?

Log in

28 November 2016 @ 10:56 pm
Why am I not surprised?Collapse )


Oh, that's right...
 
 
From the horse's mouth:

"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

"(...) any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

"None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, (...) (o)nly a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. (...) As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."

(For my take on the whole affair, see my annotations one post earlier. - A week before the FBI statement, this happenend. Also relevant: this.)
 
 
26 November 2016 @ 02:34 pm
From the Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System, all bolding by me:

"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
(How is that not 'grossly negligent'?! Other than laywer speak, I mean...)

"(...) any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
(So, Secretary Clinton herself is not a reasonable person, according to the FBI Director. I wonder how the press / media reacted to this gem. Oh wait, they didn't...)

"None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

WTF? I mean, WTF?!

And now, the conclusion:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." There's that word again...

"Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent." No. See above.

"Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past." No. See for example here.

"As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."


Oh yeah? This whole affair is a god damn clusterfuck of a disgrace!!!


P.S. Do you know what happened about a week earlier? Honi soit qui mal y pense...
 
 
21 November 2016 @ 09:26 pm
Please take it upon yourselves to whistleblow-spill the beans on Hillary Clinton, with irrefutable proof, even if it will ruin your life and career.

Your country will thank you for your service.
 
 
21 November 2016 @ 09:17 pm
Die Webseite market-ticker.org wechselt ihren Hintergrund, je nach Lageeinschätzung und Gemütszustand des Betreibers, Karl Denninger. In letzter Zeit haben die "shades of grey" (LOL) ziemlich oft zwischen hell und dunkel hin und her gewechselt, was mich zu der Überlegung veranlaßt, ob er etwas weiß, das andere nicht wissen... (Vorgänge hinter den Kulissen? Clinton indictment? Destruction of quasi-monopolies of the medical sector?)

Spannend...
 
 
 
21 November 2016 @ 01:31 pm
Ob es im Internet wohl Posts oder Artikel mit der Überschrift "Mexico´s Paywall " gibt?!  :-D :-D :-D

I call dibs ;-) , or "First!" !!
 
 
20 November 2016 @ 10:56 pm
- to the TV show "South Park", for introducing me to the expressions "pressing pickle" and "smooshing snake" (S20E07), as well as the hilarious reference to the Presidential transition of Donald Tru..., I mean President Douche (S20E08)!

- to Saturday Night Live S42E07, for outstanding achievements in the field of "Self-Deprecating Liberal Introspection" after the election victory of The Donald, as evidenced in the skits "The Bubble" and "Anderson Cooper/Westworld"!
 
 
20 November 2016 @ 09:08 pm
I care about your actions, I do not care about your beliefs.

Sic est.
 
 
17 November 2016 @ 11:59 pm
Gerade einen Tweet von Scott Adams (Keywords: Dilbert, Master Persuader) gelesen, Kontext noch unbekannt, nur zwei Worte: "Pay Wall". Daraufhin SOFORT die folgende Assoziation: (Hm, was wohl hinter diesem Link steckt... :-D )

Na klar! Was auch sonst... ;-) ;-) ;-)


(Kontext zur Überschrift)
 
 
17 November 2016 @ 04:52 pm
Thank God for Scott Alexander´s utterly brillant post "You Are Still Crying Wolf", a refreshing voice of reason sorely lacking from liberal discourse at the moment.

Assorted highlights for you tl;dr people ;-) :

"There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he’s “the candidate of the KKK” and “the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement” is made up. (...) That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist."

"(...) it’s possible for candidates’ secret feelings to differ from their explicit messages, but the things they say every single day and put on their website and include in their speeches are still worth going over to see what image they want to project.

Trump’s official message has been the same vague feel-good pro-diversity rhetoric as any other politician."

"Listen. Trump is going to be approximately as racist as every other American president. Maybe I’m wrong and he’ll be a bit more. Maybe he’ll surprise us and be a bit less. But most likely he’ll be about as racist as Ronald Reagan, who employed Holocaust denier Pat Buchanan as a senior advisor."

There is much, much, much more there, with data and graphics and everything! Much better than I could have ever put it. Go read the whole thing! :-)


(edited to add: Oh! My! Goat! I love you, Scott Alexander, for gems like this: "The kabbalistic similarities between 'dog-whistling' and 'wolf-crying' are too obvious to ignore." :-D :-D :-D) (Or is that 'I woof you'? ;-) ;-) )