The laws said she was supposed to keep records of her official communications, she did. She broke agency rules with her own server but I don't think that's criminal and I don't know if she thought that the specific email server mattered.
She was supposed to not communicate classified stuff over unsecured emails, she didn't. But I suspect that law is a bit like the speeding limit in that everything is classified and everybody at that level has at least some slip-ups.
My understanding is people only get charged for mishandling classified material when they're in the process of doing something else bad like sharing them with 3rd parties.
After all, she's just a dumb female, right?
I didn't claim your Clinton criticism was motivated by misogyny, don't try to pull that rhetorical crap on me.
It doesn't matter how senile Hillary has gotten, if she broke the law she broke the law and needs to at least go to trial. They can factor in her technical inability in sentencing.
But we all know that will not happen, making a mockery of the entire notion of Secret/Top Secret.
It's called prosecutorial discretion. If every act that broke a law was fully pursued then almost everyone here would have seen the inside of a court room. Laws are written with some generality so that prosecutors aren't forced to file when the law is violated but they don't think the act deserves punishment.
This behaviour was going on for 4 years in plain sight and no one caught on that it was an issue.
If it takes that long for people to go "oh wait! that's a crime!" then I don't think it's an act that deserves punishment.
There's obviously a lot of people in government who really need to get their act together when it comes to IT, Clinton being one of them, but you don't have to charge people every time a law is broken.
People keep saying that but I've not heard a single person quote a law she appears to be guilty of other than being a bitch. (which isn't against the law). It was stupid, it violated department policy and in my opinion nothing bad came of it, she was technically in charge of state and could set whatever policy she wanted. It would be like accusing the president of releasing classified information when he can at his will classify/unclassify anything he wants and the very act of releasing the information would be official declassification. Sometimes the boss does stupid stuff, but that's one of the advantages of being the boss.
Guilty of being in politics a long time.
See if you spend a long time in politics you're no longer cool, particularly if you've been prominent at the national stage for a long time then you obviously haven't fixed everything and are part of the problem.
Worse if people start making up bad things about you... true they're made up, but so many bad things made up surely a few of them must be partly true?
Doubly so if you're a woman, not that most of your critics care, but it bothers a few and they complain a lot, they don't have the best motives but they're on the right side so the other critics won't question too closely.
And if you actually do something wrong at some point, well there's no other solution than to toss you in jail and throw away the key. Nothing personal, they just want to show they're being fair in going after the powerful, at least the powerful that you don't like.
They're not going to make a big deal of Trump being accused of rape by his ex-wife, they might not stop watching Woody Allen movies after he was accused of molesting his biological daughter and then marrying his adopted daughter. But Clinton? She has to go down.
If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.
You aren't giving credit where credit is due. Judicial Watch has a lawsuit pursuing information along these lines, and is making progress.
Specifically: "In recent media interviews, Lazar claimed he had easily hacked into Clinton’s controversial private email server. But the Justice Department statement did not confirm this claim, and a law enforcement official said investigators did not find evidence to support the claim."
They're trying to pass this off as nothing bad happened, so it's no big deal. Except she wiped the server before turning it over - OF COURSE they aren't going to find evidence of hacking now, after the evidence has been destroyed.
So you think the guy who got famous by bragging about the "hacks" he did (really just logging into email by guessing the answers to security questions) was able to hack into Clinton's server. A completely different skillset.
And then after hacking into this server he found the email of Hillary Clinton, the acting US Secretary of State, by far the biggest target he'd ever hacked, and having found his biggest scoop yet.... he didn't bother to tell anyone because he thought it wasn't interesting.
OF COURSE he didn't hack Clinton's email.
I'm not saying no one hacked in, it's a definite possibility, but Guccifer's story is obvious BS.
I'm a total lefty, but Kerry, Albright, Rice, and Powell weren't running their own insecure servers which were hacked at least once that we know of.
We know she was hacked? That's surprising because I've been paying attention and I don't know she was hacked.
And none of those Secretaries of State claimed that they had done everything right in setting up such a server, and that it had been approved by the department, which the department subsequently denied.
Hillary Clinton either lied about this, or she was lied to by her staff. That the government has granted immunity to the staffer who set up the mail server leads me to believe that they've got her cold if she tries to claim she had no idea. I've been in IT for 25 years, and I've always protected myself by making my recommendations or warnings in writing to prevent just this sort of shifting of blame.
The Salon article today suggested that she just didn't follow State Department procedure, without ever mentioning that the department never sanctioned her server, or that her server had been hacked as a result of poor security. The article implies that other Secretaries did it too, so that makes it acceptable. Just absurd.
Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
If Clinton was really trying to hide stuff she would have used personal emails (or phone calls) ONLY for the potentially bad stuff she wanted hidden from records.
If she did that we probably never would have know she did anything wrong.
