I have a problem with private political parties using public funds to run their primary elections. The democrats should be allowed to run their party any way they see fit, and they should do it on their own dime.
A brief answer: it's hard to fake a database with hundreds of thousands of emails, but in this instance, the emails came from another hack and had nothing to do with what was claimed.
I'm not sure what you mean "what was claimed". Which claim are from which person/people are you referring to?
No I was talking about looking for nefarious activities within the Clinton foundation in general, not these specific fake data dumps.
I would like to point out your original statement (the emphasis on the last two words is from me):
Obviously If this is indeed a fake data dump, certainly people shouldn't keep looking for evidence of crimes in it.
I understand that you intended it to mean something else, but it just didn't come out that way. Hence my questions.
Yes, this sentence was referring to the fake data dump, and how people shouldln't keep looking for data in it. Maybe what I said wasn't completely clear, but I don't see how it could be construed that I implied that people should be looking in fake data dumps for legitimate information.
I didn't mean to suggest that simply having an email server was illegal (even for a secretary of state). The internal rule she broke was using this private server for official government business. I just don't know if breaking this rule was also illegal.
Moreover it appears that she took it upon herself to delete emails she claims were of a personal nature before handing over her server to the authorities. If true, this seems pretty bad to me. Even if she is telling the truth, about having only deleted personal emails, she should not be the one to decide which emails were private and which are not. If there is a conflict between her privacy and independent oversight of the sanitization of this email database of personal email, her privacy should lose, because she was the one who decided to use a private email server for government business.
Being in the defense industry myself, we are subject to all sorts of rules, where breaking them would violate not only company policy, but potentially constitute a crime where I *may* be subject to fines and prison time.
I was also under the impression (I think I heard on NPR) that she was indeed subject to new rules (which she broke) that past secretaries of state were not (because they didn't yet exist). I don't know if these are the same new rules you are referring to.
And just to be clear: I hope she beats Donald Trump. I am not someone who wants to see her in prison out of partisanship. I don't want to see her in prison at all, if she just screwed up and did not do anything wrong intentionally. But I don't think she should get a pass just because she's a powerful politician and the only one who can beat Trump.
I did check on the law concerning email servers. It would be illegal now but wasn't when Clinton was Secretary of State. I would feel better about it if it had been well administered, since I have no particular faith in government IT security.
Do you have a citation for that?
That is another piece of information I could not thus far find a reliable source for.
Comey sure made it sound as if he was using his discretion, and precedent to decide not to indict Hillary. To me this implies that he already knows which laws he would accuse her of having violated if he did decide to pursue the case, otherwise he imagine he would have said something like "We can't indict Hillary (even if we wanted to) because there are no laws that she has broken".
Whether she actually violated those laws is obviously for the courts to decide if the FBI had decided to pursue the case. But the fact remains that because the FBI did not pursue it (not that they should have), we don't actually know if she broke any laws, only that she has (still) never been convicted of any crimes, and is therefore (still) not a criminal.
But I think it is still important to have good information as to whether she indeed broke any laws, independent of whether she was actually convicted of any crimes.
Legally, she hasn't been convicted of a crime, so she's not a criminal. Neither is Trump.
That's basically where I am at right now, barring new evidence to the contrary.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think even if Trump had lost in court rather than settling, this would have resulted in a civil judgment against him or his company, not a criminal conviction.
I said there is a difference. The difference being that one is destroying the information forever and the other isn't. Whether there is a legal difference in terms of classified material is irrelevant to my point. There is an actual difference in reality.
What makes you think any evidence you find is actually true? It is a fake datadump after all... even if the evidence was 100% solid, you'd still want at least several other sources before trusting anything you find in here.
If the evidence is true, the source is the Clinton foundation email server. It's not always easy to decide what's true in a lot of cases (e.g. he said, she said, etc), but data dumps have historically been either very clearly legitimate or very clearly illegitimate.
How do we know that it was really Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump debating the other night? Couldn't they have been trained impersonators? This kind of thing just doesn't ever really happen. For whatever reason, it's pretty hard to pull off the old imposter scenario, so we don;t really worry about it.
It's also pretty hard to fake a database full of hundreds or thousands of legitimate emails. I think this is why people rarely even try. And it's why the data dumps almost immediately after release are proclaimed legitimate or fake.
Also, the reason this is considered "tampering with the election" is that Guccifer is considered by numerous people to be an intelligence service, most probably Russia's FSB
I never said it wasn't tampering with the election. Even the release of legitimate information by a foreign nation is tampering with the election.
