|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 08 2017 01:03 brian wrote:see that actually DOESNT make sense to me. in MOST cases, yes, don’t bite the hand that feeds you. unless it’s the government. we have specific laws that prevent retaliation from the government to a person. understanding that there’s a middle-man in the equation that has to make these calls for the good of their company, this is one situation in which it’s not a comfortable feeling for me. and on top of that, again, ‘government contractor’ is a title so removed from any meaning that it’s impossible to tell, from where we stand, what kind of exposure they (Akima LLC) might actually have.
All I know is they had about zero before they fired her
|
On November 08 2017 01:10 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 01:03 brian wrote:see that actually DOESNT make sense to me. in MOST cases, yes, don’t bite the hand that feeds you. unless it’s the government. we have specific laws that prevent retaliation from the government to a person. understanding that there’s a middle-man in the equation that has to make these calls for the good of their company, this is one situation in which it’s not a comfortable feeling for me. and on top of that, again, ‘government contractor’ is a title so removed from any meaning that it’s impossible to tell, from where we stand, what kind of exposure they (Akima LLC) might actually have. All I know is they had about zero before they fired her
sure, and i get that. but the narrative that i can see is that they fired her due to their exposure from retaliation from the government
thats against the constitution. businesses aren’t people. but it just feels incredibly bad to have someone publically fired for a protest against the government. in the united states. that’s literally sacred here. it’s one of the most american things anyone can do.
|
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s assignment of as many as several hundred State Department officials to quickly clear a huge backlog of public records requests is being met with deep skepticism by rank-and-file employees.
Tillerson says his goal is transparency. But many State workers fear the real reason is political: expediting the public release of thousands of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s official emails.
The staffers also suspect the move — which will reassign many of them from far more substantive duties and has already sparked a union complaint — is meant to force many of them to resign out of frustration with what are essentially clerical positions.
The issue spotlights the deepening distrust toward Tillerson at Foggy Bottom, where his attempts to restructure the department, cut its budget and centralize policymaking have already hurt morale. But it is drawing applause from conservative groups, which have been pressuring Tillerson to act on a backlog of 13,000 Freedom of Information Act requests — many of them relating to emails and other records from Clinton’s tenure.
“We haven't understood why there's been a slow-walking of releasing records, and we've been quite public in counseling the administration to take an approach of extreme transparency,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative activist group that has sued the Trump administration for more Clinton documents.
“It looks like someone's listening,” Fitton added.
Current and former career diplomats scoff at such talk. They say the real story is Tillerson’s contempt for a State Department workforce he sees as bloated, and one that President Donald Trump views as a Democratic stronghold loyal to Clinton, who served as secretary of state from 2009-13.
While many of the people assigned to open-records duty are lower-level staffers and interns, some have previously held prestigious posts, helping shape U.S. foreign policy and engaging in high-level diplomacy.
"Nothing better illustrates the view of the Trump administration that U.S. diplomats are nothing more than overpaid clerks," said Thomas Countryman, a retired career foreign service officer who served as assistant secretary of state in the Obama administration.
Tillerson announced his decision to ramp up FOIA processing in an Oct. 17 email to State employees. Tillerson has set an ambitious — some say implausible — goal of clearing the backlog by the end of this year.
www.politico.com
Looks like Tillerson is keeping it up and doing solid work in the State Department.
|
The practice of using media shitstorm into job loss to retaliate for divisive speech is quite expensive to the economy as a whole.
|
There's something very wrong for firing people for a political act that which does not affect the function of the company itself. Then again we are in the age where the Department of Justice appears to be waging war over the right to vote.
|
United States43272 Posts
On November 08 2017 00:00 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 23:35 Plansix wrote:On November 07 2017 23:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2017 23:09 brian wrote:On November 07 2017 23:07 Leporello wrote:On November 07 2017 22:57 brian wrote:
any? job. imo. a livelihood isn’t so easy to replace when you’ve got rent to pay. shrug. I would gladly quit any job that required me to tolerate treason. Easy. Even if I actually did need it for livelihood. What happened to people? We went from generations that volunteered to die around the world. And now we're just like, "but my livelihood". Not singling you, just pontificating. edit: because that's most depressing about Trump. The complacency. The obviousness with which any other generation would've just shut this shit down, really quick. because my rent is nearly 2k/mo. who can afford to not have a job? it’s surreal to me that you think any job is expendable. if i lost my job id quickly find myself bankrupt and homeless. Pretty clever system they have there isn't it? How far could they take you before you'd risk your job? If this is the cost of having idiots like the google clown or Nazis fired from their jobs, I’m ok with it. Honestly, have you read that memo? It was super productive and more anti-discrimination than pro-discrimination. It wasn't anti-diversity, it just dared to say that our biology has something to do with the choices we make. The most painful think about the memo wasn't that the guy became an alt-right hero, but that countless news outlets couldn't be bothered to actually read it and preferred to just call him a misogynist.
