I am fully aware of that... and once you have a copy of someone's db & email account, there is no end to the fun you can have with regards to adding/removing/changing entries within... and the only way to prove it is for the original owner of the content to compare everything... however given what people think about AM and it's business model/practices... how likely would they be to be believed?
Given the user database has multiple occurrences of email addresses it's pretty hard to imagine the actual owners of which using on the site (some of which even reported to have been validated)... it would not surprise me at all if the hackers decided to inject some false data into one of the stores to try to grind their axe even more.
Up front it is as you don't need a permit... you do however risk calls to the police, reporting an armed man walking down the street and/or stops by police who will ask for some ID to make sure you are legally able to carry it (the legality of doing depends on your local), brandishing charges are also a risk as well.
You also open yourself up to harassment and/or assault from someone who doesn't like guns and may just try to take yours.
In some states (Washington) open carrying in a vehicle requires a CPL, so you best lock it away before hopping in the car.
No one knows if/when I am carrying concealed and I prefer it that way and by doing so never have to deal with any of the above... so I jump through the hoops to renew mine every 5 years and that's that.
There are plenty of them all over the country. It's the requirement to pay a punitive amount in order to get an ID to be allowed to vote.
Ok... name such a place.
Though they better not have any options for free or reduced price photo IDs which can be used for more than just voting.
I don't know any state that allows a minority to get an ID without paying a huge fee.
Wait... so 'minority' is actually part of the fee schedule and so charges what? 2x? 10x? 100? what a non-minority would pay?
Again, where is this place?
The Republicans hate us and want us to die. That is why they won't allow us to vote.
I think you've got your filters adjusted wrong... it was the Democrats who was the party of segregation, slavery, jim crow and domestic concentration camps... I really don't recall it being a Republican president being quoted as saying "Iâ(TM)ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years".
I think you need to look up the laws that recognize that effect can be proven even when intent cannot.
Not to mention disparate impact.
Disparate impact *MAY* have racial, even racist intents... but it by no means automatically means a case of disparate impact is racist... or do we need to go through set theory?
But hey, make it a state mandate to produce this ID even if the governor had to come to my home and paint my picture.
But if you are trying to dispute that voter ID requirements disproportionally affect minorities the facts simply are not on your side.
Oh this should be good.
The states that have instituted voterid laws are all cases where its clear that:
a) there has never been any indication that voter fraud of the type voter id will prevent isn't actually a real problem
Except for that we lack adequate mechanisms to even detect or act on such a thing. More on that later though.
b) as a percentage more republicans have the necessary voter id documents in their wallets and purses right now than democrats; so it places a larger burden on democrats.
Even if we assume everybody has equal access to government offices, and time off to visit them, it STILL means that more voting democrats are going to be too busy or too lazy to actually get their documentation together. Yes, some busy, lazy republicans will be excluded as well. But less of them overall.
If true... which I am not prepared to accept finding no evidence to support that just yet... if that is the case, is the solution to simply not require such IDs... or to make an effort to make sure as many as people have such IDs? Things which are more often than not required in plenty of other facets in life be it flying, driving, opening a bank account or just buying a six-pack of beer.
More so, if one accepts the premise that exercising rights should not unduly burden one side more than another... is it safe to say Republicans tend to be more likely to buy/own firearms then Democrats? Is it then also discriminatory that a photo id is required to buy a gun at an FFL, further burdening Democrats? Is not a photo id requirement in this case an infringement on their second amendment rights?
The upshot is indisputable. voter id laws are biased for republicans while really having no other effect.
Since the type of voter fraud it prevents is statistically irrelevant anyway.
Can you, or anyone conclusively say exactly what the rate of voter fraud is? Sure, you can point to a low conviction rate... but that's pretty specious evidence as no one can... as there are not adequate means to detect it.
If I show up at your polling place nice & early and claim to be you and vote on your behalf, I've just committed fraud, though unless the poll worker knows you and says "no you aren't! and tackles me to the ground while calling for police... how do you detect/prevent that later in the day when you show up?
Best case, because it's impossible to find the ballot I cast at 7:01 am that morning, you get a provisional ballot and vote a similar way to me and our candidate gets 2x the votes from 'you'. Worst case, you don't get to vote, or your real vote gets canceled out by my fraudulent vote.
What if instead I drive to various polling places early in the morning with a pre-determined list of people who I am going to vote on fraudulently behalf of and who I do not think are likely to vote later in the dead (recently deceased, homebound, hasn't voted in a while)... is that going to be detected at all? Probably not, and my chances of getting away with it are just as good, even if I have a few people joining me to help sway an election for our guy.
