"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean— neither more nor less."
— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Among other things, Mr. Comey contradicted Ms. Clinton’s assertion (a) that while serving as Secretary of State she used only one device (he said she used four), (b) that she returned all work-related e mails to the state department (he said thousands were not returned), and (c) that she did not e mail “any classified material to anyone on my email” (Comey said “there was classified material emailed.”)
This is confusing but I think all of Clinton's statements are correct to the best of her knowledge. I think she used four servers at home but only one when she was Secretary of State. All of the turned over e-mails were from that server. I think she began using it a few months after her term began as secretary. She turned over all e-mails from that server with a work-related subject heading. I think what Comey is referring to is e-mails with personnel headings but that actually contained some work-related information. I don't think her lawyers went through every e-mail but just selected by searching. She received something 100 e-mails with classified material that were not marked classified. She assumed the people sending with more experience than her in the State Department knew what they were doing and in retrospect that was not a good assumption to make. She also received three e-mails that were not marked classified in the heading but in the text were marked classified with (c), Two of the three were mistakenly marked classified. It is unclear whether she knew what (c) meant but probably she did. She has admitted it was a mistake to use a server at home and to use the same e-mail address for personal and work-related e-mails (the latter was also done by several previous people in her position at the State Department). The overall context in which this took place is that there is criticism that the State Department does not do a good job in handling classified material and that this also applies to other federal agencies. This problem is far more broader than e-mails involving Hillary Clinton. Importantly, none of the e-mails with classified material on Clinton's server were seen by anyone without the proper clearer clearance and there is no evidence that her server was hacked. Also, there are many cases of the State Department servers being hacked. So overall it appears more should be done about cyber security in the federal government.
Very little of what comes out of Hillary's mouth can be interpreted as truthful, at this point. She's 'short-circuited.' And like Humpty Dumpty, her words 'mean what [she] choose[s] them to mean.' Which leaves a lot of people wondering how the hell she can get away with it. Mainstream media seem incapable of using the word 'lie' to describe Hillary's convoluted explanations, her 'clarifications,' and prevarications, repeatedly falling back on hackneyed evasions, like 'that just isn't true.' Aside from the fact that lying consistently about the same thing can make the lie seem like the truth, there is the increasing concern among a large segment of the population (60-70%) in this election that there is a point of diminishing returns with respect to Hillary's lies, and that is that words, in her case, will come to mean nothing anymore.
What Brauchli here reports in his dry irony, should be reported by all media:
Clinton repeatedly lies about her illegal private e-mail server, her uses of it, the contents of it, and the risks of it.
It's despicable, and indicative of the grossly degraded and corrupted US political culture, that the "mainstream" and corporate media collude in these lies, by NOT noticing or reporting them.
If i had lied like Clinton lies, i'd be serving a prison term.
So you think she's delusional.
There are many here who'd agree.
Not to mention Clinton's redefinition of progressive.
Sorry Hillary, progressives oppose war. We're the ones shouting "No more war!" You and yours are the ones trying to drown that out with chants of "U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A."
Don't pick your poison, pick your cure: Dr. Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka 2016
In that we're dealing with an intensely manipulated presentation of a media molded (s)electorial process I would submit that an extrapolation into that sphere would not be inappropriate. For example, here is a "narrative" describing (ahem) the filming of the red queen in Alice in Wonderland. One does not generally think about the breadth of considerations.
That statement is inoperative.
A point might be made about what this piece is about in general. That is, the way the media accepts an interpretation even when it isn't clear that anything was actually explained. It is like when the father says he is relieved to learn that his son hadn't lied to the mother. But the son did lie ...the father heard the explanation he preferred to hear even if it didn't explain.
What is the meaning of IS redux?
That has now progressed to what is the meaning of the word meaning.
Short Circuit? If no one asked what that meant, it's meaning was whatever they preferred to hear.
What is the meaning of meaning? It is what it is! Lol
"...Brave Patriots who died Defending the United States."
Depends of what your definition of "Defending" is.
If a lie falls in the forest and no one hears it, is it still a lie?
The Clintons', as others have noted, have their own definitions of words to mean - or hide - whatever they choose them to mean."The Trump" on the other hand has no inkling what words mean - he uses them as an ill or un-educated child or ordinary idiot, using his own language and slant with no intellectual or moral filter or understanding at all - the shouts of a carnival barker devoid of any integrity or veracity - "there's a sucker/fool born every minute".
The media has failed us all - betrayed their solemn function in our republic to report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - a quaint notion so out of favor and twisted it sounds ridiculous today - media, the MSM, parrot the words/statements/claims/evasions of politicians, government, the military, corporations, polluters, bankers, big-pharma and the insurance industries et al, verbatim with never a word of correction even if the parroted statement is so obtuse, false, deceitful or outright demonstrable lie, of course the people will believe any bloody rubbish broadcast these days.....Goebbels would be in hog heaven......
The big lie told often with never any challenge from "journalists", "reporters" or pretty talking-heads parrots, resonates with a (highly) malleable population and the whole truth given at best a back seat, if allowed to ride at all........
I now wonder if there was ever any journalistic integrity, or if it was just we once had competing news sources for different sides, so each was willing to report on the corruption of the other.
Either way, there are few real news outlets anymore, and none of them are on broadcast television.
The internet allows us to see real journalism from honest to God reporters and commentators. I think the only reason they've been allowed to continue is because the internet is such a good monitoring tool. Want to round up the radicals? No problem. Here's a list.
Technology has made spying pervasive and unintrusive. We don't see them sucking up all our emails and posts. We don't see the databases where all our communications reside. But they're there.
If they ever want to impose martial law, all the potential trouble-makers have already been identified and their communications will be monitored extensively. Cell phones will become the governments eyes and ears. You won't even need to make a call.
So, let's enjoy the illusion of freedom while we still can.
An Eye for an Eye in the Sky empirePie August 14th, 2016
Is it an ‘eye for an eye’ ….that for the eye in the sky
can drone on like Confucius?
Does the big book of omniscience
act like karma cooking the ledger
of the deed?
Does a pattern of belief over the subjects
knowing the ritual and the winds aloft
What will it be novice exceptionalism or experienced vaporizing?
He lost me right after " .... the use or misuse of her email is of no substantive importance...."
Also depends on your definition of 'the United States'.