FBI: Review of New Emails Doesn't Change Conclusion on Clinton (cnn.com) 733
FBI director James Comey told Congress Sunday that the new scrutiny of emails related to Hillary Clinton has turned up nothing that would cause the bureau to recommend charges against her. The conclusion comes nine days after rocking the presidential race with word that a new trove of emails had been discovered. "During that process, we have reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of State," Comey wrote. "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton." From a report on CNN:"We were always confident nothing would cause the July decision to be revisited. Now Director Comey has confirmed it," tweeted Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. Comey's last-minute announcement gives Clinton an opportunity for an I-told-you-so moment -- but it's unlikely to undo the political damage of his initial announcement. Trump and his allies have seized on that announcement, using it claim Clinton is likely to face criminal charges. "If she were to win, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis," Trump claimed Saturday night in Reno, Nevada. "In that situation we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt." The political benefit for Trump has been that Republicans who'd been skeptical of their party's nominee have largely followed vice presidential nominee Mike Pence's calls to "come home" to the party -- finding Trump less objectionable than Clinton.
If anyone knows the difficulty of Email Ownership. (Score:2)
It's Strong Bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
650k emails in 9 days (Score:5, Interesting)
That's pretty damn impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they spread the emails out to an entire task group rather than one person?
Re:650k emails in 9 days (Score:5, Funny)
Once they built a filter for Weiner's dick pics, the remaining 37 emails were pretty easy to get through.
Make that 7 days (Score:3)
The FBI didn't get the warrant to search the emails until Oct. 30. http://www.nbcnews.com/politic... [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, if only we had some technology to automate computable tasks like finding patterns on emails...
Re: (Score:2)
And classify the security rating of each one in under a minute each, ensuring no unmarked confidential or top secret information within. Unlikely.
You make the assumption that all the 723 emails needed high level of scrutiny.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, oddly enough, a little over 10% a day, over 9 days does in fact add up to 100%
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seriously suggesting that the entire FBI dropped everything else it was doing to handle this? Not only is that implausible, it's easily verifiable to be false because if that had happened, somebody would have mentioned it to the press and they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
What about her maid? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It all falls under the heading of "stupid but not prosecutable".
People mishandle classified information all the time. The FBI occasionally emails it out in response to FOI requests. People are only prosecuted when it's malicious or there is evidence that the documents were leaked and used against the US as a result.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like the sailor that took a picture in a classified area? [washingtontimes.com]
Petty Officer Saucier was charged last year with one count of unlawful retention of national defense information and one count of obstruction of justice after prosecutors said the sailor used his cellphone to take snapshots in classified engine room on the USS Alexandria, a nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic at the time, then attempted to destroy evidence when he learned an investigation had been launched.
Or David Petraeus [wikipedia.org].
In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an affair), while serving as the director of the CIA. Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.
Or John M. Deutch [wikipedia.org]
Deutch had agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor for mishandling government secrets on Friday, January 19, 2001, but President Clinton pardoned him in his last day in office, two days before the Justice Department could file the case against him.
[Not holding my breath for an Obama Pardon either]
Or Sandy Berger [wikipedia.org]
was an American political consultant who served as the United States National Security Advisor for President Bill Clinton from March 14, 1997, until January 20, 2001. Before that he served as the Deputy National Security Advisor for the Clinton Administration from January 20, 1993, until March 14, 1997.
On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke covering internal assessments of the Clinton Administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003, allegedly by stuffing the documents into his socks and pants. Berger subsequently lied to investigators when questioned about the removal of the documents.
In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington.
Or Bryan H. Nishimura [fbi.gov].
According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system
Re:What about her maid? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm familiar with all of those cases, and they all contain one, if not two, critical elements that Clinton's lacks.
1) They all knew the information was classified when they mishandled it.
2) In most of the cases they shared either that information with someone they knew to be unauthorized, or looked like they were going to.
Re: (Score:3)
1) You're telling me the Secretary of State didn't think she'd be getting classified e-mails to her server?
2) You mean like the maid? [nypost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
1) Classified emails weren't ever supposed to be sent over anything but the system explicitly for classified intelligence. Should she have realized people would screw up? Sure, but people make mistakes. She shouldn't be thrown in jail anymore than the senders of those emails.
2) If she didn't know the information was classified then she wasn't knowingly sharing it with an unauthorized person.
Re: (Score:3)
No, she's not accused of anything, actually, unless you count blowhards on TEE-VEE or the internet saying nasty things as an accusation; those are certainly not legal accusations.