Where you've margins of 100k sure, such fraud doesn't really matter, but when you've got close local or state elections that come down to a few dozen or a few hundred ballots out of several million cast... we are beyond the margin of error or carelessness (accidently scribbling an identifying mark, double voting, etc)... it's almost certain that we are in the margin of fraud... granted only some kinds can be red
Actually I did... as a question as one possible reason for blacks not getting voter IDs.
If you don't think voter suppression is real
I don't recall saying voter suppression doesn't exist. Trying to create an air of inevitability of one candidate over another is actually one form of voter suppression... effectively trying to discourage the other side from turning out to vote... which is actually legal.
Some forms can be illegal for sure, and while you cite the Wikipedia article, I see plenty there that are legal... even if a bit sleezy.
you are an idiot and should in fact read the entire Wikipedia page.
Ok... if I'm an idiot why not point to something specific for me? Keep in mind I was referencing voting IDs at the start of this convo... so do please make sure your cited example is in that area.
Wow - what a great set of insults. Too bad they completely failed to respond to the actual issues I raised.
I'm sorry your feelings are so easily hurt, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with sarcasm.
For example, I show you how Texas is attempting to do something illegal against college students and you pretend that I think that is racist
No, you didn't 'show' anything, you 'claimed' something. Further, you failed to cite specifically how it was illegal as constitutionally (see 10th amendment) it is up to the states to define eligibility requirements to vote... restricted by a few areas (religious test, race, sex).
Of course you make no attempt to deny that what they are doing is illegal, instead you make fun of me because you thought I was claiming racism in that case.
Correct, I'm not going to try to prove a negative.
Are you really stupid enough to think a crime is still acceptable unless I prove it is racist crime?
Still waiting to see/hear how it is a crime. Feel free to cite a specific statute if you'd like.
I also love how you did not understand a simple comparison
I also love how you do not understand sarcasm or taking ideas and added a good mix of progressive double-think in to highlight the ridiculousness of what you are saying.
Let me explain. Massachusett's Voter ID law lets you vote if you don't have a Voter ID - even if just provisionally.
Yup, saw that the first time you said it... but again, you are describing different states, which sometimes have different laws believe it or not. Ex: Age to get an unrestricted drivers license in Texas is 17, Massachusetts's is 18, while Maine it's 21. Racism? (is that better?)
Texas's Voter ID law does not let you vote at all - if you don't have the ID.
Yup, they have specific requirements. Different states have different rules for ID, polling times, absentee voting, etc. What is the news?
You might do better if you go back and re-read everything I wrote.
Why? You keep repeating the same arguments without actually considering their place in the larger system.
Unless of course you are just a troll paid to insult intelligent people (or worse, doing it for fun)
And there is where we know I've won... you assume I'm trolling vs arguing against your nonsense while using a fun bit of rhetoric along the way.
Oh and finally, your huge attempt to pretend this is all about race basically proves that no you do not care about anything EXCEPT racism.
I'm confused... you claim I'm pretending this is all about race... but I don't really care about anything but race? How exactly does that work? More so... how exactly do you know just how I'm thinking? What if... you are wrong about more than just that?
Or is it just a battle against out of state college students? I don't often hear that argument on the evening news or from lawyers who are fighting against voter ID laws... they tend to be the ones who scream racism.
You yourself implied that you think the "lazy/stupid/poor" should not be able to vote.
Wait... I thought you said 'finally' above... still more?
Oh that's a good one! You accuse me of not reading/comprehending what you said... and yet you have this good nugget. I use that line as a rhetorical play against those who claim it is all about race who simultaneously are practicing the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.
Which happens to be the most Un-american of ideas
Agreed... any other arguments you wish to try to straw-man me with?
It is entirely within the realm of possibility for a policy to not have racist intent and still have a racist result.
I think you need to look up the meaning of 'racist'
(Though in this particular case, there is certainly the appearance of intent.)
In such a ridiculous hypothetical yes... but it is just that, a non-existent hypothetical.
Let's assume that only one of the qualities you list can present an impediment.
So skin color is automatically an impediment? Still waiting to see/how/where that is to getting a voter id.
If blacks are on average more poor than non-blacks, is it possible that this is a result of racism?
It's possible, but I'm still waiting to see an explicit example of that being the case across the board.
(Hint:yes).