Knowingly breaking the law in such an obvious way, especially for someone as scandal-adverse as Clinton, is ridiculous. This makes a lot of sense as Hillary seriously misunderstanding what she was allowed to do and no one with understanding correcting her.
More like highlights since most of it has been known for months. There were a couple interesting new things though.
8. The server was briefly shut down over hacking concerns
This warrants more investigation. I'm curious what "someone was trying to hack us" actually means. Any thing facing the Internet is under constant attack, assuming the person knew what they were talking about I'm curious what made this attempt more serious.
9. Clinton and her staffers worried about being hacked but didn't report to security personnel On May 13, 2011, the IG report states that "two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was 'hacking into her email' after she received an email with a suspicious link."
Hours after that discussion, an email William Burns, the then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, appeared in Clinton's inbox, carrying a link to a suspect URL and nothing else in the message.
Presumably this got dropped when someone who understood computers told them that either Burns or someone who had them both as contacts caught a virus. It's a bit of a concern if they didn't bring it up with Burns though.
Honestly my opinion remains largely unchanged. Clinton is an old person who didn't really understand email or the security issues around it, she may have thought she was fine or she was bending the rules though I'm not convinced she thought it was really illegal and there doesn't seem to any evidence of Clinton being made aware this was a serious issue.
There should have been someone around her who had both the knowledge to realize she was seriously screwing up and the a position where they felt comfortable in telling her that.
It's a hit on her general competence and ability to surround herself with a good team, but I don't see it as deserving of jail time.
So if he decides he doesn't like you, he can sue the crap out of you on multiple fronts, without his own name getting dragged into it? You're fine with trying to fight off all those lawsuits, where you'll go bankrupt even if you win?
This lawsuit wasn't mainly trouble for Gawker because they would go bankrupt even if they won. It was trouble for Gawker because Gawker committed the unethical behavior described in the lawsuit and had to pay for it. There's a big difference between suing innocent people to make them pay for defense, and suing guilty people to make them pay for their crimes.
There's also that awkward bit where justice is only available for the rich.
Gawker vs Thiel results in Gawker winning because Gawker is in the legal right.
Gawker vs Hogan results in Gawker winning because Hogan doesn't have the resources to pursue a lawsuit.
Gawker vs Thiel+Hogan results in Gawker losing because Thiel has the resources and Hogan has the case.
I'm not sure arrangement #3 is wrong since it's the only way the little guy (Hogan) gets justice. But I think it should be public because Thiel's involvement deserves scrutiny.
If you read through to some of the reporting on this, you'll find that it wasn't just the Hulk Hogan lawsuit - he's arranged for many more. What's more, the lawyers in the case were pursuing tactics that wouldn't make sense if they were actually trying to maximize the award to their client, but would absolutely make sense if they were simply trying to attack Gawker without care as to whether Hogan actually gets any money out of it.
So, in short, they're not trying to make Gawker pay for their crimes, they're trying to make Gawker go bankrupt any way they can. That's a huge distinction.
I haven't really seen that and I think what you're claiming would be a fairly serious allegation against the lawyers.
The lawyers are supposed to represent the interests of their client, Hulk Hogan, if they're jeopardizing those interests to further someone else's interests I think that's a conflict of interest.
It's also a cheap-shot that has nothing to do with the topic. An ad hominem if there ever was one. I admit it's a tempting one, but it's not very classy, and ultimately contra productive. He should stick to the science, stuff like this makes it look like Myhrvold is on to something.
Nothing says you can't top off your substantive criticism with a bit of style.
Myhrvold is undeniably a smart guy, but that doesn't make him immune from doing something stupid. He's basically claiming that in his spare time he created a better model than a dedicated group at NASA and has found errors throughout their published work.
Now that's possible, NASA employs humans and humans sometimes screw up, but for him to be right a lot of different people and groups need to have screwed up together, for him to be wrong you just need Myhrvold to have screwed up.
You should really get outside of the big cities. That's the only place where canadian identity is multicultural, the rest of the country doesn't like it. Canada is likely about to experience the same cultural awakening that Europe and it's multicultural idealism is experiencing. One also can't forget that said multicultural idea has allowed ghettos to start appearing here in Canada, something that is new to the Cancuk landscape.
But if you don't think Americans aren't well equipped to understand this, you don't know Americans just like you don't know Canadians outside of the social bubbles in big cities.
I'm not sure this is true, I grew up in a small town and while it's certainly more conservative they still bought into the idea of multiculturalism.
Europe is in a different situation for a few reasons. First most European nations have strong historical ethnic identities that are hard to integrate with immigration. The immigration they get also tends to be lower skilled since it's easier for poor people to get there, so they fall into the ghettos.
A lot of the Canadian immigrants are already well off so they tend to move into the middle class within the first couple generations.
'Trailer Park Boys' is doing a fine job of representing Canadian culture, are there other Canadian TV shows?