Whether it's true is hard to tell, but the indications do point in that direction. So tell me: do you really want to look for evidence in a collection of garbage provided by a hostile intelligence agency? Would you like to publish that evidence under your own name? If no, why do you think anyone else would do so?
No I was talking about looking for nefarious activities within the Clinton foundation in general, not these specific fake data dumps.
Have any of his companies been found guilty of crimes?
If so please provide a citation, I'd honestly like to know.
By definition, anything on an email server *can't* be the only copy. They must have been sent from somewhere else or sent to somewhere else.
Sure every email could have had many other participants. The ones on Clinton's server could have been the only copy in possession of the US government for many of those emails. There is a reason that all official government email is supposed to go through a government server, and it's precisely because it's the only way the emails can be effectively archived. Yeah there are probably copies of many of those emails on in other people's inbox and sent folders, and many are probably already deleted, or only in the hands of foreign governments. We can never know the whole picture now.
It seems like every "independent" thing I've read indicates that it is really impossible to tell what the Clinton foundation is actually doing.
I don't think the characterization that the Clinton foundation "the Clinton Foundation is independently reviewed to be above reproach" is accurate. I haven't seen any evidence that conclusively proves any nefarious activities, but that doesn't make them "above reproach".
I honestly don;t know the law well enough to have an opinion on whether her use of a private email server was illegal or not. It does seem as if it was against the governments own rules for it's own employees. And despite dancing around it, it seems Hillary has finally also admitted this (without any qualifications).
The FBI director explained his rationale for not indicting her, and it certainly wasn't that she did nothing wrong. My impression was that they have discretion over who they decide to indict, and choosing not to indict Hillary was in keeping with similar cases of treating classified material with negligence (as opposed to intentionally selling the information to Russians, etc.)
It seems to me like there is a legal gray area where someone might have broken the law but because they were not convicted, are not criminals.
Can you cite a source for your assertion that the FBI read all the "missing" emails? I'd be interested to read it.
Does Trump actually have any criminal convictions? I looked, but couldn't find any in the sea of misinformation out there.
Also, there is a difference between deleting a copy of classified material (to prevent that copy from becoming compromised), and deleting the *only* copy of classified material (preventing our own government from having access to it).
I think the accusation is that she has done the latter. Since she shouldn't have had a private email server to begin with, deleting the emails from the server should have certainly happened eventually, but not while the only copy of those emails resided on that private server.
Obviously If this is indeed a fake data dump, certainly people shouldn't keep looking for evidence of crimes in it. But one thing turning out to be a hoax on a subject doesn't mean there is nothing interesting there still left to find. Imagine if Trump's tax return leak turned out to be fake. Would that mean that we should stop looking into his taxes now that he's been exonerated? No of course not. They both have their shady dealings, and they both have been falsely accused of crimes for which they are innocent. You just need to deal with each accusation on it's own merit.
Yes Trump's charity seems to be a complete scam. Maybe it's even worse than the Clinton foundation could even be in the worst case scenario. That doesn't mean that the Clinton foundation is clean.
It seems to me Hillary is innocent of most of the claims made by the right against her. That doesn't mean there is nothing to find. I kind of hope we don't get a Hillary bombshell right before the election that ends up in a Trump victory, but I'd rather know than not know.
I don't want a corrupt politician to be let off the hook just because their opponent is worse.
Don't get me wrong, a lot of people find her basically unlikable or disagree with her policies, but they need something to make her look as bad as Trump. This an a bunch of memes and shitposts is all they have.
I don't need her to look as bad as Trump. I hope she beats Trump. What I want is for the truth to be realized. I want the republicans to realize the benghazi thing is bullshit. I want the democrats to realize the email thing is not bullshit.
I would love it if people dropped the false equivalence of Trump and Clinton. I would also love it if people dropped the false equivalence of Clinton and Powell.
You probably wouldn't like it if I said "The people who trash talk anti-Hillary people need some way to discredit them, so they try to paint them all as people claiming she is as bad as Trump."
Um no. Why do people with genes from West Africa (but who live all over the world in different cultures) make up the top 95% of the top sprint times? It isn't because they grew up sprinting.
It's not? Because they do. I don't think anyone is saying there are no biological differences in people of different ethnicities, but it's pretty clear that culture also plays a big role. African countries have a culture of running. Some countries (e.g. Jamaica) with a stronger culture of sprinting and produce more good sprinters than other nations with exactly the same genetic makeup.
You're starting with the fallacy that there can be only one cause to some phenomenon.
If you are asking me if it is surprising to me that you would actually believe something like this, then no. Feel free to offer some actual good evidence if you want to convince others.
