They harassed him and tried to ruin his life. Hence why there is no more Gawker, the site bullied people beyond what could be considered reasonable.
Exactly. Obviously people dislike the guy for falsely claiming to have invented email, but that isn't what Univision is paying for. They're paying for having published weasel words that added up to secret evidence. They might have just been attempting to be snarky, but when you're publishing insults and shit designed to damage the reputation of somebody, you have to make sure you follow very narrow rules to protect yourself. It doesn't matter if the general thrust of what you're saying is true if you heap on so many untrue details that a reader ends up with a false understanding. If you read the articles in question, they packed so many insults in there, it is hard to tell what is actually claimed as a fact and what isn't; lots of untrue things that are probably sarcasm are phrased in the form of factual statements. And the weasel-worded stuff about "lots of people say" or whatever it was, combined with sarcasm-phrased-as-fact, well that quite easily will combine to be disparaging claims made based on secret evidence. And you're not supposed to do that.
Being right about one thing, and adding on fifty seven more insults that aren't actually true, and implying you have evidence of all of it? That's just moronic when done by a publisher.
Weird you say that, but in 2001 I remember being really exited to get a handheld computer (like a 7" tablet, landscape, with a clamshell and a mechanical keyboard) that was running symbian, because I could run perl on it!
The only reason it would appear as a feature-phone OS is that they kept it too locked down for there to be much software. When the phone companies ran the walled garden, the only difference between a smart phone and a feature phone was that the smart phone had hi-fi ringtones for $5 each. Reason being, developers had to give them a bunch of money to get access before even writing an app! Crazy nonsense. If you look at the current app market, you can see why it failed and failed; most of the app developers are small, and many of the big ones were tiny poor shops until they got their first app hit. Very few would have ever even gotten developer access to most walled gardens!
Compare that to palm; also in 2001 people would pass a palm pilot around and people would remark, "you know, this is actually almost powerful enough to be useful! That's just so amazing, it is so small! With an external keyboard, I'd almost [the key word!] carry it instead of my laptop." Then somebody in the group would start blathering on about how close we're getting to star trek info tablets that can double as supercomputers in a pinch. It was one of those products that gets people excited because it is almost what they want, instead of being what they want. That shows the reality of the whole thing with smartphones; the hardware was too slow, and not surprisingly when the hardware got fast enough, an expensive trendy brand got the first big hit, and a cheaper commodity offering (android) rapidly replaced it as the biggest seller. MS jumped too early, stepped back, then didn't jump strongly when the next chance came.
Don't be too surprised; I'll give you an insider tip from the tech world: As a linux guy, I often hear about new microsoft offerings, mostly because people like to make rude jokes about them. That said, jokes about Surface are sooo last year. What I hear is that it is actually nice hardware, and linux works perfectly on it.
I'm not really surprised. I stopped using MS software in the 90s, but these days I'm using MS keyboards. Their hardware has always been pretty good. It is a reasonable direction for them to go.
Too bad, though, since you're alliterate. That isn't intended as some sort of disqualifying "insult," rather it is my actual opinion based on observation.
Uh, it's"illiterate", not "alliterate". I guess we see who is illiterate who isn't...
LOL YOU WIN!!!! MULTIPLE INTERWEBS!
First hint: they're different words. Seconds hint: you attempted to correct word usage without even looking up the word. What sort of person is a person who can read, but doesn't? LOLOLOLOL
Just run in circles shouting Ann Coulter, I'm sure you'll eventually find somebody who cares what she has to say. What is her job again, why do you presume she has some information about the topic?
I sure as fuck don't Ann Coulter, but you're a total dipshit if you think I haven't read all of Ayn Rand's books, or Adam Smith. Who the fuck told you that liberals don't read Aristotle? Is that code for complaining that they agreed with Plato more, or do you actually think that liberals don't read classics? You didn't know liberals read the Federalist Papers, wow. That's a whole new conspiracy angle; liberals aren't educated in civics! LMFAO
The way you regurgitate talking points you read over at Breitbart pretty much proves you didn't read Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It" because you'd be hanging your head in shame for regurgitating pap instead of thinking for yourself.
