling outside agency information. There was some wholly owned State Dept. material in the bunch but a lot of that was declassified after the fact to try to minimize the damage.
After this mess came to light the State department started going around to all the other agencies (NSA, CIA, etc...) to try and get them to declassifying their material to make Hillary's case look better but most, if not all, refused to play ball so yes, this was a case of her downloading and mishandling other peoples classified material.
Sanction can include jail time, fines as well as revocation of security clearances and the inability to ever get them back. It doesn't all have to be related to the job.
The SoS can only declassify materials originating withing the State Department itself. They have no authority to declassify any material originating within any other government agency or foreign source which was why when this first started up there was a parade of State Dept. personnel going to each other federal agency pleading for them to declassify their data to cover for Hillary. As far as I know, none of the other agencies complied.
Seriously, at what point does gross negligence become criminal?
When dealing with classified information it's right in the statute that it is immediately criminal. Comey even said in his statement that anyone else under the same circumstances would face sanctions but they weren't recommending any because no prosecutor would bring them to trial.
According to the statues there is no difference between negligence and intent so yes, except for volume, Clinton and Snowden were in violation of most of the same statues concerning classified materials. Snowden may have extra charges related to the means he used to extract the data and some actions he took afterward but the underling violations concerning the data itself are the same.
The problem is for the statutes she was accused of violating there is no distinction between intent and negligence. Merely being aware of the existence of her server was technically a violation of the statues if not reported let alone being an active participant in their use. Then of course their is the know cases of document destruction which itself violates several statues.
Comey even went so far as to say that anyone else in the same situation as Clinton would most likely face sanctions but that they weren't suggestion any against Clinton simply because "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case".
Looks like he was driving a newer Jeep with the terribly designed electronic shifter which were effectively recalled because of so many reports of people thinking they put their cars into park actually put them in neutral instead.
Yes, from reports and pictures it looks like he was driving a newer Jeep with that awful electronic shifter.
Who sets the price is one of the least important aspects of determining who is a contractor or employee. Contractors rarely get to arbitrarily set their own prices. Sure they can ask whatever they want but once they decide to take a contract they have to agree to the terms and conditions of the person who they are contracted with and that will usually involve the price of the good or service they provide.
Often at places like farmers markets or sporting events the price of the sold good is at least partially set by the venue since they often receive a percentage of profits as part of the lease agreement and they also don't want to have uneven pricing across individual stalls. That doesn't necessarily make the workers at the individual stalls employees of the venue.
In the case of Uber the drivers could say they will not work unless Uber ups their rate or gives them a larger share but once they accept Uber's offer then they are bound by Ubers rules, which includes pricing structure, for as long as they decide to accept ride requests from the app.
The actual rules for determining contractor vs. employee are very gray. There are about a dozen or more conditions that are looked at and almost every job will meet conditions that would define their position as both a contractor and employee. There is no clearly defined line as to how many conditions have to be met to be one or the other which is why the courts get involved.
Unless the funding for the claimant is directly tied to the defendant (possible fraud or insurance scam) then there is no reason the funding for the lawyers ever has to be know. Who pays for something should be irrelevant to the case and the judgement that is rendered, including damages.
If Thiel was directly paying Hogan to going forward with the lawsuit then that would be relevant as it would go towards damages Hogan sustained due to Gawkers actions (direct damages would be loss of earnings minus any amounts paid to him by Thiel) but no one is saying that happened, merely that Thiel paid for the legal expenses.
I know several people who have had out of warranty service covered by their respective car dealers. At least one for a drive belt issue, one for a suspension issue (both GM) and another for something to do with his electric windows (Ford).
Personally, my Kia Optima had the wheel bearings wear out in one wheel and the dealership looked at them and told me outright that while they aren't covered under warranty (since like brake pads they are considered a normal wear and tear component) they thought the wear was premature and that they would push for Kia Canada to cover the replacement. Total cost of repair to me = $0
I use the voice commands on my Xbox One all the time to control my TV and have yet to have Microsoft break into my house to steal all my remotes. I also use voice commands to control a lot of features in my car even though there are also buttons on my display that do the same thing. I'm assuming from the level of vitriol against voice controls in your post that Google offered them to you only if you were willing to give up your thumbs. In that case, and pretty much only in that case, I can see your point.
I don't use voice controls on my phone most places because I simply don't like talking to my phone in public (as opposed to talking on my phone) but every now and then I find it much more useful to just say a search term then try and spell it out. As far as I'm aware adding voice doesn't limit using the manual entry options.
She violated several statues concerning the handling of classified email as well as the various document retention statues which apply specifically to any work product for high level government officials. Neither of those sets of laws are department specific and apply to all federal agencies.
The laws and statues concerning handling of classified materials are especially damning because they don't even require intent to be found guilty. Merely having classified material outside of secured authorized channels is enough to be in violation. The mere existence of her server as well as the thumb drive she gave her lawyer were immediate proof of a violation as soon as the first classified piece of email was found.
No corporation has any responsibility to be fair and balanced but when you advertise a product using very specific terms (like "trending") then like it or not you have to live up to your claims or face possible repercussions. It's like the difference between advertising a beer as "tastes great, less filling" which is meaningless adspeak vs 'lite' which in many jurisdictions has a specific legal requirement.