As the other poster mentioned there's lots and I think a lot of them are of high enough quality to survive on a major US network. The thing is they generally don't show up there because they made for a Canadian audience.
Trailer Park Boys is actually an interesting case. The new seasons were made to cross over to an American audience and it's actually changed the show. Personally I don't find them to be quite as good, but an American audience might disagree.
Netflix exposed the brilliance of 'Troll Hunter' to the world. Europeans should thank them and take a hint. Nobody want's to see movies summarizing Proost, blow Proost up 'real good' and French movies will find an audience. The French should quit whining and compete.
Yeah... that's not why they're having trouble finding audiences.
Everyone's second language is English, that gives Hollywood a global audience and way more money. If you want to make good shows and movies you need money, and if you want to make several good movies in the hopes that one turns out to be a hit you need a lot of money.
Having strong domestic media is critical if a country is going to defend itself against foreign influence.
Politically it keeps people engaged domestically since they're interested in their own nation and the issues relevant to their nation.
So you agree with Trump ? or are you just parroting him without understanding what you are saying ?
Neither.
Having a strong national identity isn't the same as nativism. The Canadian identity is multicultural, it's because we've maintained that identity that we're able to do things like welcome tens of thousands of Syrian refugees and mostly resist Tea Party influences moving into our politics.
I don't think Americans are well equipped to understand this issue. Your media dominates everything, especially domestically. Aside from the occasional BBC hit or trendy foreign film everything you see comes from an American perspective.
Other countries don't have the same economy of scale and have trouble achieving the same level of production quality, so people don't follow the media produced by their own culture. When people get disconnected it's harder to keep them engaged in society.
The Canadian government has "always" had a film-making pool that all cable television companies are required to put a percentage of their revenue into, which is then doled out to make Canadian movies and television shows (most of which nobody actually watches, of course.) The cable companies are also required to show a certain percentage of Canadian television shows, and radio stations must play a certain percentage of Canadian music.
None of this currently applies to outfits like Netflix, and the incumbent cable companies and movie and television producers are pushing for them to also have to put money into their fund. I suspect it won't be long before an attempt is made to actually do it -- it gets brought up regularly.
And it's a great idea.
Having strong domestic media is critical if a country is going to defend itself against foreign influence.
Politically it keeps people engaged domestically since they're interested in their own nation and the issues relevant to their nation.
If you want to see what happens if you let yourself be dominated culturally look at the Russian pseudo-invasion of Ukraine. Sure the Russians imported a bunch of fighters and had an even bigger army to back them up, but that tactic was only viable because Ukraine hadn't achieve a proper national identity. There were a lot of East Ukrainians who identified more as Russian and were happy to back the invasion. If Ukraine had better domestic media that contingent would be smaller and Russia would never have had the opportunity.
Since you apparently can only judge a book by its cover:
YOU are not a critical thinker
YOU are too lazy to be objective
YOU are not able to coming to an independent judge
YOU are the kind of person who makes decisions based on ideological purity and truth
YOU are not the kind of person who should be trusted for advice or honesty
A person who is a critical thinker can read Pravda, Das Kapital, and the scribbles of uneducated slaves, and still extract useful information. You are claiming you are incapable of doing that if the color of the book is wrong or if the author is someone you do not like or of the wrong skin color! You are not much to judge or to give advice!
You're (ironically) making a lot of unwarranted (though mostly unfalsifiable) assumptions, including a bizarre closing claim that I'm racist all based on the fact I try to avoid relying on unreliable sources as support for my arguments???
Contrary to your portrayal some of my most read sources are viewpoints that I strongly disagree with, and as opposed to making decisions based on "ideological purity and truth" I'd say my actual flaw is being a contrarian who resists ideological purity in favour of pragmatic goals.
The problem is the Washington Times and similar sources is they're actively and aggressively trying to persuade you of their world view and crafting the narrative to achieve that goal, a critical thinker would realize that although the report contains elements of truth it's non-trivial to determine which elements are the truth.
My objection was sending someone to the Washington Times as a primary source, the reasons for a person to do that is if they're trying to deceive the audience or if they're already so deceived themselves that they think they've found a good source.
So? You quote left-wing rags, founded and subsidized by sociopaths and psychopaths, ALL THE TIME!
I do? Maybe you've looked through my posting history and saw something I'm forgetting but I try to keep my sources pretty respectable. And yes this means I try to avoid citing the HuffPo.
The Washington Times is not a reliable source of information. I'm sure they report lots of good stories, but if you go to the Washington Times as a primary source it's really hard not to come away with a severely distorted view of events.
In 2014 the CDC announced that vials containing the deadly virus had been discovered in a cardboard box in a refrigerator located on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus in Bethesda, Maryland. How can you say it's eliminated when it's still out there, somewhere?
