Email

If you think Hillary Clinton used bleach or acid on her email, you have uncritically accepted right-wing misinformation.

There were 24 mentions of “acid” in the context of a server — and 93 mentions of “bleach.” The frequency with which Trump made this claim about Clinton using bleach (which is not an acid) or acid to destroy her emails should not be underestimated. But because his statements are taken without skepticism and because his defenders are so habituated to defending him, even egregiously false claims simply become part of the narrative. If the story had instead been that Clinton turned over relevant documents and then ensured that the emails sent and received couldn’t be retrieved from the server by any hacker or criminal — how her team described the action, with justification — the entire episode seems less sketchy. Destroying a phone with a hammer (an effective way of preventing its data from being accessed, certainly) got muddled with the “acid-washing” into a broad sense that Clinton’s team had taken extraordinary steps to destroy evidence. On Monday, the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, apparently to recover material that Trump took from the White House when he left office in January 2021. Nobody even heard about it before, and nobody does it because it’s a very expensive process.” (Again, the software is free.) “But why do you acid-wash or bleach the emails? (Copies of emails Clinton’s attorneys said were related to her official work had already been turned over to the government.) In August 2016, the investigation into the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 had evolved into an investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. When you’re using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see.” Republicans, wringing as much from the probe as possible to hobble the Democratic nominee for president that year, were casting a wide net in trying to escalate the public’s sense of nefariousness about the private system. They believe that this is something Hillary Clinton did, in fact — because they have internalized one of the least credible claims made by Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election and, despite the ludicrousness of the idea, have never actually examined the viability of the idea.

In their review of 100000 emails, Princeton researchers found "about 13000 emails promised donation 'matching,' usually by unspecified entities.

Ben Riggs, the campaign manager for former fighter pilot Luke Mixon, one of Kennedy’s Democratic opponents, described these kinds of donations as "the life-blood of our campaign.” He also said finance reports would show an uptick. The conclusion won’t surprise you — when it comes to these political emails, "manipulative tactics are the norm, not the exception,” according to the study. The New York Times reported recently the "total amount donated online fell by more than 12 percent across all federal Republican campaigns and committees in the second quarter compared with the first quarter…” In the real world, Kennedy is shattering all fundraising records for an incumbent Louisiana senator. Like his counterparts in the U.S. Senate, Kennedy relies heavily on email communications for fundraising. These are actual subject lines from fundraising appeals made by Kennedy’s campaign in recent weeks, more times than not personally signed by the senator himself.

In a remote working world, emails have become the norm. However, some common email sign-offs and greetings can come across as passive aggressive.

So, what should we do in that case when we do have to write a difficult email? Do you think perhaps that in English there's more attention paid or people feel a little bit more sensitive about language, and some other languages are maybe a little bit more direct? So, I think what we've got to think about the basics.

Editor's note: Jim Rossman's technology column, now being distributed by Tribune News Service, returns to The Dallas Morning News this week as part of the.

The big benefit of having an email account from Google or Microsoft or Apple is that you get to use it regardless of your internet provider. Look for the account settings page, which is where you can change your email address. You can also create a category for websites that send you information. You might not have an account there, but you can visit the site again and sign up for the newsletter with your new address. Editor’s note: Jim Rossman’s technology column, now being distributed by Tribune News Service, returns to The Dallas Morning News this week as part of the Plugged In package. Notifying your personal contacts is easy.

In a remote working world, emails have become the norm. However, some common email sign-offs and greetings can come across as passive-aggressive.

So, what should we do in that case when we do have to write a difficult email? Do you think perhaps that in English there's more attention paid or people feel a little bit more sensitive about language, and some other languages are maybe a little bit more direct? So, I think what we've got to think about the basics.

Google's plan would allow for candidates, political party committees, and leadership political action committees to apply for the program that would make ...