You blather on and on about what you presume other people have read, without noticing that any person of middling intelligence knows you don't have access to that information. You're just blathering. Furthermore, the content of the blathering is pretty daft; obviously there are lots and lots of liberals out there that are educated, since educated people are much more likely to be liberal than ignoramuses.
I know you only paid a quarter for "Sophistry," but you should really ask for your money back.
First two sentences were such horse shit, I stopped reading. Thanks for your time, though.
I love to read, I'd happily read thousands of words that you wrote if they were higher quality. But when you're spewing horse shit right from the start, I'm not going to be optimistic that you're actually going to toss in useful content.
You don't believe the State Dept. computers got hacked, even though it was widely reported? But you do believe discredited nonsense from Breitbart that was not actually in the information the FBI released? And you don't just say you heard it, you actually credit the FBI as the source of something that was reported on the fringe, but discredited. It was widely reported that that wasn't true, that's a fact. That's just in two sentences there was so much horse shit, it takes more words to count your lies than it took you to regurgitate them. Pathetic.
lol well in fairness prognostications have implicit "ifs." But in the case of a tie, the VP votes. 50+1. The chance of that is still really high, even if you believe the bouncing polls. Generally polls are believed to be accurate when averaged over time, but the instant poll shifts do not show changing views, they show changing response patterns to the polls. Few people actually change their minds after having made a choice, and when they do, they don't just change back and forth every week as implied by polls and talking heads.
I even gave an example of someone being impeached after leaving their office.
No, you didn't. You're alliterate, or you'd know that you gave an example of somebody who was impeached while in office, in part for things he had done while in another office. The limitation isn't on when the thing was done, the limitation is on being in office when they impeach. That's why when Nixon resigned, they couldn't have impeached him anyways. Now, if he had resigned after they impeached him, but before the trial, then they could still finish the trial in order to prevent him from holding office again.
The details matter, and if you can't even understand the words, how are you going to argue about the finer points of it?
Oh, I'll bet you're embarrassed you didn't know that!
Seriously, of all the stupid pedanticisms I've seen lately, that one is real howler. You actually think that "mistake" and "accident" are so far apart here that it is material? Lets hear it then; explain how they're different, and why that means my analysis was mistaken. You can't, because you can't.
I can just say: that doesn't even address what I said!
A newspaper purporting to have secret information that it is illegal for the people with the information to give them? That is the same as saying "I don't know how many." It is also the same as the newspaper saying they don't know. But in this case... the funny part is that your WSJ link we already colored as a visited link. I clicked it again to check, and right at the top, "laptop may have thousands of emails..." and if you can read, you just read "laptop may not have thousands of emails..." because it is the same statement.
Too bad, though, since you're alliterate. That isn't intended as some sort of disqualifying "insult," rather it is my actual opinion based on observation. Now wipe that santorum off your chin already.
The GOP will ensure that no matter the composition of the house and senate after this week, nothing will be allowed to progress under President Clinton. No supreme court vacancies will be filled...
You might want to review your civics there, bub. There is nothing under the sun other than the composition of the House and Senate that allows them to obstruct anything, and when the Dems win the Senate back and adopt new rules without the filibuster, they won't be able to stop her Supreme Court nominations, or any other nominations. They'll be able to stop a lot of other things, only because of the composition of the House.
No, she's not accused of anything, actually, unless you count blowhards on TEE-VEE or the internet saying nasty things as an accusation; those are certainly not legal accusations.
They've "investigated" but they were investigating to find out if they even think a crime was committed, and they found there was no crime. That's a far cry from an actual person being legally accused of something. It goes beyond even innocent of committing a crime; no crime was even committed!
Since no crime was actually found, any accusation is - by definition - a false accusation.