Even if you eliminate all the stocks you know about there's still the stocks you don't know about, if it ever gets out it probably came from a forgotten sample.
I don't think it's a huge deal either way but if we want to understand how a truly nasty virus works then you can't really do it without a really nasty virus to study.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, which produced the report, has copies of its own report. The CIA has copies. The CIA IG destroyed its copy, provided to it by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and told the committee. Stupid, yes...but given that it was the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, it's not like the CIA IG destroying its only copy of the Senate's report amounts to, well, anything.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, which produced the report, has copies of its own report. The CIA has copies. The CIA IG destroyed its copy, provided to it by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and told the committee. Stupid, yes...but given that it was the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, it's not like the CIA IG destroying its only copy of the Senate's report amounts to, well, anything.
I think there's a lot of things going on in this story that needs expert analysis, here's my attempt at fundamentally misunderstanding the important points:
1) It makes sense they'd just have one copy. The full report is highly classified and has major political ramifications. They really want to make sure there's not a lot of random copies floating around.
2) Someone at the CIA supposedly thought they were supposed to delete the report, I feel like the CIA is a place with established mechanisms for deleting things without backups.
3) If you want to avoid giving up a doc in a FOIA request not having the doc is a really good excuse.
4) Other agencies still have the file, I don't know if that's relevant to any open FOIA requests.
Well, $20/hour ($41k/year) is about the median income for a person with a Bachelor's Degree, and Arizona doesn't have the highest cost of living, so they are probably ahead of the game. Especially if their degree is in a lower paying major.
Plus, "ride in car and pay attention" doesn't sound like the highest skilled job. Given the safety record of the cars, it isn't that dangerous of a job, either.
They're not just babysitting the cars, it sounds like they want a bunch of daily reports and such.
I'm sure they're pretty basic reports, but if you want to make sure people are competent to carry out daily written assignments then requesting college degrees is a good filter.
Hillary is probably the only candidate who could make someone like Trump able to win the election. She has even worse negatives and has just as many people who will never vote for her.
I think her negatives are overblown. She's in the unenviable position of being so established that she's no longer "fresh" but not being president so she no incumbency advantage. Still I don't think the negatives will grow over the campaign since she's already so well known. Her favourability might even grow if Trump starts attacking her or if the campaign gives her a chance to control her own image instead of only coming up in the context of a pundit pinata.
We've somehow ended up with the two candidates with the highest negatives from people in general. For the Dems, that's because of their "superdelegates" originally supposedly setup as a quota system for minorities, but which coincidentally turned into ensuring the (D) party elite continue to control everything.
Clinton won the primary because she had way more votes and pledged delegates, despite the talk the superdelegates had virtually nothing to do with it.
Bottom line, I'm voting for who will select the next Supreme Court nominee. Trump will make a deal with a GOP Senate if he wins. Hillary will push another Obama-style appointee (albeit a rich one who can bribe her foundation?) through the Senate with her "mandate" if she wins.
Presidents do more than nominate judges. Trump would be a disaster for your country and would pull white nationalists and crazy conspiracy theorists into the heart of the Republican party.
The Republicans got a candidate that in the general election will bring in a huge number of Democratic votes - one poll shows Trump at 2x the support of minority voters as any other Republican candidate (like Romney) has had.
I think the technical term for that is an "outlier".
Yes Trump will lose some women, but more because Hillary is running than because of Trump
A claim contradicted by the fact that Trump has done worse with women against everyone so far.
- and that doesn't really matter because again polls show Hillary losing as many male votes as Trump loses female.
I'm not sure how that math squares with Clinton being way up in virtually every poll.
The Democrats had their chance to elect someone as good, Sanders, but they choose to go with the most ancient rapist-protecting white person they could find, so they are toast in the general election.
The very first debate will seal the deal with Trump dancing verbal rings around Hillary.
Some Republicans right now say they will not vote for Trump but Hillary is a rather powerful counterforce for that notion...
I'm sure Trump will claim victory but 1 on 1 debates are a lot less susceptible to Trump's insult comic debate style. His understanding of policy is still atrocious and contradictory and Clinton is used to handling personal attacks, debates are not a place where Trump will gain votes.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why embezzlers are never punished, because it takes years for anyone to notice anything is wrong, or they pay off the right people.
Note I also said in plain sight, embezzlers aren't acting in plain site they're trying to hide what they do because they know its illegal.
There's no indication that Clinton tried to hide the email address she was using from anyone.
Absolutely Clinton should go free despite breaking some of the clearest laws that exist.
Don't forcefully touch people without their consent, that's assault.
Of course to suggest Justin Trudeau should be charged with assault for his elbow is absurd.
The laws said she was supposed to keep records of her official communications, she did. She broke agency rules with her own server but I don't think that's criminal and I don't know if she thought that the specific email server mattered.