Citation? And yet that apparently only applies to blacks? How then do we account for those who are not in fact poor? No one was racist enough to them?
The whole voter fraud problem is itself a fraud.
Tell you what... turn off most of the logging on your server, disable most of the firewall rules and publish the IP address of it publically... I assure you any rumors of it getting hacked are just a rumor as you've got no concrete evidence of it happening... because you lack the tools to identify such actions.
You can get a photo ID from your local DMV! Of course, your "local" DMV is 40 miles away.
And where is this place?
Oh, and the bus to take you there requires 3 transfers and will take 4 hours--not counting the time spent waiting at the DMV.
And only blacks ride the bus? Racist!
And the hours of operation for the DMV are M-F from 9 AM to 5 PM.
There are plenty of offices that have limited schedules. One govt office near me is only open for applications during a 4 hour period on alternating Tuesdays and will only see you with an appointment... yet no one is screaming "racist" because it has nothing to do with voting. Odd that?
So if you've actually got a job during those hours, you're SOL.
So only blacks have 9-5 jobs and/or unable to get away for a short time one day? Racist!
Funny how these things seem to happen around black neighborhoods. White neighborhoods, conversely, have 3 DMV offices in a 20 mile radius that are open on weekends. But, unfortunately, the state just doesn't have the budget to offer weekend service at all DMV offices.
That's a pretty nice generalization you've got there... care to support it?
Because Wikipedia is internationally known as being without bias.
Don't just cite a general URL expecting me to read the entire thing in the hopes it supports your claim... support it yourself.
Give me a single, citable example where there were either "no blacks" signs for getting voter IDs... or where blacks are just too stupid/poor/lazy/etc to be able to the requirements to get an ID.
A decade ago in South Dakota I used an electronic system which was actually more secure than what you describe.
You walk into the voting booth, insert your ballot, it scans it and displays a single race per screen, you make your choices, confirm your choices in the end, then marks your ballot and returns it to you.
Prior to putting your ballot in the final box, you visually confirm that each race is what you selected... so you have the convenience of a touch screen system but with the verifiability of paper.
It's not the asking to see a photo id - it is the specific methods of photo ID that is racist.
So it's racist towards a white college student in Texas who happens to have an out of state drivers license? I knew the racists were a bit crazy, but what you describe is just nonsense!
But the 'voter id laws' of states like Texas a) don't let you vote at all,
Wait... what?
b) make it illegal to use state funded college ID or an out-of-state Driver License to prove your identity even if you happen to be a College Student living in Texas for 9 months of a year - and therefore have the legal right to vote,
Yup, there tend to be different requirements for IDs depending on what you want to do and where. A few years back a friend was visiting me in Washington from Kansas who had lost her drivers license before the trip so got a temporary one... which was simply a printed piece of receipt paper. Oddly enough, it was enough to get past TSA and onto the airplane... but not enough to get into a bar.
Racism!
c) make it very difficult to prove your ID and COSTLY in both time and energy.
You should try getting a concealed carry permit in some states, its far more complicated & costly then getting an instate ID to vote in most (if not all) states. There exists an explicit right to keep and bare arms... yet I now have my fingerprints permanently on file in 3x states in order to exercise it and I've never even been arrested (let alone convicted) of a crime.
Racism!
It's not the concept of a voter ID law that sucks, it is the intentional attempt to create a system designed to stop liberals from voting.
So... liberals are too lazy/stupid/poor to be able to meet such requirements? Interesting.
Using a false claim that you are just trying to stop non-existent fraud does not explain why they pull crap like this.
Guess what... I care about preventing liberal voter fraud the same way I care about preventing conservative, green or purple voter fraud, equally!
Ok... can you please tell us where today there is a place with a "no blacks" sign with regards to getting photo IDs?
Or is there a place where there are certain requirements which all must meet, but somehow blacks are just too stupid/poor/lazy/etc to be able to meet them?
how can every 3rd world country have figured out the ink/thumb solution that costs nothing while we spit into the wind with Billions?
Because most of them don't think voting should be as easy as any other day to day task and believe that the possibility of fraud is something worth working hard against... instead here, asking to see a photo ID is somehow racist.
I don't think that line means what you think it does, nor does it change the earlier facts.
Marking an email as classified is like marking one as urgent, it's metadata which is useful for characterization but does not actually change the content of the communication. Ex: Marking an email 'ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE' doesn't make it so, the content is so already. Ditto for classified information. If it was mishandled by other persons on unclassified systems in 2009-2011... that is the fault of the senders who did not treat it correctly.