They had more than enough to seek an indictment with the previous emails
I know there are a lot of stupid, low information people out there that don't even math. But I thought it was limited to poor counting discipline, and thinking that pi can be replaced with 3. But here is one who can't even handle greater-than/less-than!
You missed the point; the point is that they have to be in the position when the House impeaches them. It doesn't matter when the crime happened, it does matter if they're still in the job.
Where in the constitution does it limit the use of impeachment for things which occurred during the current stretch in the current office?
It doesn't, which is exactly why Trump could be impeached on day one without having done anything.
No impeachment is happening anytime soon though, as it;s unlikely the Senate would have enough votes to remove.
Article II Section 4 The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
They have to be in one of those positions when the House impeaches them...
Article I Section 3 Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States...
and all you can do is remove them and prevent them from holding another position. But to prevent them having another position, you have to charge them while they're actually in the old one. You can't do it from hindsight.
Why is that the people most interested in shouting "Constitution!" are the same ones who don't know what it says, and will be first to argue about what it means if you call them on it?
The "for sexual favors" part is very, very important to how that was handled, because that is a prime vector of attack for intelligence services. There are certain types of behaviors that are extra-dangerous and magnify any otherwise-innocent mistakes, and giving an undisclosed lover access to stuff is right at the top of the list.
He's not even allowed to have an undisclosed lover in the job he was in; you're supposed to report that so that the counter-intel people can make sure you're not p0wned.
As for Saucier, he's lucky he only got a year. From the link:
Federal prosecutors said the FBI and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service were never able to determine if the photos had been distributed to unauthorized people because Saucier destroyed key evidence including his laptop computer, a camera and a memory card after an interview with the FBI in 2012.
People yackity-yack on and on about "deleted emails," but it isn't illegal to delete emails. Actually, if you're worried some of them might have been retroactively classified, deleting them is the safest thing to do. That something was deleted is not bad, wrong, suspicious, or illegal, or even poor security. And Hillary didn't delete anything, her sysadmin did so according to the data retention policies that had been communicated by his client. That is all very normal. Nothing was ordered to be deleted in response to the investigation! In Saucier's case, he destroyed the evidence right after being interviewed, and he's darn lucky they didn't charge him with a lot more. The prosecutors asked for 5 years, if they'd thought he'd only get 1yr (half at home) they'd have most likely charged a lot more things. 2 other people from his crew got in minor trouble with no charges for taking pictures in the same place; they probably didn't destroy the evidence and lie about it, that's probably why they got an internal hand slap.
According to the FBI, Clinton didn't lie about any of it, they're unequivocal about that.
He didn't "avoid prosecution by getting immunity," that isn't the way it works when nobody is actually under investigation for a crime. Here it was a pre-investigation; investigation if somebody should be investigated for a crime. For it to be honest to say that a person "avoid[ed] prosecution by getting immunity" they need to have been under investigation for a crime; they would be at least a "person of interest" if not a suspect. None of that happened here.
What happened here was the prosecutors granted immunity unilaterally. When you're granted immunity, you can no longer use the 5th Amendment to avoid testifying. So they simply decided that if a crime was committed, they were going to give up the possibility of prosecuting the sysadmin, in order to be able to demand that he provide answers at an early stage of the pre-investigtion. And so he cooperated, and they found out everything that happened, and no crime was found. (much less any person of interest)
I expect multiple Hatch Act violations to be prosecuted from this. What actually happened is that they investigated if a crime had even been committed, and didn't find a crime. They presented that to the public as simply not having enough information to prosecute somebody! But it was actually beyond-being-cleared; not only was the famous politician not accused of anything, no crime was even found! That is actually beyond-exoneration.
She didn't get "official" approval to use a home server...
Well, since she was the boss it is dubious to claim she didn't approve something she herself did. You don't get much more "official" than permission from a cabinet Secretary! The President hires and fires those people, but while they're in the office they're actually the highest authority for most things in their department.
She didn't follow the President's policy, but it was just a political policy, there wasn't any Executive Order commanding to do it only a certain way.
