"Defacing property" is spray painting on the blades of bulldozers... not really any damage... more like freedom of speech
I'm not sure if you read the summary, but protestors lit a number of construction vehicles on fire, causing $2.5 million in damage.
Also, if you spray paint on something that isn't yours (like the blade of someone else's bulldozer), that's vandalism and a crime. It's only free speech if it's your bulldozer.
Take Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate case, where the relevant portion of Obamacare was overturned. If Obama had the power to pardon his HHS Secretary in a lawsuit, he'd be able to implement a law that was JUST RULED unconstitutional.
I think this is a different group.
The CS side focuses primarily on the mathematics of computing, while IT focus more on the logical side of computing. Developing a great and simple API doesn't require much of a math background, but needs quite a bit of logical thinking.
The second job, the one you're calling "IT," is actually Software Engineering, which is a different discipline than either CS or IT. IT is running the computer infrastructure. Configuring routers, running email servers, and doing help desk support are all IT tasks.
In another article on Slashdot, we have people boycotting a Silicon Valley business associated with a CEO who has dared to donate to Trump.
That's freedom of association and it's at least as fundamental a right as free speech.
Good thing the startups aren't making wedding cakes.
If you want to revisit the Constitution based on the fact that "technology has changed", we can do that. But beware. Some of your most hallowed Amendments might go by the wayside.
Rat, this is a ridiculous false equivalence and you know it.
"A living Constitution" is shorthand for the idea that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her liberal friends shouldn't be bound by the actual words in the Constitution, but by (her interpretation of) the intent of the Constitution, which coincidentally always lines up with liberal policy preferences.
"Living Constitution" advocates are making laws and rulings against the plain text of the Second Amendment NOW, with that amendment still in place.
Changing the Constitution through the amendment process is different than ignoring it when it gets in the way, which is what "Living Constitution" advocates are advocating for.
Once we're squarely in "we're talking about changing the text of the Constitution with an amendment territory," repealing the Electoral College and repealing the Second Amendment have nothing to do with each other. If one was a good idea (neither are), that wouldn't imply anything about the other.
I've already stated that there is no way to prove Powell's use, as he stated he has none of those emails, as referenced in the link above.
Hey, I'm not the one accusing someone of felonies without proof.
From your link, Powell did state: "I am not sure HRC even knew or understood what was going on in the basement" which I can only believe means that she herself wasn't 100% aware of the technical aspects of her email support, so you'll need to provide proof that she intentionally kept anything hidden on her private email server.
How about the fact that she specifically ordered someone to send classified material "nonsecure" and remove the classified headings?
But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.
Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."
Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.
- CBS News
Also, we do know that of the 30+K emails Clinton sent, only 22 were later classified as secret after the fact. 104 were considered classified, yet all of those came from an unclassified state dept system. Guess what's not allowed on unclassified systems?
We don't know that at all. We know that the State Department and the campaign were claiming that to the New York Times a year ago, (your article is from January), but "the truth" about Clinton's emails has changed several times since then.
At this point, I'd state that you'd need to prove that a single classified email with known classified information with the proper relationships in the document to actually make them classified was sent knowingly by Clinton from her private email server. Retro-active classification does not qualify.
Do I have to prove it? Can the FBI prove it instead? Let's ask FBI Director James Comey what he found on the server.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent...
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that 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. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
And one last thing.
If it came from an unclassified source, it's not classified, even if the gov wants it to be classified.
So everyone reading this blather knows, this is false. It doesn't even support the point you're trying to make. Think about it logically. If someone found out the nuclear launch codes and emailed them to someone, do the nuclear launch codes automatically become declassified? Or take these emails. The State Department is publishing them with redactions for classification. Why would they still be classified if they came from Hillary's unclassified system?
The dividing line between felony prosecution and no prosecution appears to be whether the act is intentional or a result of negligence, and not what classified material is involved. Clinton had no intention of leaking classified material... So another case of criminal intent vs. negligence.
So you're saying that the difference is that Saucier intended to break the law, and Clinton was negligent? Interesting, because the actual law says that negligent conduct is sufficient for it to be a violation of the law. (Let's leave aside just how possible it is to negligently set up a series of six Exchange servers.)
Saucier's phone, with the classified picture, was found in a dump (the article didn't say whether it was military or civilian), which suggests no particular care in making sure the picture didn't get into the wrong hands, and that's what kicked off the investigation.
It may well be that taking pictures in classified areas is common aboard submarines, and is handled administratively (although you'd think being demoted one rank would be something of a deterrent), and if the case had started before there was any possible dissemination, and Saucier had fessed up, it seems likely that he'd have been demoted or something.
I'd double check the article. The investigation kicked off when Saucier turned himself in.
The fact that he [Saucier] destroyed evidence can't have helped him either.
Dude, you're replying to a Slashdot article titled "FBI Agreed To Destroy Laptops of Clinton Aides With Immunity Deal, Sources Say." It really hurts your efforts to correct the record when you show so little self awareness.
“It is no secret that I used a [sic] unclassified personal email account in addition to my classified State computer,’” Powell wrote to the New York Times’s Amy Chozick.
Clinton kept Top Secret material on her hidden server. Powell did nothing of the sort. If you're accusing Powell of breaking classification laws, the burden of proof is on you to provide proof.
I see that claim over and over. Make a list with actual proof. It'll be short, likely numbering 0.
Dude, the FBI found Top Secret satellite imagery on her private email server. The email server itself is also illegal, even without the classified stuff.
That's two.
Reality has no bias. If these things are true, and I have seen no indications that they are not, then the news is making Donald Trump look bad because Donald Trump is actually bad.
Reality may not have a bias, but The New York Times does.
The allegations that the New York Times is making are almost certainly true. But the implications they are making are false.
The documents that the Times printed showed that Trump lost a bunch of money by investing in a casino in 1995. The Times is also reporting (accurately) that in 1995, you could "carry over" business losses from previous years and deduct them (against your gains) until either 1. you ran out of losses or 2.18 years passes from the original loss. (The rules are substantially the same today, but those are the rules from 1995.)
The Times is implying that Trump did something shady or illegal by taking a fairly standard tax deduction. (The same deduction, in fact, taken by The New York Times this year.) BREAKING: DONALD TRUMP TOOK THE SAME TAX DEDUCTION THAT EVERY BUISNESS OWNER WHO LOSES MONEY ALWAYS TAKES isn't really news, but they and the rest of the media are reporting on it like it's a gigantic scandal.
Meanwhile Obama has weaponized the IRS and the Justice Department against his political opponents and Hillary Clinton and her cronies hid her records, including top-level classified information, on secret servers so the American people wouldn't be able find the corruption until it was too late, but the New York Times doesn't care about ANY of that this morning.
I hate Trump, don't get me wrong. But the only reason this is a story is that the New York Times is a bought and paid for wing of the Democratic Party.
No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.
