So, him reporting the fact of a huge new trove of evidence that overlaps with the criminal investigation of Clinton's abuses during her tenure at State... you don't think that was worth bringing up? Yeah, I see.
Of course nothing changes. Comey's conclusions in July still stand: Clinton repeated many lies during her remarks to the public and before congress. She destroyed evidence under subpoena. She casually handled classified information on a home computer and passed it around to non-cleared staff. She failed to turn over thousands of work-related emails despite lying and saying that she and/or her lawyers had read every single one of them to err on the side of over-providing... and on and on.
He's not changing the fact that he said anyone else doing what she did would face serious consequences, and that different treatment applied to her. He's not changing the fact that the FBI spent more time interviewing Brad Pitt about his argument with his son on an airplane than they spent interviewing Hillary Clinton... and she got to have her immunity-deal-getting staff WITH her in that drive-by interview which was conducted not under oath and no recordings allowed. During which, she pretended to be so dumb, uninformed, and forgetful that she managed to avoid answering pretty much any question that would have demonstrated her obvious guilt. Guilt for doing things that would see any one of her State Department underlings out of a job and possible out of liberty from jail.
Yup, nothing has changed since July. Same corruption and the lasting pressure from the Clinton political machine through Obama down to Loretta Lynch's office. No change at all.
Trump's been encouraging a climate of violence and fear at his rallies for months' now.
That's a lie. And you know it. To make it more interesting, we've got video that lets us hear from the Democrat operatives boasting about how they paid cash (thousands) to people to go and stir up trouble at Trump events. Which you know.
But he's been cultivating an image of virility for months now and having it undermined in the press 3 days before game day is gonna be a problem.
Having the Secret Service do what they ALWAYS DO and remove their protectee from the scene (in this case, for a few minutes) when somebody pulls some stunt and somebody else shouts "gun!" in the crowd... that's a reflection on Trump how, exactly? Be specific.
Well, I suppose I can calibrate the usefulness of your response by seeing if you understand how to use apostrophes. Nope, you don't know how. So I know I don't have to care what you think about the creative process, the industry, or the tools that actual, thinking people use every single day.
What it actually does is cherry-pick the wildest speculation they can come up with, and then (if you bother reading all the way through), points out exactly how eye-rollingly silly it is. A little bit of Occam's Razor applied to the situation, along with some actual experience with provisioned-by-third-party marketing mail servers left to rot for six years is instructive.
Yes, it's well written in the sense that it conforms to Slate's editorial position on trying to get Hillary Clinton elected. It reaches into nothingness in an attempt to construct a narrative desperate to distract from their preferred candidate's flaming case of corruption while actually being a supposed public servant in a position of trust.
No, politics makes people PRETEND to be stupid so they can pretend they are outraged by things they are pretending they don't understand well enough, so they can speak their phony outrage out loud in hopes that some other ACTUALLY low-information person will pick up the outrage and run with it all the way to the voting booth. This story is bordering on that. But the credible treatment of it is definitely such.
I have customers with nearly-abandoned dedicated servers on their own IPs and with some project-related whitelist rules that act very much like what's described in the summary. Those servers do things like wasting their time checking for updates from some custom module authors (some overseas), and some try to connect to long-gone services that have had their domains scooped up by (ready?) Russian typo-squatters and the like, but with IPs that resolve somewhere else entirely because they've been re-assigned to entirely different companies. And no, nobody dares to approve changing the configuration on these legacy servers... and they keep paying to keep them online, despite the crickets chirping instead of activity on whatever legacy task they once did.
There are all sorts of reasons this sort of behavior might materialize. You know, sort of like there might be all sorts of reasons that Huma Abedin's trove of email - in the hundreds of thousands - might bey on her creepy, estranged husband's laptop. I'm sorry, did I use her name? Woopsie! Hillary Clinton now calls her "a staffer."
these are Native Americans trying to protect land sacred to them
Well my Viking ancestors once set foot on the continent and claimed it as sacredly theirs. Sounds like a legit claim to me. They weren't living a stone-age lifestyle - they were working sacred iron and were obviously more spiritually advanced. So I think any claim to the land by white people is clearly more appropriate.
Or maybe... the lands that used to be occupied by now-extinct tribes, but were subsequently occupied by the OTHER "native" tribes that destroyed and consumed those other native cultures LONG before Europeans wandered in... clearly those conquering native Americans need to surrender any claims they have because of how guilty they are for what they did.
Also, just for fun: address what happened when, say, members of one tribe of "native" Americans (all of whom are Asian immigrants) used violence to take over the land previously occupied by a different tribe. I guess if we're going to make villains out of everyone using lands that a given group of descendants of stone-age tribes says is "sacred," then we really need to resolve this back to every group that muscled in along the way. So... which tribe's idea of sacredness and ownership is more important than which other tribe's notions along those lines?