Did you bother to read the first paragraph and check the link? Good grief, I get not reading the list but the first damn sentence gets lost? WTF
This is slashdot, we don't click links to the stories, we're certainly not going to click your political copy-pasta.
You want people to care what you say, use actual ideas that came out of your own head, instead of repeating a mishmash of alt-right and neocon talking points.
Your talking points are so stupid, I glanced at a random spot in the middle of your wall of text and found Waco, TX. So you're going to blame Hillary Clinton even for the mistakes of law enforcement? This is an odd week to try to claim that as First Lady she was secretly in charge of the ATF and the FBI.
You're completely shameless, even when spewing really really low quality, embarrassingly low quality conspiracy theories? Come on, that's just pathetic.
Actually when it comes to email security her private server is not known to have ever been hacked, but the State Department email system did get hacked during the same time.
The only legit complaint about her email server is that is violated transparency guidelines. But note that, nobody else is reacting to it in a way that we get to read their emails; The Bush administration used the RNC email server, Colin Power used a private corporate email (which he really thinks is different than a self-hosted one, but only in that it isn't secure), Bill Clinton refused to use email as President, though he was apparently using it privately for non-work stuff. There are lots of Governors around the country who have an aide whose main job is reading and writing emails, and usually not because the Gov. doesn't know how. We don't have everybody else's email, so the actual transparency problem is hard to pin down.
Clearly she didn't follow President Obama's transparency directives any better than anybody else, but we don't have their emails either "for whatever reason." The reality is that almost everybody in politics agrees that if they think the public will read it later, they can't actually do work in that channel, because even if they don't do anything wrong it will feed lots of "gotcha" type nonsense that is all taken out of context.
I've been stopped by the cops over a hundred times, and I've never even paid a parking ticket. I have paid library fines, 50 cents already this year, but that is my only proven misdeed. I guess I'm a master criminal too! Or I just wear clothes the cops don't like, and they aren't any good at their job.
Slashdot Mirror
They harassed him and tried to ruin his life. Hence why there is no more Gawker, the site bullied people beyond what could be considered reasonable.
Exactly. Obviously people dislike the guy for falsely claiming to have invented email, but that isn't what Univision is paying for. They're paying for having published weasel words that added up to secret evidence. They might have just been attempting to be snarky, but when you're publishing insults and shit designed to damage the reputation of somebody, you have to make sure you follow very narrow rules to protect yourself. It doesn't matter if the general thrust of what you're saying is true if you heap on so many untrue details that a reader ends up with a false understanding. If you read the articles in question, they packed so many insults in there, it is hard to tell what is actually claimed as a fact and what isn't; lots of untrue things that are probably sarcasm are phrased in the form of factual statements. And the weasel-worded stuff about "lots of people say" or whatever it was, combined with sarcasm-phrased-as-fact, well that quite easily will combine to be disparaging claims made based on secret evidence. And you're not supposed to do that.
Being right about one thing, and adding on fifty seven more insults that aren't actually true, and implying you have evidence of all of it? That's just moronic when done by a publisher.
Weird you say that, but in 2001 I remember being really exited to get a handheld computer (like a 7" tablet, landscape, with a clamshell and a mechanical keyboard) that was running symbian, because I could run perl on it!
The only reason it would appear as a feature-phone OS is that they kept it too locked down for there to be much software. When the phone companies ran the walled garden, the only difference between a smart phone and a feature phone was that the smart phone had hi-fi ringtones for $5 each. Reason being, developers had to give them a bunch of money to get access before even writing an app! Crazy nonsense. If you look at the current app market, you can see why it failed and failed; most of the app developers are small, and many of the big ones were tiny poor shops until they got their first app hit. Very few would have ever even gotten developer access to most walled gardens!