As for bias, the fact that Fox is the #1 goto bogyman for commentators defending Facebook's deception is very telling. In pretty much all media surveys/studies Fox News does come on the conservative side of the scale but with the exception of ABC news and a couple CNN news programs they are routinely closer to center than almost all other news sources (which are almost all on the left). There are studies from Harvard, PEW and even NYT using various methodologies that all show very similar results. People that think Fox News is far right are usually so far to the left that to them center is an ultra conservative view. Of course that's for the regular news programs, opinion shows are an entirely different matter since by definition, they are just one person, or possible a hand picked panels, opinions.
"Fair and Balanced" are subjective terms. They are hard to define and what person A believes is fair and balanced Person B might not. There is so much leeway in how they are interpreted as to be almost meaningless. Is a 30 second rebuttal to an argument fair enough or does it require an uninterrupted 10 minutes? For example, just try asking a liberal what "fair" share means when talking about how much the rich should be taxed.
"Trending" is a much more objective term. By the excepted definition it means a topic that is being discussed or shared a lot in a relatively short period of time. There can be some play as to how low the trending bar can be set but by the accusations Facebook's definition was "stories we like whether anyone else was talking about them or not". If they just called their sidebar "Stories of interest" then there would be no issue.
They'll investigate Facebook for bias but not Fox News.
They're investigating Facebook for what is effectively false advertising. Claiming that their "trending" feature is an actual representation of trending stories amongst users and not a filtered and modified list of stories of personal interest of a select few reviewers. If it was just about bias where are the requests for MSNBC and CNN to appear?
They'll investigate Clinton for operating an email server, but not Rice or Powell, who also operated their own email server.
They're investigating Clinton for storing classified and top secret information outside of legal channels and neither Rice of Powell had their own servers. Rice barely used email at all (though some of her aides did) and Powell came in when the rules allowed for outside services (but not for classified info and as of today no one has pointed to any classified info in Powell's emails) as long as a .gov email address was cc'd; a practive he claims to have followed and no one has been able to show otherwise. He was also at least partially responsible for forcing the State Dept to update their email systems because apparently they were so antiquated at the time as to be more of a hindrance.
In most countries what was shown in the papers was not illegal. In many cases the corporations, which existed outside of their country of residence, made all the income and the 'investors' were simply paid from that companies accounts. The only income they had to report was what they were paid; no evasion.
I'm assuming you're the same AC posting this same debunked claim from above so here's the same response;
Point #1, the suit in question wasn't against Fox news, it was a Fox tv affiliate. Point #2, the suit wasn't about the right to lie, it was a simple wrongful dismissal suit in which the fired couple made the claim the TV station was trying to lie.
Simply put, two reporters didn't have their contracts re-upped and they claimed it was due to their complaints about how the editors at the station edited one of the their stories. The final judgement was based on whether the firing was legal and had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the story (which the FCC classified as just a difference in editorial style and not an intention to mislead).
If you're going to try and make a point about how some entity is untruthful it would at least be a good idea to be using an example that itself isn't based on a lie.
The SoS can only (de)classify materials that originated within the State Dept. They have no authority to change classifications on material originating from other sources and most of the details that have been talked about in the press originated in the CIA/NSA/FBI or Dept. of Homeland Security.
The DNC and RNC dont' generally get to choose who appears on the ballot, they merely whittle down potential people they will back to 2 people and have the political apparatus in each state to make sure that choice can meet the requirements to be listed. If one of the 2 people they decide to back gets on the ballot but then drops out (for whatever reason) they don't generally have the option to just add another name. There are legal requirements to put your name on a ballot in all 50 states and timing is usually a very important one.
If the decision to drop out (or felony conviction/indictment) happens past the deadline to put your name on the ballot then simply put, either the original persons name remains on the ballot or no name is placed on the ballot representing the party in question. If Hillary is charged and the DNC decides to drop her like a hot potato there is a very real chance they would have to run a 'write in' campaign for their pick in several states.
Point #1, the suit in question wasn't against Fox news, it was a Fox tv affiliate. Point #2, the suit wasn't about the right to lie, it was a simple wrongful dismissal suit in which the fired couple made the claim the TV station was trying to lie.
Simply put, two reporters didn't have their contracts re-upped and they claimed it was due to their complaints about how the editors at the station edited one of the their stories. The final judgement was based on whether the firing was legal and had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the story (which the FCC classified as just a difference in editorial style and not an intention to mislead).
If you're going to try and make a point about how some entity is untruthful it would at least be a good idea to be using an example that itself isn't based on a lie.
With the current alternatives it's all I have to go on. =(
Any classified information you receive is your responsibility, PERIOD. The law doesn't care about sender or receiver, just results. If you believe you should not be receiving this information in an unsecured system it is your responsibility to report it. Failure to report it and properly handle it after that point makes you just as guilty, legally speaking, as the original sender. The laws for handling classified materials are very strict and generally don't permit ignorance as an excuse.
That's all moot anyways as many of these emails originate within her gaggle of State department underlings who forwarded the information to her and in at least one case they are investigating how data that was only present on the secure server made it to her email when no one in her office had clearance to view the original. One of the theories was she gave her access credentials to an underling so they could forward the info to her by retyping it into an unsecure email (since they could confirm she was not in her office on the date of the email).
My kingdom for a mod point!!