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) argued that Google’s proposal would be a boon for Republicans and open Gmail up to “abusive fundraising tactics.” Former President Donald Trump’s campaigns have come under fire for using spammy tactics in its fundraising emails, often using misleading subject lines or mimicking conversations voters might have with friends and family over the internet. The New York Times reported last month that the total amount donated to GOP entities and federal campaigns fell by more than 12 percent in the second quarter when compared to the first quarter. Google announced its political filtering plans shortly after a recent study found that the company was disproportionately flagging Republican fundraising emails as spam when compared to those of Democratic lawmakers and candidates. Because of the program’s exclusivity, Weintraub likened it to Google offering its own “in-kind” contribution to political groups. Google’s plan, first reported by Axios in June, would allow for candidates, political party committees, and leadership political action committees to apply for the program that would make their messages exempt from Gmail’s spam detection systems.

The Federal Election Commission voted 4-1 Thursday to approve a Google pilot program that would keep campaign emails out from automatically going to Gmail's ...

She claimed the tech giant pursued the program because "Google is constantly iterating, and looking at ways to improve all of its products, including Gmail." - The FEC'sdraft answersays it would be lawful for Google to offer the pilot program to eligible participants. And the problem is only getting worse. He was shot after he raised a gun toward officers around 3:40pm, according to Ohio State Highway Patrol. Now Google has to decide whether to go ahead with it. Catch up quick: Early this summer, Google asked the Federal Election Commission to greenlight a program that could keep campaign emails from ending up in spam folders, responding to backlash from Republican leaders who accused Gmail of being biased, Axios previously reported.

The Federal Election Commission on Thursday advised Google that a proposed pilot program allowing political campaigns to evade automated spam detection ...

Here’s a complete calendar of all the primaries in 2022. Rajan said the company made the decision to remain unbiased “long ago.” Broussard asked whether product enhancement involves considering the perspective of users, thousands of whom wrote to the FEC to object to the proposed pilot program. An attorney for Google, Claire Rajan, told commissioners before the Thursday vote that the program was designed for commercial purposes and not to influence an election. The company sought FEC approval for the program following a pressure campaign waged by Republicans, who accused Google of unfairly filtering its emails. We will continue to monitor feedback as the pilot rolls out to ensure it is meeting its goals.”

The Federal Election Commission approved a new Google plan to stop automatically flagging fundraising messages as spam.

Get ready for the flood of fundraising emails over the next few months. Google proposed the plan in response to Republicans raising the issue of bias in Gmail’s spam filtering system earlier this summer. Maybe it’s Google’s fault or maybe it has something to do with the hugely unpopular revocation of Roe v.

Gmail users who have expressed outrage at hyperbolic and misleading political emails won't like the Federal Election Commission's vote on Thursday.

Put simply: Google wanted the government's reassurance that it isn't breaking any law by giving politicians and political operatives a potentially valuable service. Any committee registered with the FEC, whose emails comply with Google's terms of service and don't contain prohibited content such as malware or phishing schemes, could apply to participate. "I don't want to, and it's for the same reasons that all the commenters don't want to," newly appointed Democratic Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum said before voting in favor of Google's request. Republicans and Democrats alike have engaged in spammy, misleading, and even patently false email campaigns. "If people want political spam, let them sign up for it. As described in its initial request to the FEC, Google wants to "launch a pilot program for authorized candidate committees, political party committees, and leadership political action committees" that would ensure the emails of accepted committees "will not be affected by forms of spam detection to which they would otherwise be subject."

The US Federal Election Commission on Thursday voted 4-1 to allow Google to create a program exempting qualified political email from Gmail spam filtering, ...

- Google Nest - Google AI Josh Nelson, CEO of Civic Shout, a petitioning service focused on progressive causes, condemned the FEC decision. Another tranche of 85 comments about Google's proposal in a file [PDF] dated August 8 is similarly unanimous in its resistance to the idea. The comments look largely like this, but with more capital letters: Google has challenged the study for supposed methodological flaws and a limited sample size.

Google will now allow candidates and political party committees to apply for its programme that would make their messages exempt from Gmail's spam detection ...

Google had asked the FEC in June to allow a programme that could keep campaign emails from ending up in spam folders. "I have a hard time getting around the fact that this is a unique benefit offered to political committees, and only political committees," FEC commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub said in the report. FEC) in the US to keep politician campaign emails from being marked as spam.