Compare that to palm; also in 2001 people would pass a palm pilot around and people would remark, "you know, this is actually almost powerful enough to be useful! That's just so amazing, it is so small! With an external keyboard, I'd almost [the key word!] carry it instead of my laptop." Then somebody in the group would start blathering on about how close we're getting to star trek info tablets that can double as supercomputers in a pinch. It was one of those products that gets people excited because it is almost what they want, instead of being what they want. That shows the reality of the whole thing with smartphones; the hardware was too slow, and not surprisingly when the hardware got fast enough, an expensive trendy brand got the first big hit, and a cheaper commodity offering (android) rapidly replaced it as the biggest seller. MS jumped too early, stepped back, then didn't jump strongly when the next chance came.
Don't be too surprised; I'll give you an insider tip from the tech world: As a linux guy, I often hear about new microsoft offerings, mostly because people like to make rude jokes about them. That said, jokes about Surface are sooo last year. What I hear is that it is actually nice hardware, and linux works perfectly on it.
I'm not really surprised. I stopped using MS software in the 90s, but these days I'm using MS keyboards. Their hardware has always been pretty good. It is a reasonable direction for them to go.
Too bad, though, since you're alliterate. That isn't intended as some sort of disqualifying "insult," rather it is my actual opinion based on observation.
Uh, it's"illiterate", not "alliterate". I guess we see who is illiterate who isn't...
LOL YOU WIN!!!! MULTIPLE INTERWEBS!
First hint: they're different words.
Seconds hint: you attempted to correct word usage without even looking up the word. What sort of person is a person who can read, but doesn't? LOLOLOLOL
Copypasta is copypasta, not "facts."
Just run in circles shouting Ann Coulter, I'm sure you'll eventually find somebody who cares what she has to say. What is her job again, why do you presume she has some information about the topic?
I sure as fuck don't Ann Coulter, but you're a total dipshit if you think I haven't read all of Ayn Rand's books, or Adam Smith. Who the fuck told you that liberals don't read Aristotle? Is that code for complaining that they agreed with Plato more, or do you actually think that liberals don't read classics? You didn't know liberals read the Federalist Papers, wow. That's a whole new conspiracy angle; liberals aren't educated in civics! LMFAO
The way you regurgitate talking points you read over at Breitbart pretty much proves you didn't read Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It" because you'd be hanging your head in shame for regurgitating pap instead of thinking for yourself.
You blather on and on about what you presume other people have read, without noticing that any person of middling intelligence knows you don't have access to that information. You're just blathering. Furthermore, the content of the blathering is pretty daft; obviously there are lots and lots of liberals out there that are educated, since educated people are much more likely to be liberal than ignoramuses.
I know you only paid a quarter for "Sophistry," but you should really ask for your money back.
First two sentences were such horse shit, I stopped reading. Thanks for your time, though.
I love to read, I'd happily read thousands of words that you wrote if they were higher quality. But when you're spewing horse shit right from the start, I'm not going to be optimistic that you're actually going to toss in useful content.
You don't believe the State Dept. computers got hacked, even though it was widely reported? But you do believe discredited nonsense from Breitbart that was not actually in the information the FBI released? And you don't just say you heard it, you actually credit the FBI as the source of something that was reported on the fringe, but discredited. It was widely reported that that wasn't true, that's a fact. That's just in two sentences there was so much horse shit, it takes more words to count your lies than it took you to regurgitate them. Pathetic.
lol well in fairness prognostications have implicit "ifs." But in the case of a tie, the VP votes. 50+1. The chance of that is still really high, even if you believe the bouncing polls. Generally polls are believed to be accurate when averaged over time, but the instant poll shifts do not show changing views, they show changing response patterns to the polls. Few people actually change their minds after having made a choice, and when they do, they don't just change back and forth every week as implied by polls and talking heads.
I even gave an example of someone being impeached after leaving their office.
No, you didn't. You're alliterate, or you'd know that you gave an example of somebody who was impeached while in office, in part for things he had done while in another office. The limitation isn't on when the thing was done, the limitation is on being in office when they impeach. That's why when Nixon resigned, they couldn't have impeached him anyways. Now, if he had resigned after they impeached him, but before the trial, then they could still finish the trial in order to prevent him from holding office again.
