Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Can we see this evidence? (Score 1) 491

You claim that I made up those statements

No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.

If you cannot mount a compelling case (...) then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.

If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent. That's why the nudge and not the links list. So here is the case.
Search terms on youtube: Hillary Clinton Benghazi (as stated before), but you refused to search . (this is a short one with some points); (another one focused on the troublesome parts);
full hearing.
On supporting terrorism:
Hillary's email saying Qatar and the Saudis are financing terrorism
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL - not directly related to Clinton but important to understand ISIS;
Military intervention in Syria email from 2011 - also not Clinton, but to give an understanding of what the "moderate rebels" the USG under Obama supports are supposed to do ("commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within");
The three above are to make it explicit that everyone (in her circles) knows who the Saudis are and what the regime change the US is pursuing does to people. It is common knowledge.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department;
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Qatar giving 1M to Bill Clinton (Qatar, the ones she says are financing terrorism);

The secret information mishandling should be one of those clear cut cases of too powerful to answer to justice. They clearly said that the reason they would not prosecute was lack of intent, not lack of proof it was done.
Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department (short video)
The actual FBI statement on the case. They didn't say she didn't commit the crime, just that no prosecutor would prosecute. They also explain what the crimes would be in the case ("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."). That's why sometimes we are not sure what the crime is. Because US law is overly intricate.

Comment Re: Can we see this evidence? (Score 1) 491

Your answer to "shit you made up (or someone you are quoting)" was "No."
You picked the part of my comment and said no, wrongly, since it was someone you were quoting. Had you said "I didn't make this up" and linked to the same stuff, there wouldn't be anything wrong with your post. If you are not simply disagreeing or denying what was said, use words, phrases, expressions different from just "no".

There is no evident difference between each of these conspiracy theories

Do you think demons and lizard persons from zorg are real? Do you think someone in the US government could be responsible for deaths in a country were the USG is admittedly financing armed rebels? If your answer is yes to both, then your assertion is correct, and there is no evident difference. Also, I think you are hopeless, there is no point in trying to reason with you and the rest of this post is a waste you shouldn't bother with. But if your answers are "no" for demons and "yes" for she might be responsible for deaths, then there is evident difference between these theories, and reason to check up facts only on the Syria case.

Does he backs it with a clear, agreed upon definition of demon, and then evidence? So it is not a fact. My point is that you should keep up with facts and not with theories.

Which would imply that none of them are true. Asserting that HRC is a criminal (without evidence) is the same as asserting that she is a demon.

It does not imply that none of them are true because there is no agreed upon definition of demon, while the crimes that she supposedly committed, even if not that clear to non jurists, have hints of a definition (e.g. we know that mishandling secret information is a crime, even if we don't know exactly what crime; we instinctively think that misleading the government to the point were some people are killed is probably a crime, even if we don't know what crime that is).

Asserting that HRC is a criminal (without evidence)

In my first post I suggested the congress hearings about Benghazi on youtube, that's one place were you can find evidence, but I'm not gonna search them for you. Since you are not talking only about Syria, but about calling her a criminal, she mishandled secret information. There is uncontested evidence of that, but in an unprecedented case of kindness from the DOJ, "intent to harm" became a necessity, only in her case. There is another criminal that took a photo of a submarine and posted online when everybody was posting their workspaces and he went to jail, even though there was no harm or intent to harm.
You shouldn't expect people to always have a list of links ready for you, or to be repeating the evidence over and over again every time they call her a criminal.

Comment Re:Illegal? (Score 1) 491

It's not a language mixup. As you correctly understood, if it was the Russian government, it was legal for them, in Russia. I didn't include the "in Russia" because I wanted people to understand that by themselves. After all, we foreigners hear day after day that everything the NSA and the GCHQ do is legal and respectful to the constitution and to the policies in place. So I wanted to make Americans read the same thing we do, that violating your rights is legal.

The actions of the CIA are frequently illegal in the country in which they occur. This doesn't make them illegal within the US.

I'm aware that what the NSA is doing here in my country is illegal here, while legal in the US. I find it pretty disgusting to allow doing things against others that you don't allow for yourselves. As I pointed out, my problem is that many Americans defend that part of their government keep committing crimes against us, as if there was nothing wrong with that, because for them it's not a crime, that's legal and their job and nice, cause fuck foreigners.

On the extradition, it usually is done only if the alleged crime is a crime in both countries (that's why there is a rape allegation against Assange, and not just the lighter offense that expired). So this could happen if it was a Russian citizen, not an operative. Additionally, some countries only do it if the country requesting the extradition respect human rights conventions (that's why the court from Canada said that the US is fine when they decided to extradite Matt Dehart, it wasn't ass licking).

