By instead lying and trying to obfuscate the issue however they keep the attention on both the emails and their (bad) attempts to discredit them, and what was a minor issue that would have fallen to the wayside is instead kept front and center.
Welcome to the Clintons. They do this all the time. Hell, this is the second time they've played the Obfuscate, Lie, and Spin game about emails. It's a different tactic in this case, but the same old game.
I've publicly declared that this particular lefty-lefty will not defend, deflect, or otherwise compromise my intellectual integrity for them ever again.
This election is not about angel vs devil. For whatever reason, it is about moderate turd vs humongous turd. Whoever approaches election day with the "turd is turd" stance deserves to end up buried in shit way over his head.
This is not only the most succinct, but also the most accurate description of this election. Brilliant. Kudos to you, sir.
Standard operating procedure for a Clinton. they love to go right up to the outer edge of the line, even a half-step beyond sometimes, but when they do rather than own it they'll spin like the Looney Tunes Tasmanian Devil to obfuscate, cover up, and lie, and they'll gladly solicit the same from others. It's why so many lefty-leftists (what Howard Dean called the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party) trust her even less than Republicans.
Um, no. You're thinking "progressive" as in turn of the 20th century Progressives, which were what we would consider liberal Republicans today. But that's not the way it's been since the 60s. When Democrats moderated and cast off their working class constituency in the 70s and 80s, they decried progressives as being too far to the left.
Check out Thomas Franks's (an historian) writing, esp. "Listen Liberal" for the history of the rise of "Third Way" Democratic politics, i.e. movement to the center, which gained the upper hand under (Bill) Clinton. It's a great history, and corrected my understanding of the terms "progressive" and "liberal" as well.
A note about the "attribution problem" -- Attribution doesn't work like that for the U.S. We don't rely on the forensics like a security company (or even the FBI, perhaps) does -- we get most of our evidence from extensive NSA penetration of foreign networks and the Internet itself, including at times watching them unfold in near real-time.
The biggest development here, it seems to me, is that this operation completely does away with any notion of a criminal predicate. Previous efforts have mostly been about "connecting dots," i.e. searching those communicate with suspected terrorists, or at least those communicating with people from what the US deems TerrorLand.
But this, this is a search of everyone, right from the start, no suspicion or even mere connection to some suspect. It's the equivalent of searching everyone's house for evidence they committed some crime. It's an actual general warrant.
If the government wants companies to be held accountable for their security lapses, then make them financially liable to their customers for breaches.
Stupidly, our "cyber protection" law that got rolled into the omnibus budget bill last year provides for some civil immunity if companies share data about breaches with DHS, which will only make security even less important to companies.
In previous public remarks that I've made in the UK, I’ve focused on the three main motivations for systematic cyber attack... Another is propaganda: where the global platform that the Internet gives anyone and everyone is misused to make a point, attract attention or to instil fear and intimidate.
Yeah, when the government gets to decide which points are a "misuse"...
I understand the legal point you're making in this piece, but I'm also concerned about the justice aspect. As a starting point, when one does something that rains chaos in the life of someone else, we might start with whether humiliation (akin to the malice component in First Amendment jurisprudence) was the point or intention, as opposed to conveying info the public has a right to know but might be personally destructive to the person it's about. Otherwise, "privacy and dignity" do seem to evaporate.