Further down in the article I think you missed this paragraph:
Meanwhile Tuesday, 17 House and Senate members from both parties were informed about the presence of “top secret” information on the Clinton e-mail system in a letter from the inspector general for the intelligence community, I. Charles McCullough III. The letter was first reported Tuesday by the McClatchy news service.
And this one:
He has also located one additional e-mail in the sample of 40 that was classified at the time it was sent but has since been declassified, suggesting that there is no longer a reason to protect the information or that it has since become public, two people familiar with the finding said.
Remember that word "sample", the IG was only given 40 emails in which he found that 10% of the messages were at the time classified. Sure, the sample could be skewed, but only time and a proper legal investigation will tell.
If the erasure/destruction happened as she was leaving State... such a case would be hard to prove.
If the disks were wiped before any official investigation started, that's probably OK.
David Kernell would beg to differ. Who is he? The guy who hacked Sarah Palin's email account & posted the results on 4Chan then destroyed the local evidence... but only after being told by someone there that they had contacted the FBI about the matter. He's a felon now as a result, not for the hack, but trying to destroy the evidence after he had reason to believe the law had just been informed.
If the wipe had occurred say... the day after she received a subpoena, then she's going to have a problem.
How do you know when it happened? Unless you are doing a dban on the entire drive, most erasure programs you run on a local machine tend to leave enough information that a forensics person can identify not only as a sign that a wipe happened, but even sometimes when.
I don't think a simple felony conviction would preclude her from running/being elected... however if we were lucky enough to find evidence she knowingly destroyed some data she shouldn't have, she could be convicted under USC Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 101, Section 2071:
b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct, Verizon actually stopped further rollouts prior to selling the network to Frontier, who has also opted not to expand it.
On the plus side (for you), the chances of Comcast expanding capacity in Bellevue is far better than other suburbs.
I am fully aware of that... and once you have a copy of someone's db & email account, there is no end to the fun you can have with regards to adding/removing/changing entries within... and the only way to prove it is for the original owner of the content to compare everything... however given what people think about AM and it's business model/practices... how likely would they be to be believed?
Given the user database has multiple occurrences of email addresses it's pretty hard to imagine the actual owners of which using on the site (some of which even reported to have been validated)... it would not surprise me at all if the hackers decided to inject some false data into one of the stores to try to grind their axe even more.
Depends on how you define 'easier'
Up front it is as you don't need a permit... you do however risk calls to the police, reporting an armed man walking down the street and/or stops by police who will ask for some ID to make sure you are legally able to carry it (the legality of doing depends on your local), brandishing charges are also a risk as well.
You also open yourself up to harassment and/or assault from someone who doesn't like guns and may just try to take yours.
In some states (Washington) open carrying in a vehicle requires a CPL, so you best lock it away before hopping in the car.
No one knows if/when I am carrying concealed and I prefer it that way and by doing so never have to deal with any of the above... so I jump through the hoops to renew mine every 5 years and that's that.
Agreed, when you see addresses like the following in the DB it becomes clear how easy it was to insert records that are not indicative of actual use:
Doubly so when some addresses show up more than once:
Compelled speech? I don't think that would fly legally.
That would depend on the laws of the city/county/state.
Some may allow non-resident voting, others do not.
Some will not care if you vote in one or both places, others will.
Ok... name such a place.
Though they better not have any options for free or reduced price photo IDs which can be used for more than just voting.
Wait... so 'minority' is actually part of the fee schedule and so charges what? 2x? 10x? 100? what a non-minority would pay?
Again, where is this place?
I think you've got your filters adjusted wrong... it was the Democrats who was the party of segregation, slavery, jim crow and domestic concentration camps... I really don't recall it being a Republican president being quoted as saying "Iâ(TM)ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years".
Disparate impact *MAY* have racial, even racist intents... but it by no means automatically means a case of disparate impact is racist... or do we need to go through set theory?
Hello reductio ad absurdum.
I read more than I should have, and plenty of skimming didn't highlight where I was wrong... care to point me to that fault?
Would you care to cite a specific beef with what I said... or just continue to spew?
Oh this should be good.
Except for that we lack adequate mechanisms to even detect or act on such a thing. More on that later though.
If true... which I am not prepared to accept finding no evidence to support that just yet... if that is the case, is the solution to simply not require such IDs... or to make an effort to make sure as many as people have such IDs? Things which are more often than not required in plenty of other facets in life be it flying, driving, opening a bank account or just buying a six-pack of beer.
