Octopus Overlords

Isgrimnur wrote:Politicians and professional intelligence officers aren't held to the same standards. You know this, and so should he.

Rip wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Politicians and professional intelligence officers aren't held to the same standards. You know this, and so should he.

Which says a lot about what it wrong with our country. Politicians are held to a different standard than everyone else.


Snowden should have ran for office before he took that stuff and he wouldn't have to hide in Russia.

It happened sooner than even the doomsayers predicted. The era of artificial intelligence is here. A computer has become self-aware, a moral agent responsible for its own actions.

This breakthrough didn’t happen in Silicon Valley or at MIT. It happened, of all places, in Chappaqua, NY. And the person responsible isn’t even a computer scientist, but a lawyer and politician: Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s critics say a lot of things about her, but who would’ve believed she was Skynet’s mother?

A little background. Clinton was forced to turn over her “home-brewed” e-mail server to the FBI this week, along with a flash drive unlawfully stored at her lawyer’s office.

The Clinton team claims it handed over the server voluntarily — a classic example of Clinton’s penchant for half-truths.

For months, they insisted they’d never turn it over. They caved because they had to. The decision was about as voluntary as a bank robber relinquishing his sack of cash to the cops at gunpoint.

Revealingly, many media reports say “the campaign” handed over the server.

But the campaign wasn’t in charge of the server — if it was, that’d be a whole other scandal.

It was Clinton’s server, full stop. To say otherwise is to protect Clinton, the author of a book called “Hard Choices,” from her own hard choices.

Which brings us to that evil server.

The first rule of Clintonism is that someone else is always to blame.
That’s why the first iteration of Clinton’s defense was that evil Republicans were simply smearing her.

When that didn’t stick, Team Clinton expanded the indictment to include the partisan witch hunt by that famously right-wing organ the New York Times and two independent inspectors general (one at the State Department, the other for the intelligence community).

The reason the intelligence community’s IG referred the case to the Justice Department stems from the apparent fact that Clinton mishandled classified information, which she denied.

An investigation into a random sample of just 40 e-mails from a batch of more than 30,000 revealed that four contained classified information and at least two were “top secret.”

So now that the FBI and the Justice Department, both run by Obama appointees, are on the case, attacking the motives of inconvenient people no longer works. So the Clinton campaign has invoked a little-known codicil to the first rule of Clintonism: Blame an inanimate object.

The amazing thing is that this spin isn’t coming directly from the campaign but from the reporters covering it.

National Public Radio’s Tamara Keith reported Wednesday morning that the inquiry “isn’t targeted directly at [Clinton]” and is simply intended to determine whether the server was secure.

Business Insider reported that “Clinton’s private server is under investigation by the FBI, though Clinton is not a target of the investigation.”

McClatchy’s Anita Kumar, who helped break the story that two of the e-mails were top secret, felt compelled to step on her own scoop.

She said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that “there are several investigations into her conduct, not into her, but into her use of personal e-mail and a personal server.”
Go ahead and try parsing the difference between an “investigation into her conduct” and an investigation “into her.”

Clinton, in violation of State Department rules, guidelines from the White House and all common sense, used her own unsecured stealth server. She sent classified material on it. But it’s the server that’s being investigated?

Hopefully the server will one day be able to testify on its own behalf: “I was just following orders.”
In fairness to the press, even the FBI is publicly toeing this line, saying that the investigation isn’t into Clinton.

But on background, federal officials sing a different tune. “It’s definitely a criminal probe,” a government source told The Post. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.”

I’ve talked to several lawyers who assure me that the FBI doesn’t conduct criminal probes into anthropomorphized IT equipment. The bureau does investigate criminal abuses of them — by people.

Platte River Networks, the Denver-based cybersecurity firm Hillary Clinton hired in 2013 to maintain her old email server, says it is “highly likely” a full backup of the device was made and that the thousands of emails Clinton deleted may still exist, ABC News is reporting.

Smoove_B wrote: is it because I understand some low-level techno-sorcery and her voting base likely doesn't or doesn't care?

If you look over the long term at Clinton’s favorability ratings, you do see a drop, but it’s not a huge one, and not the kind of precipitous decline you’d associate with a campaign in free fall. Her favorability is down substantially from when she was Secretary of State, but that’s a natural consequence of her becoming a partisan political figure again. A year ago her favorability was just under 50 percent, and now it’s around 41 or 42 — not what she’d like, surely, but hardly a crisis. As a point of comparison, at this time four years ago, Barack Obama’s job approval was in exactly the same place, 42 percent. You may recall who won the 2012 election.