The details matter, and if you can't even understand the words, how are you going to argue about the finer points of it?
Not all accidents are wrongdoing, either.
Oh, I'll bet you're embarrassed you didn't know that!
Seriously, of all the stupid pedanticisms I've seen lately, that one is real howler. You actually think that "mistake" and "accident" are so far apart here that it is material? Lets hear it then; explain how they're different, and why that means my analysis was mistaken. You can't, because you can't.
I can just say: that doesn't even address what I said!
A newspaper purporting to have secret information that it is illegal for the people with the information to give them? That is the same as saying "I don't know how many." It is also the same as the newspaper saying they don't know. But in this case... the funny part is that your WSJ link we already colored as a visited link. I clicked it again to check, and right at the top, "laptop may have thousands of emails..." and if you can read, you just read "laptop may not have thousands of emails..." because it is the same statement.
Too bad, though, since you're alliterate. That isn't intended as some sort of disqualifying "insult," rather it is my actual opinion based on observation. Now wipe that santorum off your chin already.
The GOP will ensure that no matter the composition of the house and senate after this week, nothing will be allowed to progress under President Clinton. No supreme court vacancies will be filled...
You might want to review your civics there, bub. There is nothing under the sun other than the composition of the House and Senate that allows them to obstruct anything, and when the Dems win the Senate back and adopt new rules without the filibuster, they won't be able to stop her Supreme Court nominations, or any other nominations. They'll be able to stop a lot of other things, only because of the composition of the House.
No, she's not accused of anything, actually, unless you count blowhards on TEE-VEE or the internet saying nasty things as an accusation; those are certainly not legal accusations.
They've "investigated" but they were investigating to find out if they even think a crime was committed, and they found there was no crime. That's a far cry from an actual person being legally accused of something. It goes beyond even innocent of committing a crime; no crime was even committed!
Since no crime was actually found, any accusation is - by definition - a false accusation.
They had more than enough to seek an indictment with the previous emails
I know there are a lot of stupid, low information people out there that don't even math. But I thought it was limited to poor counting discipline, and thinking that pi can be replaced with 3. But here is one who can't even handle greater-than/less-than!
And classify the security rating of each one in under a minute each, ensuring no unmarked confidential or top secret information within. Unlikely.
You make the assumption that all the 723 emails needed high level of scrutiny.
No stone is too small to turn over, measure, crush, and send out for spectral analysis when you're on a political witch-hunt!
You've got some santorum on your chin, I think you've been spending too much time at Breitbart.
You don't know how many emails they found, and neither does anybody else allowed to speak about it! Duh.
You missed the point; the point is that they have to be in the position when the House impeaches them. It doesn't matter when the crime happened, it does matter if they're still in the job.
The "for sexual favors" part is very, very important to how that was handled, because that is a prime vector of attack for intelligence services. There are certain types of behaviors that are extra-dangerous and magnify any otherwise-innocent mistakes, and giving an undisclosed lover access to stuff is right at the top of the list.
He's not even allowed to have an undisclosed lover in the job he was in; you're supposed to report that so that the counter-intel people can make sure you're not p0wned.
As for Saucier, he's lucky he only got a year. From the link:
People yackity-yack on and on about "deleted emails," but it isn't illegal to delete emails. Actually, if you're worried some of them might have been retroactively classified, deleting them is the safest thing to do. That something was deleted is not bad, wrong, suspicious, or illegal, or even poor security. And Hillary didn't delete anything, her sysadmin did so according to the data retention policies that had been communicated by his client. That is all very normal. Nothing was ordered to be deleted in response to the investigation! In Saucier's case, he destroyed the evidence right after being interviewed, and he's darn lucky they didn't charge him with a lot more. The prosecutors asked for 5 years, if they'd thought he'd only get 1yr (half at home) they'd have most likely charged a lot more things. 2 other people from his crew got in minor trouble with no charges for taking pictures in the same place; they probably didn't destroy the evidence and lie about it, that's probably why they got an internal hand slap.