There are lots of tall white people. If you look at the countries with the tallest people it's: Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, US, Australia.
No being non-Asian doesn't help you with most jobs, but that is a causal relationship. What we have is a negative correlation between Asians that applied to a particular company and Asians that got that job.
There are all kinds of things that can cause strange correlations that have nothing to do with racism. For example: Why were 73% of the applicants Asian? Certainly 73% of the population isn't Asian. Maybe Asian people are more likely to apply to more jobs, making it less likely overall that they will get any particular job (i.e. they can't get all the jobs they apply to). In fact Asians did get 4/17 (19%) of the jobs and Asians only make up 5.6% of the population.
You have to actually do the research to see what actually happened. You can't just look at how many Asians were hired and then conclude racism. You actually have to measure how qualified the applicants were. You can't just assume that the qualified applicants to a particular company perfectly match a cross section of the US or the applicant pool.
I never meant to imply that there couldn't be racism. My point was that these numbers showing racial outcome of a test do not alone do not prove any racism. You actually have to do the work of controlling for competence, rather than simply assuming every population is equally competent.
Philosophers syndrome: Mistaking a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.
It doesn't even need to be the case that there is a difference in mental capabilities between races. It could be that certain groups have a culture that leads them to be better or worse at certain tasks on average, and those groups can be predominantly of one race/ethnicity. It could be that some cultures cause people to be overconfident in their abilities (e.g. causing them to be more likely to apply for jobs they are unqualified for).
Culture affects everything. It even affects how good African Americans are at basketball on average. It affects how good Jamaicans are at sprinting (e.g. there is no discernible difference between Jamaican sprinters and those of other Caribbean islands).
I'm not saying that any of these is en explanation. I am not saying there was no racism in this case. What I am saying is that it is not rational to assume racism simply because some test did not yield a cross section of society. There are a million other potential explanations, racism being one.
So if fast twitch muscles is the explanation for why African Americans are good at basketball, would you say that other sports which don't see African American participation levels comparable to 74.4% are discriminating against them?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a problem with private political parties using public funds to run their primary elections. The democrats should be allowed to run their party any way they see fit, and they should do it on their own dime.
A brief answer: it's hard to fake a database with hundreds of thousands of emails, but in this instance, the emails came from another hack and had nothing to do with what was claimed.
I'm not sure what you mean "what was claimed". Which claim are from which person/people are you referring to?
No I was talking about looking for nefarious activities within the Clinton foundation in general, not these specific fake data dumps.
I would like to point out your original statement (the emphasis on the last two words is from me):
Obviously If this is indeed a fake data dump, certainly people shouldn't keep looking for evidence of crimes in it.
I understand that you intended it to mean something else, but it just didn't come out that way. Hence my questions.
Yes, this sentence was referring to the fake data dump, and how people shouldln't keep looking for data in it. Maybe what I said wasn't completely clear, but I don't see how it could be construed that I implied that people should be looking in fake data dumps for legitimate information.
I didn't mean to suggest that simply having an email server was illegal (even for a secretary of state). The internal rule she broke was using this private server for official government business. I just don't know if breaking this rule was also illegal.
Moreover it appears that she took it upon herself to delete emails she claims were of a personal nature before handing over her server to the authorities. If true, this seems pretty bad to me. Even if she is telling the truth, about having only deleted personal emails, she should not be the one to decide which emails were private and which are not. If there is a conflict between her privacy and independent oversight of the sanitization of this email database of personal email, her privacy should lose, because she was the one who decided to use a private email server for government business.
Being in the defense industry myself, we are subject to all sorts of rules, where breaking them would violate not only company policy, but potentially constitute a crime where I *may* be subject to fines and prison time.
I was also under the impression (I think I heard on NPR) that she was indeed subject to new rules (which she broke) that past secretaries of state were not (because they didn't yet exist). I don't know if these are the same new rules you are referring to.
And just to be clear: I hope she beats Donald Trump. I am not someone who wants to see her in prison out of partisanship. I don't want to see her in prison at all, if she just screwed up and did not do anything wrong intentionally. But I don't think she should get a pass just because she's a powerful politician and the only one who can beat Trump.
I did check on the law concerning email servers. It would be illegal now but wasn't when Clinton was Secretary of State. I would feel better about it if it had been well administered, since I have no particular faith in government IT security.
Do you have a citation for that?
That is another piece of information I could not thus far find a reliable source for.
Comey sure made it sound as if he was using his discretion, and precedent to decide not to indict Hillary. To me this implies that he already knows which laws he would accuse her of having violated if he did decide to pursue the case, otherwise he imagine he would have said something like "We can't indict Hillary (even if we wanted to) because there are no laws that she has broken".