Honestly, have you? Because it wasn't even slightly productive.
|
Of course it was and it is productive. It was written in honest fate and with good will and a feisty amount of work. He really tried to pull the discussion forward. He really wanted to discuss and to look at the reasons. His interviews afterwards shed a very good light on this.
|
It is at least a good base for discussion. Some of the points are more valid than others, but this is the point, this is a start.
|
On November 08 2017 00:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote:I don't understand how you can be happy about this. For one, because I just can't fathom having such a lack of a rebellious streak. For two, because I'm pretty sure you were aghast at google memo guy getting fired (for the record, I don't like the idea of either firing). Just seems incredibly partisan to be cheering this shit on. However, I'd like to know whether she was for sure fired because of what she did or if it's just a coincidence. Don't really care enough to google at the moment tho  EDIT: I lied, I did google. She wants to work for PETA. Aaaaaaaaaaaand it's [the sympathy] is gone.
Haha Jinro. What a roller coaster.
|
Also in the mood of election anniverseries, here's Wired Magazine:
Sam Wang:
Clinton, 323 Electoral College votes (270 to win)
Dem 51 seat Senate Majority
|
Let us not forget the victory speech that was filled with alternative facts.
|
lol how did NPR miss the American carnage bit?
It was really the only stand-out bit in an otherwise good speech. I guess you could make a case for a second noticeable part: it had a unification message that was largely lost on its audience. No leader with his thin of skin can push unification for long. But half of us were expecting more gloating and partisan slant.
|
On July 06 2016 10:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 10:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 10:25 Chezinu wrote:
"Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
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."
Isn't that a crime in and of itself given the position she was in? I have heard the military have strict rules in regards to this. Wouldn't it be like manslaughter as opposed to murder?
Anyone with a law background?
See XDaunts replies in the last few pages. This is his point. Yep, and the fact that Comey used the term "extremely careless" is incredibly telling. He knew that he couldn't say "gross negligence" publicly and not charge her. Instead, he used a term that is basically indistinguishable in meaning, but that lacks the legal significance. EDIT: "Careless" is basically indistinguishable from negligent if you look at the case law. So "extreme carelessness" is essentially the same as "gross negligence." Frankly, I could make the argument that "extreme carelessness" is even worse and on the level of "willful and wanton disregard."
|
On November 08 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 10:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 10:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 10:25 Chezinu wrote:
"Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
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."
Isn't that a crime in and of itself given the position she was in? I have heard the military have strict rules in regards to this. Wouldn't it be like manslaughter as opposed to murder?
Anyone with a law background?
See XDaunts replies in the last few pages. This is his point. Yep, and the fact that Comey used the term "extremely careless" is incredibly telling. He knew that he couldn't say "gross negligence" publicly and not charge her. Instead, he used a term that is basically indistinguishable in meaning, but that lacks the legal significance. EDIT: "Careless" is basically indistinguishable from negligent if you look at the case law. So "extreme carelessness" is essentially the same as "gross negligence." Frankly, I could make the argument that "extreme carelessness" is even worse and on the level of "willful and wanton disregard." https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/927630392508780544
I know your trying for yet another 'but Hillary' but the headline "Head of FBI is careful with use of language in public statement" doesn't have the same ring to it.
|
On November 08 2017 01:03 brian wrote:see that actually DOESNT make sense to me. in MOST cases, yes, don’t bite the hand that feeds you. unless it’s the government. we have specific laws that prevent retaliation from the government to a person. understanding that there’s a middle-man in the equation that has to make these calls for the good of their company, this is one situation in which it’s not a comfortable feeling for me. and on top of that, again, ‘government contractor’ is a title so removed from any meaning that it’s impossible to tell, from where we stand, what kind of exposure they (Akima LLC) might actually have.
I don't disagree, but the reality of things lately has left me too jaded to expect things to be so ideal. If this administration has shown us anything, it's that it can be incredibly vindictive or rewarding depending on who you piss off or cozy up to. Her bosses seem to think that her flipping off Trump could cost them future contracts in whatever they do, and I certainly don't know enough otherwise to do anything but defer to their judgement. That being the case, I don't blame them for minimizing their risk in this political climate, even if it wasn't necessarily the "right" thing to do.
|
On November 08 2017 03:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2016 10:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 10:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 10:25 Chezinu wrote:
"Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
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."