She was supposed to not communicate classified stuff over unsecured emails, she didn't. But I suspect that law is a bit like the speeding limit in that everything is classified and everybody at that level has at least some slip-ups.
My understanding is people only get charged for mishandling classified material when they're in the process of doing something else bad like sharing them with 3rd parties.
After all, she's just a dumb female, right?
I didn't claim your Clinton criticism was motivated by misogyny, don't try to pull that rhetorical crap on me.
you think Hillary 'wipe - you mean like with a towel' Clinton
Is this supposed to be some kind of Trump-inspired misogynist insult?
Because it reads like a Trump-inspired misogynist insult.
But that doesn't make sense because who would want to out themselves as a Trump-inspired misogynist?
It doesn't matter how senile Hillary has gotten, if she broke the law she broke the law and needs to at least go to trial. They can factor in her technical inability in sentencing.
But we all know that will not happen, making a mockery of the entire notion of Secret/Top Secret.
It's called prosecutorial discretion. If every act that broke a law was fully pursued then almost everyone here would have seen the inside of a court room. Laws are written with some generality so that prosecutors aren't forced to file when the law is violated but they don't think the act deserves punishment.
This behaviour was going on for 4 years in plain sight and no one caught on that it was an issue.
If it takes that long for people to go "oh wait! that's a crime!" then I don't think it's an act that deserves punishment.
There's obviously a lot of people in government who really need to get their act together when it comes to IT, Clinton being one of them, but you don't have to charge people every time a law is broken.
Guilty of what?
People keep saying that but I've not heard a single person quote a law she appears to be guilty of other than being a bitch. (which isn't against the law). It was stupid, it violated department policy and in my opinion nothing bad came of it, she was technically in charge of state and could set whatever policy she wanted. It would be like accusing the president of releasing classified information when he can at his will classify/unclassify anything he wants and the very act of releasing the information would be official declassification. Sometimes the boss does stupid stuff, but that's one of the advantages of being the boss.
Guilty of being in politics a long time.
See if you spend a long time in politics you're no longer cool, particularly if you've been prominent at the national stage for a long time then you obviously haven't fixed everything and are part of the problem.
Worse if people start making up bad things about you... true they're made up, but so many bad things made up surely a few of them must be partly true?
Doubly so if you're a woman, not that most of your critics care, but it bothers a few and they complain a lot, they don't have the best motives but they're on the right side so the other critics won't question too closely.
And if you actually do something wrong at some point, well there's no other solution than to toss you in jail and throw away the key. Nothing personal, they just want to show they're being fair in going after the powerful, at least the powerful that you don't like.
They're not going to make a big deal of Trump being accused of rape by his ex-wife, they might not stop watching Woody Allen movies after he was accused of molesting his biological daughter and then marrying his adopted daughter. But Clinton? She has to go down.
If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.
You aren't giving credit where credit is due. Judicial Watch has a lawsuit pursuing information along these lines, and is making progress.
Is Judicial Watch going to use those funds to prevent more imaginary terrorist attacks?
One of the many things that points to how "Rules-for-thee, Not-for-me" this still is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Specifically: "In recent media interviews, Lazar claimed he had easily hacked into Clinton’s controversial private email server. But the Justice Department statement did not confirm this claim, and a law enforcement official said investigators did not find evidence to support the claim."
They're trying to pass this off as nothing bad happened, so it's no big deal. Except she wiped the server before turning it over - OF COURSE they aren't going to find evidence of hacking now, after the evidence has been destroyed.
So you think the guy who got famous by bragging about the "hacks" he did (really just logging into email by guessing the answers to security questions) was able to hack into Clinton's server. A completely different skillset.
And then after hacking into this server he found the email of Hillary Clinton, the acting US Secretary of State, by far the biggest target he'd ever hacked, and having found his biggest scoop yet.... he didn't bother to tell anyone because he thought it wasn't interesting.
OF COURSE he didn't hack Clinton's email.
I'm not saying no one hacked in, it's a definite possibility, but Guccifer's story is obvious BS.
Pro-Hillary PAC Spending $1 Million to Hire Online Trolls
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...
Moron with a 7 digit UUID thinks a user with a mid-6 digit UUID is somehow a hired troll.
You seriously think I'm taking the /. account I started in the mid-90s and hiring myself out as a shill?
I'm a total lefty, but Kerry, Albright, Rice, and Powell weren't running their own insecure servers which were hacked at least once that we know of.
We know she was hacked? That's surprising because I've been paying attention and I don't know she was hacked.
And none of those Secretaries of State claimed that they had done everything right in setting up such a server, and that it had been approved by the department, which the department subsequently denied.
Hillary Clinton either lied about this, or she was lied to by her staff. That the government has granted immunity to the staffer who set up the mail server leads me to believe that they've got her cold if she tries to claim she had no idea. I've been in IT for 25 years, and I've always protected myself by making my recommendations or warnings in writing to prevent just this sort of shifting of blame.