More so, if one accepts the premise that exercising rights should not unduly burden one side more than another... is it safe to say Republicans tend to be more likely to buy/own firearms then Democrats? Is it then also discriminatory that a photo id is required to buy a gun at an FFL, further burdening Democrats? Is not a photo id requirement in this case an infringement on their second amendment rights?
What about increased turnout? Is that an effect?
Can you, or anyone conclusively say exactly what the rate of voter fraud is? Sure, you can point to a low conviction rate... but that's pretty specious evidence as no one can... as there are not adequate means to detect it.
If I show up at your polling place nice & early and claim to be you and vote on your behalf, I've just committed fraud, though unless the poll worker knows you and says "no you aren't! and tackles me to the ground while calling for police... how do you detect/prevent that later in the day when you show up?
Best case, because it's impossible to find the ballot I cast at 7:01 am that morning, you get a provisional ballot and vote a similar way to me and our candidate gets 2x the votes from 'you'. Worst case, you don't get to vote, or your real vote gets canceled out by my fraudulent vote.
What if instead I drive to various polling places early in the morning with a pre-determined list of people who I am going to vote on fraudulently behalf of and who I do not think are likely to vote later in the dead (recently deceased, homebound, hasn't voted in a while)... is that going to be detected at all? Probably not, and my chances of getting away with it are just as good, even if I have a few people joining me to help sway an election for our guy.
Where you've margins of 100k sure, such fraud doesn't really matter, but when you've got close local or state elections that come down to a few dozen or a few hundred ballots out of several million cast... we are beyond the margin of error or carelessness (accidently scribbling an identifying mark, double voting, etc)... it's almost certain that we are in the margin of fraud... granted only some kinds can be red
Actually I did... as a question as one possible reason for blacks not getting voter IDs.
I don't recall saying voter suppression doesn't exist. Trying to create an air of inevitability of one candidate over another is actually one form of voter suppression... effectively trying to discourage the other side from turning out to vote... which is actually legal.
Some forms can be illegal for sure, and while you cite the Wikipedia article, I see plenty there that are legal... even if a bit sleezy.
Ok... if I'm an idiot why not point to something specific for me? Keep in mind I was referencing voting IDs at the start of this convo... so do please make sure your cited example is in that area.
I'm sorry your feelings are so easily hurt, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with sarcasm.
No, you didn't 'show' anything, you 'claimed' something. Further, you failed to cite specifically how it was illegal as constitutionally (see 10th amendment) it is up to the states to define eligibility requirements to vote... restricted by a few areas (religious test, race, sex).
Correct, I'm not going to try to prove a negative.
Still waiting to see/hear how it is a crime. Feel free to cite a specific statute if you'd like.
I also love how you do not understand sarcasm or taking ideas and added a good mix of progressive double-think in to highlight the ridiculousness of what you are saying.
Yup, saw that the first time you said it... but again, you are describing different states, which sometimes have different laws believe it or not. Ex: Age to get an unrestricted drivers license in Texas is 17, Massachusetts's is 18, while Maine it's 21. Racism? (is that better?)
Yup, they have specific requirements. Different states have different rules for ID, polling times, absentee voting, etc. What is the news?
Why? You keep repeating the same arguments without actually considering their place in the larger system.
And there is where we know I've won... you assume I'm trolling vs arguing against your nonsense while using a fun bit of rhetoric along the way.
I'm confused... you claim I'm pretending this is all about race... but I don't really care about anything but race? How exactly does that work? More so... how exactly do you know just how I'm thinking? What if... you are wrong about more than just that?
Or is it just a battle against out of state college students? I don't often hear that argument on the evening news or from lawyers who are fighting against voter ID laws... they tend to be the ones who scream racism.
Wait... I thought you said 'finally' above... still more?
Oh that's a good one! You accuse me of not reading/comprehending what you said... and yet you have this good nugget. I use that line as a rhetorical play against those who claim it is all about race who simultaneously are practicing the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.
Agreed... any other arguments you wish to try to straw-man me with?
I think you need to look up the meaning of 'racist'
In such a ridiculous hypothetical yes... but it is just that, a non-existent hypothetical.
So skin color is automatically an impediment? Still waiting to see/how/where that is to getting a voter id.
It's possible, but I'm still waiting to see an explicit example of that being the case across the board.
Citation? And yet that apparently only applies to blacks? How then do we account for those who are not in fact poor? No one was racist enough to them?