And of course you have to be sure to pick projects from a small sub-set of the market where you're not expected to reliably exchange files or collaborate with anything like a cross section of working professionals. Just little stuff, like that.
If you find Adobe suite necessary for doing business, you're doing it wrong.
If you don't understand why what you just said is hilariously foolish, then you really need to stop making a fool out of yourself, even as an anonymous coward.
What makes you think they didn't have home owner's insurance? What makes you think that the policy - like so many that most people have - would truly make them whole, financially? Most policies don't. And none of them will replace family heirlooms, in terms of their sentimental value, etc.
That said, Amazon didn't make this batter, and makes the third party vendor responsible for the assertions they make about product suitability and safety. Now, if Amazon KNEW that the vendor was lying, and Amazon didn't give them the heave as they do to thousands of vendors, regularly, that's another matter. But Amazon's not responsible for a third party misrepresenting things, just like they're not responsible for a death when a criminal uses a steak knife from Amazon to kill somebody.
There's never been a better time to vote 3rd party.
No, there's never been a better time to play chess, instead of checkers. Either of these clowns will be gone in a few years. But the Supreme Court nominees they seat will impact court decisions for decades. Trump will appoint people more in the constructionist stripe, and Clinton has said she wants people who will "reinterpret" the constitution - because she knows she can't get the legislature to carry her liberal water for her. Hold your nose, vote Trump, and keep the constitution (more) intact. Clinton is toxic when it comes to the SCOTUS issue.
She mishandled some emails to keep her political strategies out of the hands of her enemies
No, she conducted all of her official email on a home computer and destroyed federal records while under subpoena in order to hide the enormous level of corruption going on - activity which made her family very wealthy.
By "took millions" you apparently mean accepted a donation to her charity.
No. The Clintons, while using their family foundation as a vehicle and as leverage, personally collected millions of dollars. They sold influence and access both directly and indirectly, and are now very wealthy from doing so. Just read the emails - they and their staff deliberately blurred the distinction between those activities, and Bill Clinton in particular was handed piles of cash for phony "consulting" gigs, etc., along side of promises to the foundation - and, gee what a shock, involving donors who had business before the State Department while his wife was running it.
Of course you know all of this. The question is why you're pretending you don't.
At this point, nobody should be pulling harder for Hillary than the Republican establishment.
Why? They really, really don't want to see the sort of SCOTUS nominees that Clinton would seat. They may not like Trump personally, but he can only do so much without the legislature liking the agenda. Ask Obama about that.
This isn't checkers. This is chess. Neither candidate will be around more than a few years. But the Supreme Court will be shaped for decades. If you're from the party that prefers a more constructionist court, and which thinks changes to the constitution should come through amendment (rather than "reinterpretation," as Clinton says she wants to do), then no - pulling for Clinton is NOT a good thing for any flavor of Republican.
Yup. This latest letter to congress is designed specifically to distract everyone from the flood of evidence about her family's corruption and enrichment surrounding their leveraging their foundation and influence/access selling to rake in personal cash. This latest distraction will keep that damning information off the radar until election day. It's very clever, actually.
Of course he's biased in her favor. Just like he was when he shielded her from a call for indictment. This time around, it's a deliberate maneuver to get people talking about this instead of about the parade of corruption that's coming out in the leaked emails. Her staff's conversations demonstrate all sorts of stuff about her motivations and actions, and their solid awareness of her having done the wrong things on multiple counts. This little bit of theater is just Comey providing some distraction for the next week or so. Look, it's already working!
When your political opponent is threatening to throw you in jail if they win
Are you actually that dumb, or just pretending you can't parse the words so you can pretend you're that dumb so you can fake being outraged so you can try to provide a corrupt Clinton some cover with what you hope is a low-information audience? Which is it?
She said she was glad someone like him wasn't in charge of law enforcement. And he said that if someone like him had been, she'd be in jail. And he's right. The only reason she wasn't indicted was because her political supporters run the only entity that gets a say in the matter. If a more objective, and less subservient-to-the-Clinton-machine DoJ had been making the call based on the evidence presented, she'd be in the same sort of legal jeopardy that other people have seen for doing far, far less.
Slashdot Mirror
Pointing out her corruption and lying isn't "character assassination." Is it "weather assassination" when the meteorologist tells you it's raining?
So, him reporting the fact of a huge new trove of evidence that overlaps with the criminal investigation of Clinton's abuses during her tenure at State ... you don't think that was worth bringing up? Yeah, I see.