As Nate Silver observes, whether or not the movement in the polls is terribly meaningful, reporters have an incentive to describe it as such, and then run with the implications:

Even if there were no Clinton scandals, however, she’d probably still be receiving fairly negative press coverage. The campaign press more or less openly confesses to a certain type of bias: rooting for the story. Inevitability makes for a really boring story, especially when it involves a figure like Clinton who has been in public life for so long.

...
Perhaps Republicans will get their wish, and we’ll learn that Clinton sent an email ordering the attack on Benghazi to cover up the fact that she’s the leader of an Al Qaeda sleeper cell whose goal is to enslave all Americans into a satanic Alinskyite death cult. If that happens, I’m sure some other Democrats will declare their candidacies. The other possibility is that the race will have some ups and downs, Bernie Sanders may even win a primary or two, and in the end Clinton will prevail.

That’s not as dramatic a story as a reporter covering the campaign might like. But at this point it’s still the most likely outcome.

Veteran Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward on Monday compared the email controversy engulfing Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to the downfall of President Richard Nixon.

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Woodward, who through his reporting helped break open the Watergate scandal, said it's at least suspicious that Clinton's emails from her tenure as secretary of state were wiped away from a server she owned privately.

"Follow the trail here," Woodward said. "There are all these emails. Well, they were sent to someone or someone sent them to her. So, if things have been erased here, there's a way to go back to these emails or who received them from Hillary Clinton. So, you've got a massive amount of data in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes: Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his."

More than 300 of former Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails — or 5.1 percent of those processed so far — have been flagged for potential secret information, the State Department reported to a federal court Monday.

Officials insisted, however, that the screening process is running smoothly and they are back on track after falling behind a judge’s schedule for making all of the emails public.

The reviewers have screened about 20 percent of the 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton returned to the department, which means if the rate of potentially secret information remains steady, more than 1,500 messages will have to be sent to intelligence community agencies, known in government as “IC,” to screen out classified information.

Kraken wrote:

Smoove_B wrote: is it because I understand some low-level techno-sorcery and her voting base likely doesn't or doesn't care?

I'm not a Hillary fan, either, but this doesn't peg my outrage meter. Instead it seems like every other Clinton scandal: You know s/he probably did something shady, but you don't know exactly what it was or if it was illegal/immoral/stupid or how much it matters. Their opponents' history of crying wolf makes one skeptical. I expect that that's how those voters who are paying attention -- which isn't many until after Labor Day -- will see it. For now, I think it's in the category of :facepalm:

I've said several times that I expect a scandal or a health crisis to bring her down before she gets the nomination. It remains to be seen if this is her hill to die on. Democrats had better hope that another mainstream candidate enters the race (I'm looking at you, Joe) before she flames out.

Rip wrote:

So now that the FBI and the Justice Department, both run by Obama appointees, are on the case, attacking the motives of inconvenient people no longer works. So the Clinton campaign has invoked a little-known codicil to the first rule of Clintonism: Blame an inanimate object.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Her whole career has been a whole string of these things. So there's no evidence of any crime but if she's just that unlucky maybe that's reason enough not to want her in the White House.

El Guapo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote: Her whole career has been a whole string of these things. So there's no evidence of any crime but if she's just that unlucky maybe that's reason enough not to want her in the White House.

Is that really fair? She and Bill have been investigated by Republicans for all sorts of scandals, but unless I'm forgetting something (which is possible) those scandals have been universally baseless (outside of the world of the far right). I mean, obviously Bill has his sexual escapades, but (aside from tolerating them to at least some degree) that's not Hillary's scandal.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote: Her whole career has been a whole string of these things. So there's no evidence of any crime but if she's just that unlucky maybe that's reason enough not to want her in the White House.

Is that really fair? She and Bill have been investigated by Republicans for all sorts of scandals, but unless I'm forgetting something (which is possible) those scandals have been universally baseless (outside of the world of the far right). I mean, obviously Bill has his sexual escapades, but (aside from tolerating them to at least some degree) that's not Hillary's scandal.

Peter Paul
Whitewater
Cattle futures
Hugh and Tony pardon requests
etc.
I don't even care that much about Bill-specific stuff. He's not running. And I'm staying away from the total woo-woo stuff.


Now I know some of these are overblown, much of it is par for the course, and that no one gets to a position of great power and wealth without some acceptably dirty laundry. But I'm not obligated to judge Clinton based on the politician weighted scale of ethics and morality.