Tell you what... turn off most of the logging on your server, disable most of the firewall rules and publish the IP address of it publically... I assure you any rumors of it getting hacked are just a rumor as you've got no concrete evidence of it happening... because you lack the tools to identify such actions.
And where is this place?
And only blacks ride the bus? Racist!
There are plenty of offices that have limited schedules. One govt office near me is only open for applications during a 4 hour period on alternating Tuesdays and will only see you with an appointment... yet no one is screaming "racist" because it has nothing to do with voting. Odd that?
So only blacks have 9-5 jobs and/or unable to get away for a short time one day? Racist!
That's a pretty nice generalization you've got there... care to support it?
Because Wikipedia is internationally known as being without bias.
Don't just cite a general URL expecting me to read the entire thing in the hopes it supports your claim... support it yourself.
Give me a single, citable example where there were either "no blacks" signs for getting voter IDs... or where blacks are just too stupid/poor/lazy/etc to be able to the requirements to get an ID.
Who says it has to be a fully electronic system?
A decade ago in South Dakota I used an electronic system which was actually more secure than what you describe.
You walk into the voting booth, insert your ballot, it scans it and displays a single race per screen, you make your choices, confirm your choices in the end, then marks your ballot and returns it to you.
Prior to putting your ballot in the final box, you visually confirm that each race is what you selected... so you have the convenience of a touch screen system but with the verifiability of paper.
So it's racist towards a white college student in Texas who happens to have an out of state drivers license? I knew the racists were a bit crazy, but what you describe is just nonsense!
Wait... what?
Yup, there tend to be different requirements for IDs depending on what you want to do and where. A few years back a friend was visiting me in Washington from Kansas who had lost her drivers license before the trip so got a temporary one... which was simply a printed piece of receipt paper. Oddly enough, it was enough to get past TSA and onto the airplane... but not enough to get into a bar.
Racism!
You should try getting a concealed carry permit in some states, its far more complicated & costly then getting an instate ID to vote in most (if not all) states. There exists an explicit right to keep and bare arms... yet I now have my fingerprints permanently on file in 3x states in order to exercise it and I've never even been arrested (let alone convicted) of a crime.
Racism!
So... liberals are too lazy/stupid/poor to be able to meet such requirements? Interesting.
Guess what... I care about preventing liberal voter fraud the same way I care about preventing conservative, green or purple voter fraud, equally!
Ok... can you please tell us where today there is a place with a "no blacks" sign with regards to getting photo IDs?
Or is there a place where there are certain requirements which all must meet, but somehow blacks are just too stupid/poor/lazy/etc to be able to meet them?
Because most of them don't think voting should be as easy as any other day to day task and believe that the possibility of fraud is something worth working hard against... instead here, asking to see a photo ID is somehow racist.
Oops, forgot one more paragraph:
Thanks for the link actually, mine only referred to 4 classified emails being found... yours ramps that # to 7!
I don't think that line means what you think it does, nor does it change the earlier facts.
Marking an email as classified is like marking one as urgent, it's metadata which is useful for characterization but does not actually change the content of the communication. Ex: Marking an email 'ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE' doesn't make it so, the content is so already. Ditto for classified information. If it was mishandled by other persons on unclassified systems in 2009-2011... that is the fault of the senders who did not treat it correctly.
Further down in the article I think you missed this paragraph:
And this one:
Remember that word "sample", the IG was only given 40 emails in which he found that 10% of the messages were at the time classified. Sure, the sample could be skewed, but only time and a proper legal investigation will tell.
That depends on when the wipe actually happened.
If the erasure/destruction happened as she was leaving State... such a case would be hard to prove.
David Kernell would beg to differ. Who is he? The guy who hacked Sarah Palin's email account & posted the results on 4Chan then destroyed the local evidence... but only after being told by someone there that they had contacted the FBI about the matter. He's a felon now as a result, not for the hack, but trying to destroy the evidence after he had reason to believe the law had just been informed.
If the wipe had occurred say... the day after she received a subpoena, then she's going to have a problem.
How do you know when it happened? Unless you are doing a dban on the entire drive, most erasure programs you run on a local machine tend to leave enough information that a forensics person can identify not only as a sign that a wipe happened, but even sometimes when.
I don't think a simple felony conviction would preclude her from running/being elected... however if we were lucky enough to find evidence she knowingly destroyed some data she shouldn't have, she could be convicted under USC Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 101, Section 2071: