Sorry if I'm overloading you with articles, but there's a new one out indicating that Hillary requested permission to use a Blackberry, but was denied by the NSA. Before she set up her server to communicate and forward all of her emails to the Blackberry. Again, flagrant negligence of security protocols. http://fortune.com/2016/03/17/clinton-email-server/ There's also a video of her talking about how quickly Blackberries were hacked by foreign governments. So, why did she use one for her official email? http://therightscoop.com/new-emails-...for-sos-email/ Anyway, you're probably still going through the others I sent you, so apologies again for dumping this all on you. Just wanted to keep the information flowing as more is uncovered.
Yeah, I don't think their new show started but they've got a contract to do three seasons of it for amazon's streaming service. I'm sure it'll find its way to torrent sites for those of us who don't have access to that though.
I also ran into this article by the Wall Street Journal. I was looking for more information on Windows 10 (Microsoft is REALLY starting to piss me off), and it popped up on the news feed. http://www.wsj.com/articles/very-muc...azi-1454353593 An opinion piece, and not the easiest read, but it does cite sources and list more information indicating malfeasance. BTW, haven't the Top Gear staff moved on to a new show? I have no desire to watch Top Gear without them, but I would be interested in checking out their new project, if it's begun.
No problem man. I'll check out the articles. I appreciate you going to the trouble to find some of them.
And I'm sorry if those aren't the best or most complete articles. I am admittedly not a very good researcher at this sort of thing, I don't have the patience for it. Most of my original sources are articles by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times (which we keep behind our registers and I have to trade out every morning), and locating some of those past articles, especially ones which aren't the day's biggest headline, online is incredibly difficult. But I tried to go for the most mainstream, most complete, and most factual that I could locate on short notice.
This is the most complete one I could find, mentioning the levels of secrecy info, the number that she had that are still withheld, and the mention of the email containing direct intelligence from a US spy: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cret/?page=all Coverage of information marked classified at the time it was written: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ne...rticle/2579394 Coverage of the tech expert who set up the server and was recently given immunity: http://nypost.com/2016/03/03/hillary...-probe-report/ The closest thing I could find to directly pointing out that the email accounts that she used were registered directly to her server, and therefore did not take into account the secrecy of information sent/received: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/us...ersy.html?_r=0 And an admittedly biased as hell article that nonetheless provides the clearest proof that confidentiality is independent of the classified markings: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...-doesnt-matter
Just news articles would be nice. I don't need to know the actual person who said things if it states the department of organization. I'm just genuinely curious to see articles stating and explaining the claims you made because i genuinely haven't seen many myself. Not that i don't believe you, this stuff has just slipped under my radar if true. Can't keep up with everything in the news of course.
Could you tell me what sort of sources you are looking for? I admit that I am not an expert at tracking down the original statements. I have plenty of news articles, mostly from the mainstream news media. There is a great deal of redundancy there, with information being reported by places like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, etcetera. But they rarely directly reveal their sources, merely listing them as "the State Department" or "the FBI". The information on the tech expert, for example, was revealed just a couple of weeks ago, and it's available from every major news outlet with a quick Google search. Do you need citations on the laws I am referring to, which state that the secrecy of documents is based on content, not the classification? Just not quite sure what you want.
I'd say go heavy in the gunslinger direction. Possibly full gunslinger unless there are some abilities that just seem better under sniper. I think one of the gunslinger abilities is an aim bonus the turn after hunkering down, but i never hunker so it was pointless to me. Real gunslingers are always gunslinging.
Do you have any care how your Sharpshooter is specialized? Gunslinger, Sniper, or some combination of the two?