The Salon article today suggested that she just didn't follow State Department procedure, without ever mentioning that the department never sanctioned her server, or that her server had been hacked as a result of poor security. The article implies that other Secretaries did it too, so that makes it acceptable. Just absurd.
Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
If Clinton was really trying to hide stuff she would have used personal emails (or phone calls) ONLY for the potentially bad stuff she wanted hidden from records.
If she did that we probably never would have know she did anything wrong.
Knowingly breaking the law in such an obvious way, especially for someone as scandal-adverse as Clinton, is ridiculous. This makes a lot of sense as Hillary seriously misunderstanding what she was allowed to do and no one with understanding correcting her.
The 9 biggest revelations in the State IG report on Clinton's emails
More like highlights since most of it has been known for months. There were a couple interesting new things though.
8. The server was briefly shut down over hacking concerns
This warrants more investigation. I'm curious what "someone was trying to hack us" actually means. Any thing facing the Internet is under constant attack, assuming the person knew what they were talking about I'm curious what made this attempt more serious.
9. Clinton and her staffers worried about being hacked but didn't report to security personnel
On May 13, 2011, the IG report states that "two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was 'hacking into her email' after she received an email with a suspicious link."
Hours after that discussion, an email William Burns, the then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, appeared in Clinton's inbox, carrying a link to a suspect URL and nothing else in the message.
Presumably this got dropped when someone who understood computers told them that either Burns or someone who had them both as contacts caught a virus. It's a bit of a concern if they didn't bring it up with Burns though.
Honestly my opinion remains largely unchanged. Clinton is an old person who didn't really understand email or the security issues around it, she may have thought she was fine or she was bending the rules though I'm not convinced she thought it was really illegal and there doesn't seem to any evidence of Clinton being made aware this was a serious issue.
There should have been someone around her who had both the knowledge to realize she was seriously screwing up and the a position where they felt comfortable in telling her that.
It's a hit on her general competence and ability to surround herself with a good team, but I don't see it as deserving of jail time.
This lawsuit wasn't mainly trouble for Gawker because they would go bankrupt even if they won. It was trouble for Gawker because Gawker committed the unethical behavior described in the lawsuit and had to pay for it. There's a big difference between suing innocent people to make them pay for defense, and suing guilty people to make them pay for their crimes.
There's also that awkward bit where justice is only available for the rich.
Gawker vs Thiel results in Gawker winning because Gawker is in the legal right.
Gawker vs Hogan results in Gawker winning because Hogan doesn't have the resources to pursue a lawsuit.
Gawker vs Thiel+Hogan results in Gawker losing because Thiel has the resources and Hogan has the case.
I'm not sure arrangement #3 is wrong since it's the only way the little guy (Hogan) gets justice. But I think it should be public because Thiel's involvement deserves scrutiny.
If you read through to some of the reporting on this, you'll find that it wasn't just the Hulk Hogan lawsuit - he's arranged for many more. What's more, the lawyers in the case were pursuing tactics that wouldn't make sense if they were actually trying to maximize the award to their client, but would absolutely make sense if they were simply trying to attack Gawker without care as to whether Hogan actually gets any money out of it.
So, in short, they're not trying to make Gawker pay for their crimes, they're trying to make Gawker go bankrupt any way they can. That's a huge distinction.
I haven't really seen that and I think what you're claiming would be a fairly serious allegation against the lawyers.
The lawyers are supposed to represent the interests of their client, Hulk Hogan, if they're jeopardizing those interests to further someone else's interests I think that's a conflict of interest.
It's also a cheap-shot that has nothing to do with the topic. An ad hominem if there ever was one. I admit it's a tempting one, but it's not very classy, and ultimately contra productive. He should stick to the science, stuff like this makes it look like Myhrvold is on to something.
Nothing says you can't top off your substantive criticism with a bit of style.
Myhrvold is undeniably a smart guy, but that doesn't make him immune from doing something stupid. He's basically claiming that in his spare time he created a better model than a dedicated group at NASA and has found errors throughout their published work.
Now that's possible, NASA employs humans and humans sometimes screw up, but for him to be right a lot of different people and groups need to have screwed up together, for him to be wrong you just need Myhrvold to have screwed up.
You should really get outside of the big cities. That's the only place where canadian identity is multicultural, the rest of the country doesn't like it. Canada is likely about to experience the same cultural awakening that Europe and it's multicultural idealism is experiencing. One also can't forget that said multicultural idea has allowed ghettos to start appearing here in Canada, something that is new to the Cancuk landscape.
But if you don't think Americans aren't well equipped to understand this, you don't know Americans just like you don't know Canadians outside of the social bubbles in big cities.
I'm not sure this is true, I grew up in a small town and while it's certainly more conservative they still bought into the idea of multiculturalism.
