Quote

Hillary Clinton told the FBI that she thought classification markings in the paragraphs of her emails at the Department of State were to organize messages in alphabetical order, according to the FBI’s newly released report on her private email server.

 

“When asked what the parenthetical ‘C’ meant before a paragraph within the captioned email, [Clinton] stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order,” read the FBI’s notes from the interview.

A “C” in parentheses in the body of an email is used to designate a specific paragraph as containing classified information.

Emails containing sensitive information are supposed to have “C” markings at the top of the message or in the subject line.

Clinton, former secretary of State, told the FBI that she understood that emails that are labeled with a “C” are classified.

When FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Oversight Committee in July, he said that classified emails found on Clinton’s server were not properly marked with a “C” in the heading, but did contain parenthetical C’s in the body.

 

 

buduci lider sveta ima dileme sta znaci slovo c na vrhu poverljivog materijala. 

Naravno da zna šta znači to C, samo u trenutku komunikacije se to nije činilo psoebno bitnim (verovala je da je sistem bezbedan) i sada malo zavlači FBI. Big deal. U poziciji u kojoj je bolje je da ispadne glupa nego da ju je bilo baš briga.
 
Ono što je loše je da je manje-više očigledno da ona u blizini nema/nije imala poverljivu a uticajnu osobu da joj kaže "nemoj to da radiš, to je loše zbog toga i toga a i protivzakonito je", tj čini se da se kružok oko nje baš lomi da joj ugodi bez pogovora i korekcije. S takvom ekipom u WH niko se neće dobro provesti, pretpostavljam bar da će Tajna služba imati neki glas u svemu tome.
 
 

pa da, bus mladji je izgurao mandate govoreci o internetima i uz priznanje da ne koristi e-mail. dzon stjuart je opisao hilari odlicno, deluje kao kada se stariji ljudi nakace na facebook pa nisu sigurni kako sve funkcionise.

Slavoj Žižek, Clinton, Trump i trijumf globalnog kapitalizma

  On 31. 8. 2016. at 19:06, dragance said:

Mnogo ljudi u stvari i ne zna sta je to Obamacare, niti razliku izmedju Medicaid i Medicare. Najveci "pokazatelj neuspeha" jeste veoma nizak enrolment, daleko manji od planiranog, kao i nespremnost dobrog dela co-ops koji su usli u "exchange". No, to bi se sve moglo pripisati prvim koracima; trebace im dosta godina i srece da novi provajderi opstanu i tek onda ce postati pametniji i efektniji.

 

Naravno, ovo nista ne odgovara osiguravajucim kompanijama, koje su dobro izfinansirale i izlobirale citavu ovu galamu.

 

Za mene najbolji deo Obamacare jesu ACO (Accountable Care Organisations) i njihov model finansiranja, koji je bez premca i nesto sto bih ja svakako hteo da se rasiri po celom svetu: ACO's potpisu ugovor sa Medicare/Medicaid i ugovorom se obavezu da ce smanjiti (npr.) rehospitalizaciju spinal cord injury pacijenata zbog pressure ulcera za 15% u ovoj godini. Ako uspeju, dobiju $x miliona dolara, ako fulaju, placaju penale - dobiju manje, itd.

 

Razlika je to sto u tim ustanovama specijalista ne bi uvek slao na specijalisticke preglede, x ray, itd samo da bi nabudzio svoj novcanik, vec im je obaveza da pacijenti ozdrave, tj ne podlegnu nekim boljkama koje su skoro pa obavezne (kao recimo u SCI slucajevima). Edit: placeni su za outcome, a ne za transaction.

ovo je nesto najgluplje sto sam procitao ko zna od kada. poenta svega je da lekari moraju da pokusaju da izlece svakoga, ma kolike mu sanse bile. masu puta se desi da i pored truda najboljih doktora pacijent ipak baci kasiku, oni nisu svemoguci. i sad ce leciti samo pacijente koji imaju debelu sansu da ozdrave, u ostale nece ulagati vreme i sredstva jer se jednostavno ne isplati. i jos mogu da bankrotiraju ako se tri pacijenta uzastopno odluce da ih zajebu i umru.

 

 

ps. zizak car ko i (skoro) uvek.

Edited September 3, 20168 yr by Miralem

  On 2. 9. 2016. at 22:49, theanswer said:

Nije znala da C na dokumentu znači classified, verovatno je mislila da znači cunt

 

  On 3. 9. 2016. at 14:13, kipo said:

Slavoj Žižek, Clinton, Trump i trijumf globalnog kapitalizma

 

Ono kako je "Trump ocistio GOP od religioznih fundamentalista" i kako je sad to "partija koja prihvata abortus i gay prava" - how yes no, nigga puhlease

  On 3. 9. 2016. at 15:38, Miralem said:

ovo je nesto najgluplje sto sam procitao ko zna od kada. poenta svega je da lekari moraju da pokusaju da izlece svakoga, ma kolike mu sanse bile. masu puta se desi da i pored truda najboljih doktora pacijent ipak baci kasiku, oni nisu svemoguci. i sad ce leciti samo pacijente koji imaju debelu sansu da ozdrave, u ostale nece ulagati vreme i sredstva jer se jednostavno ne isplati. i jos mogu da bankrotiraju ako se tri pacijenta uzastopno odluce da ih zajebu i umru.

 

 

 

ps. zizak car ko i (skoro) uvek.

Stvarno najgluplje?

 

Realnost u stvarnom svetu je drugačija.

  On 3. 9. 2016. at 19:39, dragance said:

Stvarno najgluplje?

 

Realnost u stvarnom svetu je drugačija.

 

Zapravo Miralem nije citao nasu prepisku u vezi s mojom zebnjom, koju je Miralem izrazio drugim recima, jer bi nasao odgovor na svoju tvrdnju u jednom od tvojih postova. Drugi je padez da li je tvoje resenje, adekvatna kontrola i regulacija, zapravo resenje ili uvod u jos kontrole i regulacije i postovanja slova umesto duha zakona.

To niko neće znati, na svačiju veliku žalost. Bar dok se ne rasprostrani.

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating — better than the American Red Cross.

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation “raises questions.”

But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, “no.”

 

 

Krugman. Ne mogu dalje.

 

 

 

 

 

Fali samo Babac™ kao Borg Kvin...

  On 5. 9. 2016. at 13:24, theanswer said:

 

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating — better than the American Red Cross.

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation “raises questions.”

But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, “no.”

 

 

Krugman. Ne mogu dalje.

 

 

a pa jebote, ovo je DejanVuk+Anđelković nivo.

Vrlo putinovski, ili mozda orbanovski moram da primetim.

 

 

Ni Facebook ne da:

 

I called out PBS for censoring Jill Stein. And now I have been censored by Facebook. The video (still on Youtube) reveals PBS selectively editing out nearly two-thirds of Jill’s response to the last interview question.

 

The Facebook video got more than 5k shares and 100k views and in less than 24 hrs. And then all of a sudden, this afternoon, it disappeared.

 

https://medium.com/@0rf/now-i-have-been-censored-by-facebook-ac1ffe094476#.9m2q8db4d

Stislo malo.

 

CNN/ORC: Trump 45, Clinton 43, Johnson 7, Stein 2 | Trump 49, Clinton 48