According to the FBI, Clinton didn't lie about any of it, they're unequivocal about that.
He didn't "avoid prosecution by getting immunity," that isn't the way it works when nobody is actually under investigation for a crime. Here it was a pre-investigation; investigation if somebody should be investigated for a crime. For it to be honest to say that a person "avoid[ed] prosecution by getting immunity" they need to have been under investigation for a crime; they would be at least a "person of interest" if not a suspect. None of that happened here.
What happened here was the prosecutors granted immunity unilaterally. When you're granted immunity, you can no longer use the 5th Amendment to avoid testifying. So they simply decided that if a crime was committed, they were going to give up the possibility of prosecuting the sysadmin, in order to be able to demand that he provide answers at an early stage of the pre-investigtion. And so he cooperated, and they found out everything that happened, and no crime was found. (much less any person of interest)
I expect multiple Hatch Act violations to be prosecuted from this. What actually happened is that they investigated if a crime had even been committed, and didn't find a crime. They presented that to the public as simply not having enough information to prosecute somebody! But it was actually beyond-being-cleared; not only was the famous politician not accused of anything, no crime was even found! That is actually beyond-exoneration.
She didn't get "official" approval to use a home server...
Well, since she was the boss it is dubious to claim she didn't approve something she herself did. You don't get much more "official" than permission from a cabinet Secretary! The President hires and fires those people, but while they're in the office they're actually the highest authority for most things in their department.
She didn't follow the President's policy, but it was just a political policy, there wasn't any Executive Order commanding to do it only a certain way.
Not all mistakes are wrongdoing. Classic example: spilled milk.
Did you bother to read the first paragraph and check the link? Good grief, I get not reading the list but the first damn sentence gets lost? WTF
This is slashdot, we don't click links to the stories, we're certainly not going to click your political copy-pasta.
You want people to care what you say, use actual ideas that came out of your own head, instead of repeating a mishmash of alt-right and neocon talking points.
Your talking points are so stupid, I glanced at a random spot in the middle of your wall of text and found Waco, TX. So you're going to blame Hillary Clinton even for the mistakes of law enforcement? This is an odd week to try to claim that as First Lady she was secretly in charge of the ATF and the FBI.
You're completely shameless, even when spewing really really low quality, embarrassingly low quality conspiracy theories? Come on, that's just pathetic.
Actually when it comes to email security her private server is not known to have ever been hacked, but the State Department email system did get hacked during the same time.
The only legit complaint about her email server is that is violated transparency guidelines. But note that, nobody else is reacting to it in a way that we get to read their emails; The Bush administration used the RNC email server, Colin Power used a private corporate email (which he really thinks is different than a self-hosted one, but only in that it isn't secure), Bill Clinton refused to use email as President, though he was apparently using it privately for non-work stuff. There are lots of Governors around the country who have an aide whose main job is reading and writing emails, and usually not because the Gov. doesn't know how. We don't have everybody else's email, so the actual transparency problem is hard to pin down.
Clearly she didn't follow President Obama's transparency directives any better than anybody else, but we don't have their emails either "for whatever reason." The reality is that almost everybody in politics agrees that if they think the public will read it later, they can't actually do work in that channel, because even if they don't do anything wrong it will feed lots of "gotcha" type nonsense that is all taken out of context.
I've been stopped by the cops over a hundred times, and I've never even paid a parking ticket. I have paid library fines, 50 cents already this year, but that is my only proven misdeed. I guess I'm a master criminal too! Or I just wear clothes the cops don't like, and they aren't any good at their job.
It's not his fault, he was born "alt-right" you insensitive clod!
He has a genuine allergy to ethics in journalism.
Yeah, I think this is really great! I hope the prices drop far enough in a couple decades that it can be used as a building material.