The BART was supposed to go to Marin. [...] Then Marin pulled out.
True, back then Marinites didn't want to pay the extra sales tax, and didn't want a bunch of riffraff who didn't own cars coming to their tony environs. Ironically, just a few years later, Marin practically became Tree-Hugger Central, and now they'd love it if they had fast, electric-powered public transit. Oops, too late!
So she declassified it. Now prove that isn't in her capacity as Secretary of State.
Honestly, do you really think that if she has the authority to declassify documents, the proper procedure is for her to just order someone to remove classified markings...?
It looks like a violation of 18 USC Sec. 793 to me.
If her email server was never compromised then she never committed a single crime.
No, the mere fact that the server was used at all is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.
Plus, erasing all those emails counts as destruction of public records. Unless anyone thinks she had thousands of emails about yoga appointments.
insufficiently protecting information that appears not to have even been explicitly classified at the time
Long ago proven false. Some of the information was of the highest possible level of classification, "born classified" and not anything that could be mistaken for unclassified material. Things like source names and satellite photos.
And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction. She had her staff / interns scan/fax shit, remove the designation, and then email it. When it hit her email it wasn't marked classified. It's the equivalent of painting over a handicapped parking spot then parking on it.
You have evidence for this claim? Perhaps a link?
An image of the email in question, from Hillary. The text says: "If they can't, turn into non paper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Technically, that's a federal crime punished by 10 years in prison.
Yeah...no. all you did was prove that you are very unfamiliar with BOTH books and with each religions theological teachings of the books.
And yet, nobody in this thread has presented any evidence regarding a single, specific error I have made. Just a bunch of handwaving about how wrong I am. Your argument would be more convincing with some evidence.
lol.. what a load of crock. You are an obvious Muslim hater..
I've read books on Islam, both pro and con. Have you? I'd like to know exactly what's a "crock" about anything I wrote.
Thank $diety, the younger generation of Americans brought up in a Muslim have a more balanced view of their religion.
One hopes, but the opposite seems to have happened in France, for example. The Muslims who immigrated in the '50s and '60s caused few problems, AFAIK. It's their grandkids who are burning cars and supporting ISIS. Assimilation there is not working as it's supposed to.
So you're OK with Christians whose holy book advocates pedophilia and incest?
The Koran and Bible are quite different in many ways.
The Bible was written by dozens of people "inspired" by God, in a handful of languages, over hundreds of years. Very few read it in the original languages. The New Testament, centered on the pacifistic Jesus, largely supersedes* the Old. (*This is probably not the theologically-correct word, but you get my meaning.) There's lots of room for interpretation, and nearly all of the bad stuff that people cite is in the Old Testament, which very few Christians treat as central or equal to the New. (Many Bibles simply delete the entire Old Testament.)
The Koran is very different. It was (supposedly) dictated by Allah (who speaks a somewhat archaic Arabic) through Gabriel to Mohammad. Mohammad was very different from Jesus: not a pacifist but a caravan robber, murderer, and warlord. The copies of the Koran on Earth are "perfect" copies of Allah's copy in heaven. Muslims are expected to read it in the original Arabic. (Korans in translation are not "really" Korans in their view.) There is comparatively little room for interpretation.
The Koran itself is almost the opposite of the Bible: it's more peaceful in the beginning, and gets more violent later on, reflecting Mohammad's transformation from caravan robber to prophet to warlord. So you might notice that when Muslim apologists quote the Koran, they quote early passages, and when critics do, they quote later ones. But like the Bible, the latter parts are said to supersede (to some degree) the earlier parts.
In addition to the Koran being Allah's direct words, there's the problem of considering Muhammad "perfect" and a model for all Muslims: that gives you justification for child brides and cousin marriage (hence the well-documented negative eugenic effects of inbreeding in the Muslim world), slavery (ISIS has total theological justification for their sex slavery), hatred of Jews, death for gays, death for apostates, death for blasphemers, etc. And, of course, it's a central Islamic belief that Islam is destined to rule the world, with everyone else officially subjugated as second-class citizens, or converted, or killed. Which happens in every country ruled by Muslims.
You will find very little like that in the Bible, and very few Christians defend violence in the name of Jesus. But many Muslims all over the world are fine with religious violence. And mentioning these facts about Islam counts as "hate speech" in many European countries (not to mention Islamic ones)....
If you say: "Kill gays," it's hate speech, granted. But if you say: "It's a bad idea to let millions of Muslims into Europe, because their holy book instructs them to kill gays," somehow that is "hate speech" against Muslims. Even more idiotically, it's considered "racism" even though Islam is a religion and not a race.
The crackdown on "incorrect" thoughts is reaching absurdities. Criticize feminism on Twitter, and you'll get banned. They'll even suppress the protest hashtag #FreeStacy by disabling autocomplete for it. But somehow the hashtag #KillAllWhiteMen is nothing for the "Trust and Safety Council" to be concerned about.
A 15-year-old student in the UK visited the UKIP website in class. His teachers then reported him to the police, who interrogated him for hours.
If that isn't enough to frighten you, here's some research about how easily Google could game elections by skewing search results in favor of one candidate or another, and how Facebook could do the same with targeted ads and by deciding what shows up on your wall. And the leadership of both companies are Hillary fans. That doesn't mean that they'll do it, but they have the motive, means, and opportunity to do so. And how would we know if they had?
then why not just ask that employee what they changed it to?
Exactly. If IT changed the password, they must know the new password.
Good day to avoid cops. Crawl to work.