Of course nothing changes. Comey's conclusions in July still stand: Clinton repeated many lies during her remarks to the public and before congress. She destroyed evidence under subpoena. She casually handled classified information on a home computer and passed it around to non-cleared staff. She failed to turn over thousands of work-related emails despite lying and saying that she and/or her lawyers had read every single one of them to err on the side of over-providing ... and on and on.
... and she got to have her immunity-deal-getting staff WITH her in that drive-by interview which was conducted not under oath and no recordings allowed. During which, she pretended to be so dumb, uninformed, and forgetful that she managed to avoid answering pretty much any question that would have demonstrated her obvious guilt. Guilt for doing things that would see any one of her State Department underlings out of a job and possible out of liberty from jail.
He's not changing the fact that he said anyone else doing what she did would face serious consequences, and that different treatment applied to her. He's not changing the fact that the FBI spent more time interviewing Brad Pitt about his argument with his son on an airplane than they spent interviewing Hillary Clinton
Yup, nothing has changed since July. Same corruption and the lasting pressure from the Clinton political machine through Obama down to Loretta Lynch's office. No change at all.
Trump's been encouraging a climate of violence and fear at his rallies for months' now.
That's a lie. And you know it. To make it more interesting, we've got video that lets us hear from the Democrat operatives boasting about how they paid cash (thousands) to people to go and stir up trouble at Trump events. Which you know.
But he's been cultivating an image of virility for months now and having it undermined in the press 3 days before game day is gonna be a problem.
Having the Secret Service do what they ALWAYS DO and remove their protectee from the scene (in this case, for a few minutes) when somebody pulls some stunt and somebody else shouts "gun!" in the crowd ... that's a reflection on Trump how, exactly? Be specific.
Right on the constitution. Not that you'd be familiar with that.
Well, I suppose I can calibrate the usefulness of your response by seeing if you understand how to use apostrophes. Nope, you don't know how. So I know I don't have to care what you think about the creative process, the industry, or the tools that actual, thinking people use every single day.
It's a well-researched and written story.
What it actually does is cherry-pick the wildest speculation they can come up with, and then (if you bother reading all the way through), points out exactly how eye-rollingly silly it is. A little bit of Occam's Razor applied to the situation, along with some actual experience with provisioned-by-third-party marketing mail servers left to rot for six years is instructive.
Yes, it's well written in the sense that it conforms to Slate's editorial position on trying to get Hillary Clinton elected. It reaches into nothingness in an attempt to construct a narrative desperate to distract from their preferred candidate's flaming case of corruption while actually being a supposed public servant in a position of trust.
Geez, politics can make people so stupid.
No, politics makes people PRETEND to be stupid so they can pretend they are outraged by things they are pretending they don't understand well enough, so they can speak their phony outrage out loud in hopes that some other ACTUALLY low-information person will pick up the outrage and run with it all the way to the voting booth. This story is bordering on that. But the credible treatment of it is definitely such.
I have customers with nearly-abandoned dedicated servers on their own IPs and with some project-related whitelist rules that act very much like what's described in the summary. Those servers do things like wasting their time checking for updates from some custom module authors (some overseas), and some try to connect to long-gone services that have had their domains scooped up by (ready?) Russian typo-squatters and the like, but with IPs that resolve somewhere else entirely because they've been re-assigned to entirely different companies. And no, nobody dares to approve changing the configuration on these legacy servers ... and they keep paying to keep them online, despite the crickets chirping instead of activity on whatever legacy task they once did.
There are all sorts of reasons this sort of behavior might materialize. You know, sort of like there might be all sorts of reasons that Huma Abedin's trove of email - in the hundreds of thousands - might bey on her creepy, estranged husband's laptop. I'm sorry, did I use her name? Woopsie! Hillary Clinton now calls her "a staffer."
these are Native Americans trying to protect land sacred to them
Well my Viking ancestors once set foot on the continent and claimed it as sacredly theirs. Sounds like a legit claim to me. They weren't living a stone-age lifestyle - they were working sacred iron and were obviously more spiritually advanced. So I think any claim to the land by white people is clearly more appropriate.
... the lands that used to be occupied by now-extinct tribes, but were subsequently occupied by the OTHER "native" tribes that destroyed and consumed those other native cultures LONG before Europeans wandered in ... clearly those conquering native Americans need to surrender any claims they have because of how guilty they are for what they did.
Or maybe
How did they "steal their land?" Be specific.
Also, just for fun: address what happened when, say, members of one tribe of "native" Americans (all of whom are Asian immigrants) used violence to take over the land previously occupied by a different tribe. I guess if we're going to make villains out of everyone using lands that a given group of descendants of stone-age tribes says is "sacred," then we really need to resolve this back to every group that muscled in along the way. So... which tribe's idea of sacredness and ownership is more important than which other tribe's notions along those lines?