Europe is in a different situation for a few reasons. First most European nations have strong historical ethnic identities that are hard to integrate with immigration. The immigration they get also tends to be lower skilled since it's easier for poor people to get there, so they fall into the ghettos.
A lot of the Canadian immigrants are already well off so they tend to move into the middle class within the first couple generations.
'Trailer Park Boys' is doing a fine job of representing Canadian culture, are there other Canadian TV shows?
As the other poster mentioned there's lots and I think a lot of them are of high enough quality to survive on a major US network. The thing is they generally don't show up there because they made for a Canadian audience.
Trailer Park Boys is actually an interesting case. The new seasons were made to cross over to an American audience and it's actually changed the show. Personally I don't find them to be quite as good, but an American audience might disagree.
Netflix exposed the brilliance of 'Troll Hunter' to the world. Europeans should thank them and take a hint. Nobody want's to see movies summarizing Proost, blow Proost up 'real good' and French movies will find an audience. The French should quit whining and compete.
Yeah... that's not why they're having trouble finding audiences.
Everyone's second language is English, that gives Hollywood a global audience and way more money. If you want to make good shows and movies you need money, and if you want to make several good movies in the hopes that one turns out to be a hit you need a lot of money.
Having strong domestic media is critical if a country is going to defend itself against foreign influence.
Politically it keeps people engaged domestically since they're interested in their own nation and the issues relevant to their nation.
So you agree with Trump ? or are you just parroting him without understanding what you are saying ?
Neither.
Having a strong national identity isn't the same as nativism. The Canadian identity is multicultural, it's because we've maintained that identity that we're able to do things like welcome tens of thousands of Syrian refugees and mostly resist Tea Party influences moving into our politics.
I don't think Americans are well equipped to understand this issue. Your media dominates everything, especially domestically. Aside from the occasional BBC hit or trendy foreign film everything you see comes from an American perspective.
Other countries don't have the same economy of scale and have trouble achieving the same level of production quality, so people don't follow the media produced by their own culture. When people get disconnected it's harder to keep them engaged in society.
The Canadian government has "always" had a film-making pool that all cable television companies are required to put a percentage of their revenue into, which is then doled out to make Canadian movies and television shows (most of which nobody actually watches, of course.) The cable companies are also required to show a certain percentage of Canadian television shows, and radio stations must play a certain percentage of Canadian music.
None of this currently applies to outfits like Netflix, and the incumbent cable companies and movie and television producers are pushing for them to also have to put money into their fund. I suspect it won't be long before an attempt is made to actually do it -- it gets brought up regularly.
And it's a great idea.
Having strong domestic media is critical if a country is going to defend itself against foreign influence.
Politically it keeps people engaged domestically since they're interested in their own nation and the issues relevant to their nation.
If you want to see what happens if you let yourself be dominated culturally look at the Russian pseudo-invasion of Ukraine. Sure the Russians imported a bunch of fighters and had an even bigger army to back them up, but that tactic was only viable because Ukraine hadn't achieve a proper national identity. There were a lot of East Ukrainians who identified more as Russian and were happy to back the invasion. If Ukraine had better domestic media that contingent would be smaller and Russia would never have had the opportunity.
Since you apparently can only judge a book by its cover:
YOU are not a critical thinker
YOU are too lazy to be objective
YOU are not able to coming to an independent judge
YOU are the kind of person who makes decisions based on ideological purity and truth
YOU are not the kind of person who should be trusted for advice or honesty
A person who is a critical thinker can read Pravda, Das Kapital, and the scribbles of uneducated slaves, and still extract useful information. You are claiming you are incapable of doing that if the color of the book is wrong or if the author is someone you do not like or of the wrong skin color! You are not much to judge or to give advice!
You're (ironically) making a lot of unwarranted (though mostly unfalsifiable) assumptions, including a bizarre closing claim that I'm racist all based on the fact I try to avoid relying on unreliable sources as support for my arguments???
Contrary to your portrayal some of my most read sources are viewpoints that I strongly disagree with, and as opposed to making decisions based on "ideological purity and truth" I'd say my actual flaw is being a contrarian who resists ideological purity in favour of pragmatic goals.
The problem is the Washington Times and similar sources is they're actively and aggressively trying to persuade you of their world view and crafting the narrative to achieve that goal, a critical thinker would realize that although the report contains elements of truth it's non-trivial to determine which elements are the truth.
My objection was sending someone to the Washington Times as a primary source, the reasons for a person to do that is if they're trying to deceive the audience or if they're already so deceived themselves that they think they've found a good source.
So?
You quote left-wing rags, founded and subsidized by sociopaths and psychopaths, ALL THE TIME!
I do? Maybe you've looked through my posting history and saw something I'm forgetting but I try to keep my sources pretty respectable. And yes this means I try to avoid citing the HuffPo.