Whether she actually violated those laws is obviously for the courts to decide if the FBI had decided to pursue the case. But the fact remains that because the FBI did not pursue it (not that they should have), we don't actually know if she broke any laws, only that she has (still) never been convicted of any crimes, and is therefore (still) not a criminal.
But I think it is still important to have good information as to whether she indeed broke any laws, independent of whether she was actually convicted of any crimes.
Legally, she hasn't been convicted of a crime, so she's not a criminal. Neither is Trump.
That's basically where I am at right now, barring new evidence to the contrary.
No, she definitely doesn't have any criminal convictions. I was only unsure of whether Trump had been.
I don't know. Why are you asking me that?
I'm not a lawyer, but I think even if Trump had lost in court rather than settling, this would have resulted in a civil judgment against him or his company, not a criminal conviction.
I said there is a difference. The difference being that one is destroying the information forever and the other isn't. Whether there is a legal difference in terms of classified material is irrelevant to my point. There is an actual difference in reality.
What makes you think any evidence you find is actually true? It is a fake datadump after all... even if the evidence was 100% solid, you'd still want at least several other sources before trusting anything you find in here.
If the evidence is true, the source is the Clinton foundation email server. It's not always easy to decide what's true in a lot of cases (e.g. he said, she said, etc), but data dumps have historically been either very clearly legitimate or very clearly illegitimate.
How do we know that it was really Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump debating the other night? Couldn't they have been trained impersonators? This kind of thing just doesn't ever really happen. For whatever reason, it's pretty hard to pull off the old imposter scenario, so we don;t really worry about it.
It's also pretty hard to fake a database full of hundreds or thousands of legitimate emails. I think this is why people rarely even try. And it's why the data dumps almost immediately after release are proclaimed legitimate or fake.
Also, the reason this is considered "tampering with the election" is that Guccifer is considered by numerous people to be an intelligence service, most probably Russia's FSB
I never said it wasn't tampering with the election. Even the release of legitimate information by a foreign nation is tampering with the election.
Whether it's true is hard to tell, but the indications do point in that direction. So tell me: do you really want to look for evidence in a collection of garbage provided by a hostile intelligence agency? Would you like to publish that evidence under your own name? If no, why do you think anyone else would do so?
No I was talking about looking for nefarious activities within the Clinton foundation in general, not these specific fake data dumps.
Have any of his companies been found guilty of crimes?
If so please provide a citation, I'd honestly like to know.
By definition, anything on an email server *can't* be the only copy. They must have been sent from somewhere else or sent to somewhere else.
Sure every email could have had many other participants. The ones on Clinton's server could have been the only copy in possession of the US government for many of those emails. There is a reason that all official government email is supposed to go through a government server, and it's precisely because it's the only way the emails can be effectively archived. Yeah there are probably copies of many of those emails on in other people's inbox and sent folders, and many are probably already deleted, or only in the hands of foreign governments. We can never know the whole picture now.
Why indeed?
Well if it is fake (as it now appears to be), surely that is subverting the process by spreading misinformation, rather than the truth.
Wake up. They are all crooked. Republicans are just as crooked as the democrats.
It seems like every "independent" thing I've read indicates that it is really impossible to tell what the Clinton foundation is actually doing.
I don't think the characterization that the Clinton foundation "the Clinton Foundation is independently reviewed to be above reproach" is accurate. I haven't seen any evidence that conclusively proves any nefarious activities, but that doesn't make them "above reproach".
No that was perfectly Legal AT THE TIME.
I honestly don;t know the law well enough to have an opinion on whether her use of a private email server was illegal or not. It does seem as if it was against the governments own rules for it's own employees. And despite dancing around it, it seems Hillary has finally also admitted this (without any qualifications).
The FBI director explained his rationale for not indicting her, and it certainly wasn't that she did nothing wrong. My impression was that they have discretion over who they decide to indict, and choosing not to indict Hillary was in keeping with similar cases of treating classified material with negligence (as opposed to intentionally selling the information to Russians, etc.)
It seems to me like there is a legal gray area where someone might have broken the law but because they were not convicted, are not criminals.
Can you cite a source for your assertion that the FBI read all the "missing" emails? I'd be interested to read it.
Does Trump actually have any criminal convictions? I looked, but couldn't find any in the sea of misinformation out there.
Also, there is a difference between deleting a copy of classified material (to prevent that copy from becoming compromised), and deleting the *only* copy of classified material (preventing our own government from having access to it).