They've "investigated" but they were investigating to find out if they even think a crime was committed, and they found there was no crime. That's a far cry from an actual person being legally accused of something. It goes beyond even innocent of committing a crime; no crime was even committed!
Since no crime was actually found, any
Comey (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone told me Comey was irresponsible and wasn't worth listening to last week. Why should we care what he says now?
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree. This "result" just further confirms it.
Re: (Score:2)
Just yesterday I heard the FBI spent years investigating an online cult the didn't exist [slashdot.org]. Those guys are discredited. Just in time too. What a coincidence!
Re: (Score:3)
Totally agree. This "result" just further confirms it.
Heh. The irony, the Trump camp was cheering on the FBI when the new emails were found, and now that the emails have been cleared, the Trump campaign claims Comey has botched the investigation from the beginning. At least I can agree with them on that, Yes, he botched it, he should not have sent the letter to congress about the new emails until he actually found something, this DOES NOT change the conclusion, it just proves that he is a fucking idiot (or out to prove something), but that does not invalidate
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the fact that he strongly hints that discovery of wrongdoing has been reversed in a week tells me Obama should show him the door. If he isn't a corrupt partisan, he's an incompetent.
Because of logic (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, if you are taking comey seriously all the way, or discarding him all the way , the same conclusion come : the email re-review is not relevant.
Proudly on the road to gridlock (Score:5, Insightful)
It appears we would have been better off electing a Ficus Tree instead, it would have operated on a much smaller budget.
Re:Proudly on the road to gridlock (Score:5, Insightful)
Then our only choice for moving forward is to take away the GOP's majority in both houses of congress.
It is totally unacceptable for one party to simply choose to "negate" the results of elections that they do not like, and we've already had significant damage done to the credibility of our government, economy, and currency because of it, and another 2-8 years of gridlock would be a huge (yuuuuuuuuuuge) mistake.
Re:Proudly on the road to gridlock (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, single party rule worked out OK for the Chinese, lets do it! End the Republican Party!
We already have de facto single-party rule, so long as one of the two parties consistently refuses to participate anything resembling the running of the government.
Let's restore two-party rule by replacing the Republican Party with a functional one. Libertarians, you're up.
Re: (Score:3)
The GOP will ensure that no matter the composition of the house and senate after this week, nothing will be allowed to progress under President Clinton. No supreme court vacancies will be filled
I suppose there is no reason for the incoming Democratic Senate not to exercise "the nuclear option" regarding Supreme Court nominations, then.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
He said lots of contradictory things and you just picked the pieces you agree with.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. He thought it was stupid that they announced the assault on Mosul ahead of time. All the leaders are going to flee to safety he complains!!!
Of course this was an operation coordinated with thousands of Iraqi soldiers, Kurdish militias, and various diverse but aligned rebel groups who had been preparing for weeks. Trump thought it could be a sneak attack LOL. Who exactly is stupid?
Not to mention I'm sure the NSA et al were watching closely to see who was trying to flee. Sometime shaking the tree i
Re: (Score:3)
Scandals every 2 months (Score:2)
For the next 4 years. That's the kind of stability you can vote for on Tuesday. Why take a chance on an uncertain future when you could pick someone with a proven track record?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
O Slashdot, where is thy sting? (Score:3)
There's 2 forums that I read a lot, basically lurk on, and occasionally post. One is Slashdot, and the other is Fark.
I like Slashdot because sometimes some very smart techie people will post interesting insights into techie issues.
Fark, of course, is mostly known for snarky frat-boy humor.
But! I'm embarrassed to say that Slashdot users, whom I gave way too much credit for intelligence, are proving to be trolls, knuckle-draggers, and mouth-breathers of the very worst sort.
Whereas Fark seems to have some very intelligent and balanced conversations about some of the very same subjects, including politics.
Just goes to show, basement-dwellers might know how to hack, but you wouldn't want to hang out with any of them.
The whitewash continues (Score:4, Interesting)
No, not the whitewash of Clinton's mishandling of classified data. I accept what the head of the FBI told Congress (under oath), that Secretary Clinton is too stupid to understand what she was doing was illegal. OK, fine.
But there's at least 110 emails sent to her that contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. That's the whitewash. Each of those emails represents at least three federal crimes:
Removing the classified data from secure computers
Removing the fact that it's classified
Sending it through a non-secure channel.