And of course you have to be sure to pick projects from a small sub-set of the market where you're not expected to reliably exchange files or collaborate with anything like a cross section of working professionals. Just little stuff, like that.
If you find Adobe suite necessary for doing business, you're doing it wrong.
If you don't understand why what you just said is hilariously foolish, then you really need to stop making a fool out of yourself, even as an anonymous coward.
I'll just pop on over to System76, grab a machine, and install the Adobe suite that's necessary for doing business.
So you are assuming that Amazon KNEW the product was defective and sold it anyway. What evidence do you have of this? Be specific.
What makes you think they didn't have home owner's insurance? What makes you think that the policy - like so many that most people have - would truly make them whole, financially? Most policies don't. And none of them will replace family heirlooms, in terms of their sentimental value, etc.
That said, Amazon didn't make this batter, and makes the third party vendor responsible for the assertions they make about product suitability and safety. Now, if Amazon KNEW that the vendor was lying, and Amazon didn't give them the heave as they do to thousands of vendors, regularly, that's another matter. But Amazon's not responsible for a third party misrepresenting things, just like they're not responsible for a death when a criminal uses a steak knife from Amazon to kill somebody.
So what you're saying is that you really have no idea what you're talking about.
There's never been a better time to vote 3rd party.
No, there's never been a better time to play chess, instead of checkers. Either of these clowns will be gone in a few years. But the Supreme Court nominees they seat will impact court decisions for decades. Trump will appoint people more in the constructionist stripe, and Clinton has said she wants people who will "reinterpret" the constitution - because she knows she can't get the legislature to carry her liberal water for her. Hold your nose, vote Trump, and keep the constitution (more) intact. Clinton is toxic when it comes to the SCOTUS issue.
Gowdy is one of the best people in congress, even with that hair and his choice of suits. Would make an exemplary Attorney General.
She mishandled some emails to keep her political strategies out of the hands of her enemies
No, she conducted all of her official email on a home computer and destroyed federal records while under subpoena in order to hide the enormous level of corruption going on - activity which made her family very wealthy.
By "took millions" you apparently mean accepted a donation to her charity.
No. The Clintons, while using their family foundation as a vehicle and as leverage, personally collected millions of dollars. They sold influence and access both directly and indirectly, and are now very wealthy from doing so. Just read the emails - they and their staff deliberately blurred the distinction between those activities, and Bill Clinton in particular was handed piles of cash for phony "consulting" gigs, etc., along side of promises to the foundation - and, gee what a shock, involving donors who had business before the State Department while his wife was running it.
Of course you know all of this. The question is why you're pretending you don't.
At this point, nobody should be pulling harder for Hillary than the Republican establishment.
Why? They really, really don't want to see the sort of SCOTUS nominees that Clinton would seat. They may not like Trump personally, but he can only do so much without the legislature liking the agenda. Ask Obama about that.
This isn't checkers. This is chess. Neither candidate will be around more than a few years. But the Supreme Court will be shaped for decades. If you're from the party that prefers a more constructionist court, and which thinks changes to the constitution should come through amendment (rather than "reinterpretation," as Clinton says she wants to do), then no - pulling for Clinton is NOT a good thing for any flavor of Republican.
Yup. This latest letter to congress is designed specifically to distract everyone from the flood of evidence about her family's corruption and enrichment surrounding their leveraging their foundation and influence/access selling to rake in personal cash. This latest distraction will keep that damning information off the radar until election day. It's very clever, actually.
Of course he's biased in her favor. Just like he was when he shielded her from a call for indictment. This time around, it's a deliberate maneuver to get people talking about this instead of about the parade of corruption that's coming out in the leaked emails. Her staff's conversations demonstrate all sorts of stuff about her motivations and actions, and their solid awareness of her having done the wrong things on multiple counts. This little bit of theater is just Comey providing some distraction for the next week or so. Look, it's already working!
When your political opponent is threatening to throw you in jail if they win
Are you actually that dumb, or just pretending you can't parse the words so you can pretend you're that dumb so you can fake being outraged so you can try to provide a corrupt Clinton some cover with what you hope is a low-information audience? Which is it?
She said she was glad someone like him wasn't in charge of law enforcement. And he said that if someone like him had been, she'd be in jail. And he's right. The only reason she wasn't indicted was because her political supporters run the only entity that gets a say in the matter. If a more objective, and less subservient-to-the-Clinton-machine DoJ had been making the call based on the evidence presented, she'd be in the same sort of legal jeopardy that other people have seen for doing far, far less.