I think the accusation is that she has done the latter. Since she shouldn't have had a private email server to begin with, deleting the emails from the server should have certainly happened eventually, but not while the only copy of those emails resided on that private server.
Obviously If this is indeed a fake data dump, certainly people shouldn't keep looking for evidence of crimes in it. But one thing turning out to be a hoax on a subject doesn't mean there is nothing interesting there still left to find. Imagine if Trump's tax return leak turned out to be fake. Would that mean that we should stop looking into his taxes now that he's been exonerated? No of course not. They both have their shady dealings, and they both have been falsely accused of crimes for which they are innocent. You just need to deal with each accusation on it's own merit.
Yes Trump's charity seems to be a complete scam. Maybe it's even worse than the Clinton foundation could even be in the worst case scenario. That doesn't mean that the Clinton foundation is clean.
It seems to me Hillary is innocent of most of the claims made by the right against her. That doesn't mean there is nothing to find. I kind of hope we don't get a Hillary bombshell right before the election that ends up in a Trump victory, but I'd rather know than not know.
I don't want a corrupt politician to be let off the hook just because their opponent is worse.
Maybe they both belong in prison.
Don't get me wrong, a lot of people find her basically unlikable or disagree with her policies, but they need something to make her look as bad as Trump. This an a bunch of memes and shitposts is all they have.
I don't need her to look as bad as Trump. I hope she beats Trump. What I want is for the truth to be realized. I want the republicans to realize the benghazi thing is bullshit. I want the democrats to realize the email thing is not bullshit.
I would love it if people dropped the false equivalence of Trump and Clinton. I would also love it if people dropped the false equivalence of Clinton and Powell.
You probably wouldn't like it if I said "The people who trash talk anti-Hillary people need some way to discredit them, so they try to paint them all as people claiming she is as bad as Trump."
That's sort of what I was getting at. There is a large cultural component.
Um no. Why do people with genes from West Africa (but who live all over the world in different cultures) make up the top 95% of the top sprint times? It isn't because they grew up sprinting.
It's not? Because they do. I don't think anyone is saying there are no biological differences in people of different ethnicities, but it's pretty clear that culture also plays a big role. African countries have a culture of running. Some countries (e.g. Jamaica) with a stronger culture of sprinting and produce more good sprinters than other nations with exactly the same genetic makeup.
You're starting with the fallacy that there can be only one cause to some phenomenon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-secret-of-jamaicas-runners.html?_r=0
If you are asking me if it is surprising to me that you would actually believe something like this, then no. Feel free to offer some actual good evidence if you want to convince others.
There are lots of tall white people. If you look at the countries with the tallest people it's: Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, US, Australia.
No being non-Asian doesn't help you with most jobs, but that is a causal relationship. What we have is a negative correlation between Asians that applied to a particular company and Asians that got that job.
There are all kinds of things that can cause strange correlations that have nothing to do with racism. For example: Why were 73% of the applicants Asian? Certainly 73% of the population isn't Asian. Maybe Asian people are more likely to apply to more jobs, making it less likely overall that they will get any particular job (i.e. they can't get all the jobs they apply to). In fact Asians did get 4/17 (19%) of the jobs and Asians only make up 5.6% of the population.
You have to actually do the research to see what actually happened. You can't just look at how many Asians were hired and then conclude racism. You actually have to measure how qualified the applicants were. You can't just assume that the qualified applicants to a particular company perfectly match a cross section of the US or the applicant pool.
I never meant to imply that there couldn't be racism. My point was that these numbers showing racial outcome of a test do not alone do not prove any racism. You actually have to do the work of controlling for competence, rather than simply assuming every population is equally competent.
Philosophers syndrome: Mistaking a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.
It doesn't even need to be the case that there is a difference in mental capabilities between races. It could be that certain groups have a culture that leads them to be better or worse at certain tasks on average, and those groups can be predominantly of one race/ethnicity. It could be that some cultures cause people to be overconfident in their abilities (e.g. causing them to be more likely to apply for jobs they are unqualified for).
Culture affects everything. It even affects how good African Americans are at basketball on average. It affects how good Jamaicans are at sprinting (e.g. there is no discernible difference between Jamaican sprinters and those of other Caribbean islands).
I'm not saying that any of these is en explanation. I am not saying there was no racism in this case. What I am saying is that it is not rational to assume racism simply because some test did not yield a cross section of society. There are a million other potential explanations, racism being one.
So if fast twitch muscles is the explanation for why African Americans are good at basketball, would you say that other sports which don't see African American participation levels comparable to 74.4% are discriminating against them?