That's a minimum of 330 serious crimes by the people who sent those emails. There is no investigation of those people, and there will be one. No one will ever go to prison for those crimes. I'm guessing that most of them were sent by Clinton appointees, insiders who would be very, very embarrassing to Clinton should they be prosecuted. But we'll never know, because the White House (and it can't come from anywhere else) has whitewashed the entire affair.
That's the coverup.
This changes nothing for most people (Score:3)
This changes nothing for most people (just like with the previous FBI 'bombshell').
That's because the vast majority of people pick a candidate early on and don't change their pick no matter what happens.
All this bullshit about the polls going back and forth is nonsense. The media ALWAYS try to portray it as a neck-and-neck horse race when it almost never is.
I mean, hello? Remember McCain-Obama and Romney-Obama? Each time the media played it up as a "virtual dead heat OMG!!1!", and each time it was a fucking landslide. It's the same this time around.
But I digress. Only the genuinely brain-damaged "undecided" voters would change their vote at this late stage, and frankly if you're still undecided at this point you're really too stupid to be entrusted with voting.
Whatever side you pick, how could anyone be moronic as not to see the difference between the two candidates or to not have made a choice months ago?
It's not like the candidates are similar or have even slightly overlapping views. Whatever choice you make, that choice should have been clear to you early on.
The "undecided" voters don't mean shit. They've never swayed an election and they never will. There just aren't enough of them to matter.
Charges wouldn't do a damn thing (Score:3)
Obama could simply pardon her, even before the trial. Ford did it for Nixon. It may cost her the election.
Re: (Score:2)
"Wrong" and "illegal" are two different things. Despite what certain politicians may say, the American judicial system is built to ensure that only people who do illegal things go to jail. I'm not saying it works perfectly at making sure people who don't do illegal things stay out of jail, but that's another discussion. What's important in this case is that we don't just decide "this person ought to be in jail", and invent retroactive mechanisms to imprison them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to beat up on you, but you are showing a notable lacking of understanding how the legal system works in this country.
This is a decision of whether or not to indict. It doesn't send people to jail, it sends them to court where they are tried by a judge and jury of their peers.
Comey's own statements have been to the effect he found wrongdoing but decided not to recommend it be sent to a court. (If you doubt read his original press conference on this)
Are you mental? (Score:5, Interesting)
Rock it on Tuesday, Hill! Slashdot is with You!
You are clearly reading a different slashdot than I am, in order to come to that conclusion. Slashdot has leaned hard-right for years (often under the pretend claim of "libertarianism"). More slashdot users will vote for Trump than Hillary, and quite likely more will abstain from voting altogether (due to Trump being not conservative enough) than will vote for her as well.
Re:Are you mental? (Score:5, Insightful)
The current poll on the front page has a pretty solid 8% lead for Clinton. I think it's just that the Trump supporters are better organised, modding each other up and doing a good job of reposting the current set of taking points.
That's kind of what I'm seeing (Score:3)
But then I read he took $900k from one of the biggest H1-B reliant outsourcing firms out there and basically gave up on that. I haven't heard him say much more than "Crooked Hi
Re: (Score:3)
See the gender gap [npr.org] for an explanation. A Florida doctor (a scientist, so read it with a hushed reverence) has a theory about the outliers [washingtonpost.com].
Re:Are you mental? (Score:5, Informative)
There is a poll here on slashdot right now that shows that the readers are hardcore liberals.
First of all, the poll doesn't mean shit. You get a much better idea of the composition of slashdot readers by actually reading their comments - and looking at the articles that make the front page.
Second, hardcore liberals are nearly universally disappointed with Hillary. Hardcore liberals either supported Bernie and will hold their nose while voting for Hillary, or are supporting Jill Stein. There is nothing hardcore liberal about Hillary.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a poll here on slashdot right now that shows that the readers are hardcore liberals.
First of all, the poll doesn't mean shit. You get a much better idea of the composition of slashdot readers by actually reading their comments - and looking at the articles that make the front page.
I don't think you can extrapolate to all readers from the commenters, but I do agree that there is a very vocal alt-right subgroup who has been taking over the comments.
Second, hardcore liberals are nearly universally disappointed with Hillary. Hardcore liberals either supported Bernie and will hold their nose while voting for Hillary, or are supporting Jill Stein. There is nothing hardcore liberal about Hillary.
I'd disagree with this. Bernie's core constituency was millennials more than liberals, or people who think the current system is completely broken and needs to be rebuilt. I'd consider myself a fairly hardcore liberal and I'm pretty enthusiastic about Clinton. My fundamental disagreement with Sanders is I think you should move incrementally,
Re:And I left out #spiritcooking which is just cre (Score:5, Insightful)
RWNJ stands for Right Wing Nut Job, and is a left wing smear against anyone who questions the glorious leftist narrative.