Isn't that a crime in and of itself given the position she was in? I have heard the military have strict rules in regards to this. Wouldn't it be like manslaughter as opposed to murder?
Anyone with a law background?
See XDaunts replies in the last few pages. This is his point. Yep, and the fact that Comey used the term "extremely careless" is incredibly telling. He knew that he couldn't say "gross negligence" publicly and not charge her. Instead, he used a term that is basically indistinguishable in meaning, but that lacks the legal significance. EDIT: "Careless" is basically indistinguishable from negligent if you look at the case law. So "extreme carelessness" is essentially the same as "gross negligence." Frankly, I could make the argument that "extreme carelessness" is even worse and on the level of "willful and wanton disregard." https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/927630392508780544 I know your trying for yet another 'but Hillary' but the headline "Head of FBI is careful with use of language in public statement" doesn't have the same ring to it.
It's the same as you get in classic conspiracy theories. If you point out something factually irrelevant and leave it at that, people move on, but if you go "but why is that?", people suddenly start listening. It's an early Comey memo. It's not a charge, it's not a public statement, it has no bearing on anything whatsoever. But a well placed "why?" gets people like Danglars to repost it without fail.
|
On November 08 2017 03:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2016 10:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 10:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 10:25 Chezinu wrote:
"Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
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."
Isn't that a crime in and of itself given the position she was in? I have heard the military have strict rules in regards to this. Wouldn't it be like manslaughter as opposed to murder?
Anyone with a law background?
See XDaunts replies in the last few pages. This is his point. Yep, and the fact that Comey used the term "extremely careless" is incredibly telling. He knew that he couldn't say "gross negligence" publicly and not charge her. Instead, he used a term that is basically indistinguishable in meaning, but that lacks the legal significance. EDIT: "Careless" is basically indistinguishable from negligent if you look at the case law. So "extreme carelessness" is essentially the same as "gross negligence." Frankly, I could make the argument that "extreme carelessness" is even worse and on the level of "willful and wanton disregard." https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/927630392508780544 I know your trying for yet another 'but Hillary' but the headline "Head of FBI is careful with use of language in public statement" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Area man sees article on Comey, assumes it's inteded to excuse some other behavior and concludes "But Hillary."
|
It kind of shows something we already basically knew: that “extremely careless” is a sub-in for the more legally meaningful “gross negligence” and that that is kind of what he was getting at. Maybe he just decided that the legal term would be a bit too charged. Nevertheless it’s an interesting thing to note.
In any case, it’s kind of all in the past now. Hillary in the disgraced state she is now is no more relevant than Hillary in prison. Though a few remnants exist that still cling to her, it’s clear that in all but the party apparatus they have lost all credibility with the results of ‘16.
|
On November 08 2017 03:09 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 03:01 Gorsameth wrote:On November 08 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2016 10:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 10:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 10:25 Chezinu wrote:
"Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
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."
Isn't that a crime in and of itself given the position she was in? I have heard the military have strict rules in regards to this. Wouldn't it be like manslaughter as opposed to murder?
Anyone with a law background?
See XDaunts replies in the last few pages. This is his point. Yep, and the fact that Comey used the term "extremely careless" is incredibly telling. He knew that he couldn't say "gross negligence" publicly and not charge her. Instead, he used a term that is basically indistinguishable in meaning, but that lacks the legal significance. EDIT: "Careless" is basically indistinguishable from negligent if you look at the case law. So "extreme carelessness" is essentially the same as "gross negligence." Frankly, I could make the argument that "extreme carelessness" is even worse and on the level of "willful and wanton disregard." https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/927630392508780544 I know your trying for yet another 'but Hillary' but the headline "Head of FBI is careful with use of language in public statement" doesn't have the same ring to it. It's the same as you get in classic conspiracy theories. If you point out something factually irrelevant and leave it at that, people move on, but if you go "but why is that?", people suddenly start listening. It's an early Comey memo. It's not a charge, it's not a public statement, it has no bearing on anything whatsoever. But a well placed "why?" gets people like Danglars to repost it without fail.
I thought it was interesting in its own right, as well as contrasting with how careful Comey was to avoid using gross negligence in his strange press conference.
Now, if you want NewSunshine going out and whine about other posters, all you have to do is post an article and be from the right. You do you, though. I haven't a clue if this has always been your reaction, happened after Trump, or making conspiracies about everyone else promoting conspiracies is especially attractive to you.
|
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