El Guapo wrote:Peter Paul
Whitewater
Cattle futures
Hugh and Tony pardon requests

Isgrimnur wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Peter Paul
Whitewater
Cattle futures
Hugh and Tony pardon requests

LawBeefaroni wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote: Her whole career has been a whole string of these things. So there's no evidence of any crime but if she's just that unlucky maybe that's reason enough not to want her in the White House.

Is that really fair? She and Bill have been investigated by Republicans for all sorts of scandals, but unless I'm forgetting something (which is possible) those scandals have been universally baseless (outside of the world of the far right). I mean, obviously Bill has his sexual escapades, but (aside from tolerating them to at least some degree) that's not Hillary's scandal.

Peter Paul
Whitewater
Cattle futures
Hugh and Tony pardon requests
etc.
I don't even care that much about Bill-specific stuff. He's not running. And I'm staying away from the total woo-woo stuff.


Now I know some of these are overblown, much of it is par for the course, and that no one gets to a position of great power and wealth without some acceptably dirty laundry. But I'm not obligated to judge Clinton based on the politician weighted scale of ethics and morality.

Rip wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote: Her whole career has been a whole string of these things. So there's no evidence of any crime but if she's just that unlucky maybe that's reason enough not to want her in the White House.

Is that really fair? She and Bill have been investigated by Republicans for all sorts of scandals, but unless I'm forgetting something (which is possible) those scandals have been universally baseless (outside of the world of the far right). I mean, obviously Bill has his sexual escapades, but (aside from tolerating them to at least some degree) that's not Hillary's scandal.

Peter Paul
Whitewater
Cattle futures
Hugh and Tony pardon requests
etc.
I don't even care that much about Bill-specific stuff. He's not running. And I'm staying away from the total woo-woo stuff.


Now I know some of these are overblown, much of it is par for the course, and that no one gets to a position of great power and wealth without some acceptably dirty laundry. But I'm not obligated to judge Clinton based on the politician weighted scale of ethics and morality.

Don't forget Travelgate.

El Guapo wrote:

Rip wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote: Her whole career has been a whole string of these things. So there's no evidence of any crime but if she's just that unlucky maybe that's reason enough not to want her in the White House.

Is that really fair? She and Bill have been investigated by Republicans for all sorts of scandals, but unless I'm forgetting something (which is possible) those scandals have been universally baseless (outside of the world of the far right). I mean, obviously Bill has his sexual escapades, but (aside from tolerating them to at least some degree) that's not Hillary's scandal.

Peter Paul
Whitewater
Cattle futures
Hugh and Tony pardon requests
etc.
I don't even care that much about Bill-specific stuff. He's not running. And I'm staying away from the total woo-woo stuff.


Now I know some of these are overblown, much of it is par for the course, and that no one gets to a position of great power and wealth without some acceptably dirty laundry. But I'm not obligated to judge Clinton based on the politician weighted scale of ethics and morality.

Don't forget Travelgate.

While I suspect getting into a discussion of Clinton scandals with you would suck me into a time vortex of which there would be no escape, I would add the detail that noted friend-of-the-Clintons Kenneth Starr exonerated the Clintons in the Travelgate and Filegate matters.

Starr explicitly did not exonerate Hillary Clinton, however; her case remained unsettled. More time passed. By 2000, she was a candidate for United States Senator from New York, and Starr had been replaced as Independent Counsel by prosecutor Robert Ray, who once worked for Rudy Giuliani, Clinton's then-opponent in the Senate race. Regardless, Ray vowed his investigation would have "no untoward effect on the political process." Ray was determined to wrap up the case before the end of Bill Clinton's term.

On June 23, 2000, the suspense ended, when Ray submitted the final Independent Counsel report on the travel office affair under seal to the judicial panel in charge of the investigation, and publicly announced that he would seek no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. However, Ray said that she had, contrary to her statements, "ultimately influenced" the decision to fire the employees. However, "the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that any of Mrs. Clinton's statements and testimony regarding her involvement in the travel office firings were knowingly false," and thus prosecution was declined. White House press secretary Joe Lockhart was critical of Ray's statement: "By inappropriately characterizing the results of a legally sealed report through innuendo, the Office of Independent Counsel has further politicized an investigation that has dragged on far too long."

Hillary Clinton recently tweeted that her campaign is accepting student interns. Perks include, “free coffee, great views, and the chance to make history.”

How about salaries? Nope.

That’s right—internships at the Clinton campaign are just like internships at the Clinton Foundation: unpaid, according to The Week.
...
Even Clinton herself has been a vocal opponent of unpaid labor. “Businesses have taken advantage of unpaid internships to an extent that it is blocking the opportunities for young people to move on into paid employment,” Clinton said at UCLA in 2013. “More businesses need to move their so-called interns to employees.”