The Washington Times is not a reliable source of information. I'm sure they report lots of good stories, but if you go to the Washington Times as a primary source it's really hard not to come away with a severely distorted view of events.
Do you prefer this?
The Moonie Times? Nope.
In 2014 the CDC announced that vials containing the deadly virus had been discovered in a cardboard box in a refrigerator located on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus in Bethesda, Maryland. How can you say it's eliminated when it's still out there, somewhere?
Even if you eliminate all the stocks you know about there's still the stocks you don't know about, if it ever gets out it probably came from a forgotten sample.
I don't think it's a huge deal either way but if we want to understand how a truly nasty virus works then you can't really do it without a really nasty virus to study.
I first read this as "Genetically Modified Cops Are Safe, Report Says", which would have made for a much more interesting article.
Same here.
I figured they couldn't be much more dangerous than regular cops.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, which produced the report, has copies of its own report. The CIA has copies. The CIA IG destroyed its copy, provided to it by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and told the committee. Stupid, yes...but given that it was the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, it's not like the CIA IG destroying its only copy of the Senate's report amounts to, well, anything.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, which produced the report, has copies of its own report. The CIA has copies. The CIA IG destroyed its copy, provided to it by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and told the committee. Stupid, yes...but given that it was the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, it's not like the CIA IG destroying its only copy of the Senate's report amounts to, well, anything.
I think there's a lot of things going on in this story that needs expert analysis, here's my attempt at fundamentally misunderstanding the important points:
1) It makes sense they'd just have one copy. The full report is highly classified and has major political ramifications. They really want to make sure there's not a lot of random copies floating around.
2) Someone at the CIA supposedly thought they were supposed to delete the report, I feel like the CIA is a place with established mechanisms for deleting things without backups.
3) If you want to avoid giving up a doc in a FOIA request not having the doc is a really good excuse.
4) Other agencies still have the file, I don't know if that's relevant to any open FOIA requests.
Well, $20/hour ($41k/year) is about the median income for a person with a Bachelor's Degree, and Arizona doesn't have the highest cost of living, so they are probably ahead of the game. Especially if their degree is in a lower paying major.
Plus, "ride in car and pay attention" doesn't sound like the highest skilled job. Given the safety record of the cars, it isn't that dangerous of a job, either.
They're not just babysitting the cars, it sounds like they want a bunch of daily reports and such.
I'm sure they're pretty basic reports, but if you want to make sure people are competent to carry out daily written assignments then requesting college degrees is a good filter.
Hillary is probably the only candidate who could make someone like Trump able to win the election. She has even worse negatives and has just as many people who will never vote for her.
I think her negatives are overblown. She's in the unenviable position of being so established that she's no longer "fresh" but not being president so she no incumbency advantage. Still I don't think the negatives will grow over the campaign since she's already so well known. Her favourability might even grow if Trump starts attacking her or if the campaign gives her a chance to control her own image instead of only coming up in the context of a pundit pinata.
We've somehow ended up with the two candidates with the highest negatives from people in general. For the Dems, that's because of their "superdelegates" originally supposedly setup as a quota system for minorities, but which coincidentally turned into ensuring the (D) party elite continue to control everything.
Clinton won the primary because she had way more votes and pledged delegates, despite the talk the superdelegates had virtually nothing to do with it.
Bottom line, I'm voting for who will select the next Supreme Court nominee. Trump will make a deal with a GOP Senate if he wins. Hillary will push another Obama-style appointee (albeit a rich one who can bribe her foundation?) through the Senate with her "mandate" if she wins.
Presidents do more than nominate judges. Trump would be a disaster for your country and would pull white nationalists and crazy conspiracy theorists into the heart of the Republican party.
The Republicans got a candidate that in the general election will bring in a huge number of Democratic votes - one poll shows Trump at 2x the support of minority voters as any other Republican candidate (like Romney) has had.
I think the technical term for that is an "outlier".
Yes Trump will lose some women, but more because Hillary is running than because of Trump
A claim contradicted by the fact that Trump has done worse with women against everyone so far.
- and that doesn't really matter because again polls show Hillary losing as many male votes as Trump loses female.
I'm not sure how that math squares with Clinton being way up in virtually every poll.
The Democrats had their chance to elect someone as good, Sanders, but they choose to go with the most ancient rapist-protecting white person they could find, so they are toast in the general election.
Republicans on the other hand went with an actual rapist.
The very first debate will seal the deal with Trump dancing verbal rings around Hillary.
Some Republicans right now say they will not vote for Trump but Hillary is a rather powerful counterforce for that notion...
I'm sure Trump will claim victory but 1 on 1 debates are a lot less susceptible to Trump's insult comic debate style. His understanding of policy is still atrocious and contradictory and Clinton is used to handling personal attacks, debates are not a place where Trump will gain votes.