Submission + - SPAM: FBI agents dismayed by failure to charge Clinton

Okian Warrior writes: The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved claiming that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by

Link to Original Source

Comment Re: Can we see this evidence? (Score 1) 491

It's very easy, instead of keeping up with the theories, try to keep up only with the facts.

she's a demon, she's a lizard person from the planet zorg, she eats babies

Shit you made up (or someone you are quoting).

she is personally responsible for the deaths in Syria

Exaggerated fact. She is personally responsible for many of the deaths in Syria, not all of them. Obama is the president.
But if you dig very little on the US government their allies and the terrorists murdering in Syria, you'll find the connection pretty easily. If you want to know on Clinton's personal responsibility, the best documented stuff is about Benghazi, the congress hearings are available on youtube.

BTW, "Russia did it" is also in the theories department.

Comment Re:Thanks (Score 1) 491

You're welcome. Basically the 4chan news was the MSM screaming that Wikileaks doesn't vet their publications. Wikileaks immediately told them it was false reporting (as is much of MSM's "reporting"), but they are not going to fix that. Just like they made a big deal that Wikileaks promised leaks for an earlier date and didn't deliver, when in reality they didn't set a date for the leaks and even explained the media's "mistake".
That's why Wikileaks Twitter feed (with their replies) is now one of the best news source. They have history on telling the truth.

Comment Re:Illegal? (Score 1) 491

Now, do you think American's are allowed to collaborate with foreign spies working in the US?

I did not say or think that.

If not, then why do you think Americans are allowed to collaborate with foreign intelligence agencies hacking computers in the US?

I already clarified that earlier in the thread, for someone that misunderstood in the same way.

I wasn't talking about investigating Trump

Comment Re:Illegal? (Score 1) 491

Um, I'm pretty sure hacking a computer system you don't own is illegal...

Well, if it really was an official Russian campaign, it would be legal for them. Just like many Americans like to point out that when the NSA fucks people from other countries it is legal.

Yes, that is how the law works.

Agree with you, I'm my country spying on me is illegal, but the NSA is doing it and many Americans say that "that's their job". According to the GCHQ, they are doing PSYOPS here too, also illegal here. BTW, this is exactly what the Russians are being accused of.

Clinton has been investigated numerous times, why shouldn't Trump be held to the same standard?

I wasn't talking about investigating Trump, TFA used the expression "illegal Russian efforts". Since the Snowden files came I heard from many Americans that most of what the NSA does is legal, if that is the mentality, these supposedly "Russian efforts" should be considered legal too, because its supposedly the Russian laws and policies.

My point was: If the Russians doing this is illegal, everything the NSA does against foreigners is illegal too. If Americans want to feel outraged with this they should stop doing it to others first.

But one extra point not related to my original post: since what was done to hurt Clinton's campaign was to show the reality of who she is and how she works, I think Americans should be grateful to whomever did this. Just like I think they should be grateful to whomever leaked the Trump tapes. You should know who your candidates are.

Comment Re:Illegal? (Score 1) 491

You understood my comment.
My point is that many Americans keep saying that what the NSA does against foreigners is legal, and that it is their job. Well, as one of those affected foreigners, I feel offended that Americans defend the assholes in the NSA that disrespect my laws, constitution and rights. Your comparison with the 1941 Germans is great too.

Comment Illegal? (Score 1, Insightful) 491

Let's for a moment pretend it was the Russians...

illegal Russian efforts to affect our election

They are not illegal, they followed the law, the constitution and their policies.

Or are you saying that when conducting operations overseas the laws in the country affected should be considered? In that case everything the NSA does is illegal, not just the national spying.

Comment Fake news to distract from stuff that matters (Score 5, Informative) 269

This is irrelevant. Hacked people supposedly got hacked again...
For actual news about the leaks you should go:


Best Podesta leak pair: 1) HRC stating in 2014 that the Saud+Qatar govts fund ISIL and 2) Qatar giving Bill Clinton $1m for 5 minute meeting

ABC Exec Ben Sherwood Pledges "Any and All ABC Platforms" to Help Hillary.

CNN's Donna Brazile, now head of DNC, tipped off Clinton campaign about debate question

Algeria Donated to the Clinton Campaign in order to get off the Terror Watchlist, according to Joe Scarborough

Comment This is fake news, MSM is hiding the real ones (Score 1) 377

When people say that MSM is working for Clinton, this kind of "news" is what they mean.
The best thing people have to say in favor of Clinton is that she is not Trump. Well, this release also showed that besides taking Sanders out of the Democrats race, they pushed Trump up on the Republicans race . That is news, not the internal brawls that the emails might cause.

When they say Trump is the KGB candidate they are lying, Trump is the DNC's republican candidate.

The release also showed that she considers the enviro groups opposing her effort to expand fracking are Russian front groups. But the media focus on the little BS to steer people away from things that matter.

Slashdot Top Deals

Try `stty 0' -- it works much better.