GreenGoo wrote:Next thing you know they'll be complaining about candy-stripers not getting paid either.

Spoiler:

GreenGoo wrote:I'm caring as hard as I can, which isn't much, but here we go:

Politics have always been powered by large crews of volunteer workers.

Next thing you know they'll be complaining about candy-stripers not getting paid either. Friggin' Republicans.


How'd I do?

hepcat wrote:Did you not see the words "free coffee"?

Perks include, “free coffee, great views, and the chance to make history.”

noxiousdog wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:I'm caring as hard as I can, which isn't much, but here we go:

Politics have always been powered by large crews of volunteer workers.

Next thing you know they'll be complaining about candy-stripers not getting paid either. Friggin' Republicans.


How'd I do?

I think it's pretty distasteful. If you want volunteers then call them volunteers. As with the Bernie thread, "unpaid interns" have a very specific legal definition and this is absolutely on the illegal side.

Now, I have no idea if there's a functional difference between a volunteer and an unpaid intern, but there's certainly a major legal one.

GreenGoo wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:I'm caring as hard as I can, which isn't much, but here we go:

Politics have always been powered by large crews of volunteer workers.

Next thing you know they'll be complaining about candy-stripers not getting paid either. Friggin' Republicans.


How'd I do?

I think it's pretty distasteful. If you want volunteers then call them volunteers. As with the Bernie thread, "unpaid interns" have a very specific legal definition and this is absolutely on the illegal side.

Now, I have no idea if there's a functional difference between a volunteer and an unpaid intern, but there's certainly a major legal one.

For the record, I wasn't mounting an actual defense.

If labour laws are being violated, she should be called on it. If they are being violated in the exact same way she has campaigned against, she should definitely take a significant hit at the polls.

noxiousdog wrote:Like the police, politicians are mostly above the law.

Zarathud wrote:Republicans are just jealous they have to pay people to show up

The IT company Hilary Clinton chose to maintain her private email account was run from a loft apartment and its servers were housed in the bathroom closet, Daily Mail Online can reveal.
Daily Mail Online tracked down ex-employees of Platte River Networks in Denver, Colorado, who revealed the outfit's strong links to the Democratic Party but expressed shock that the 2016 presidential candidate chose the small private company for such a sensitive job.
One, Tera Dadiotis, called it 'a mom and pop shop' which was an excellent place to work, but hardly seemed likely to be used to secure state secrets. And Tom Welch, who helped found the company, confirmed the servers were in a bathroom closet.
It can also be disclosed that the small number of employees who were aware of the Clinton contract were told to keep it secret.
The way in which Clinton came to contract a company described as a 'mom and pop' operation remains unclear.

Politico.com wrote:LAS VEGAS — As Hillary Clinton faces a new round of questions about her email use as secretary of state, some longtime allies are increasingly worried that she’s learned little from past scandals, and is falling back on her tendency to mount a legalistic defense that only encourages perceptions that she has something to hide.

A key concern is whether top campaign operatives new to Clinton’s orbit have enough influence in crafting her response to the email controversy. A source with inside knowledge of the Clinton campaign voiced concern that the candidate and her longtime attorney David Kendall are the only ones calling the shots — and can have a tin ear when it comes to the politics, rather than simply the legal status, of the email saga.

Others have expressed dismay at how testy Clinton appears when answering questions from the press with regard to her email. A news conference on Tuesday in Las Vegas grew heated as Clinton was grilled about whether or not she had tried to wipe her email server. Some were shocked that Clinton did not have a simple answer. “I don’t know, I have no idea,” she said. “Like with a cloth or something?” (On twitter, her spokesman responded immediately that Kendall had said months ago that the server was empty.)

Even Clinton’s staunch ally David Brock, founder of the rapid response organization Correct the Record, told POLITICO he has heard concerns from the donor class about how the barrage of headlines about criminal probes and FBI investigations are harming the campaign. He added that campaign surrogates — allies who appear on television to defend Clinton and explain the sometimes complicated facts about her email use — have sometimes done a poor job of presenting the argument to win what he deemed another wholly partisan fight.

Some Democratic strategists said their advice would have been to “get it out there, get it done with, get it behind you,” by turning over everything — emails, server, thumb drives — to the Justice Department months ago to move on. Instead, it was not until last week that Clinton agreed to turn over her server to DOJ.

Others have made a comparison to the Whitewater scandal of the ’90s — in which Kendall also represented Clinton — with Clinton again insisting she has done nothing illegal, but nonetheless letting the story and information she is in control of dribble out over the course of months.

Moliere wrote:
What's email? I only use fax machines.