Incidentally, due in large part to the growing ubiquity of leftist views in America, a sort of Left Wing Nut Job archetype has been taking shape. These are your basic "Trump is a Russian plant", "Biological sex is a myth", or "Hillary is the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy" type of people.
Really, the alt-right and progressives (AKA alt-left) are essentially the same sorts of people but with different ideological backgrounds. They both clamor for utopian fantasies, berate detractors with hateful insults and rhetoric, and generally wrap themselves up in worldviews that assume everyone on the other side is some combination of evil, stupid, or insane.
Both sides are incredibly toxic and are, in my opinion, regrettable side effects of the rise of internet culture and the ease with which it allows the creation of unassailable safe-space echo chambers where circlejerks and groupthink are the entire point.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Informative)
He's not changing the fact that he said anyone else doing what she did would face serious consequences, and that different treatment applied to her. He's not changing the fact that the FBI spent more time interviewing Brad Pitt about his argument with his son on an airplane than they spent interviewing Hillary Clinton
Yup, nothing has changed since July. Same corruption and the lasting pressure from the Clinton political machine through Obama down to Loretta Lynch's office. No change at all.
You don't fucking care about emails. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Bush administration lost 22 million emails because their entire crew was using private emails servers for administration business. How come nobody cared about that? oh, right, because at the time we were spending a trillion $ and thousands of lives searching for WMDs that didn't exist while outing CIA agents and letting people drown in New Orleans.
You couldn't care less about emails. You hate Hillary (and Obama) and that's it. No big surprise there--lots of assholes hate Hillary, it's one of the best th
Re: (Score:3)
What's it like to live a lie? (Score:3)
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
"Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in re
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary did plenty wrong.
1) Used a private email server for classified government business.
2) lied about it.
3) destroyed evidence which was under subpoena aka obstruction of justice.
General Cartright is facing facing five years for similar security violations.
Re: Of course (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps Trump should explain why the New York State Attorney General ordered his foundation to cease operations in New York [nytimes.com] because of its illegal activities.
Not to mention the "donation" the foundation gave to the Florida State Attorney General's campaign, also illegal, which oddly made the state's investigation of Trump's fraudulent University mysteriously go away.
Re: Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Clinton directed her maid to print unclassified emails that were retroactively classified years later.
But that doesn't get yer juices flowing like yet another conspiracy, so carry on!
Trump that Bitch!
Lock Her Up!
Hillary for Prison!
Re: Of course (Score:4, Informative)
Also she had her uncleared maid picking up secure faxes from the SCIF in her residence. Ain't no excuses for that one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did anybody really think she wouldn't beat the rap? Clinton should undoubtedly be prosecuted, but that all depends on the DOJ doing its job, an agency which is thoroughly corrupt and run by a Clinton ally.
This is only the email case, not the other four active investigations, so there is a glimmer of hope that Clinton might be brought to justice. But if she is running the executive branch? None whatsoever.
Unfortunately, the Washington insiders have managed to maintain control of their system, even after thin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obama pardoning her would not pardon himself. Trump winning on Tuesday would be a big tell, because you will see the pardon lists starting then. There is a whole lot of mess involved in this, and I'm sure he's smart enough to weigh the options. Him pardoning Clinton would not end the investigations, and in fact it would probably accelerate them greatly. President Obama could look really really bad when things are all done. We know for a fact that he was emailing Clinton at her private server. Who know
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly, the recent FOIA dumps had some new info on Vince Foster.
It seems that they found his suicide note, in which he basically took all blame on himself and said that Clinton did nothing wrong.
However, they appear to have somehow lost the gun with which he committed suicide. The documents did not explain how that could have happened.
Re: Of course (Score:5, Funny)
Hillary didn't know what a fax was. She thought it was a wax paper dispenser. She needed wax paper to make a gingerbread house for the neighbor kids. She's absolutely, 100 percent not guilty. You people should just stop investigating her.
Re: Of course (Score:3)
Oh, and anything bad that Wikileaks dumps in the next two days is false! [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Nice try, but some of the incoming stuff was classified under systems other than the State Department system (e.g. DoD), which Clinton would not be able to authorize.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Clinton directed her maid to print unclassified emails that were retroactively classified years later.
Removing the classified markings from a classified document doesn't make it unclassified.
Classified information is classified regardless of whether it is marked or not.
Hillary had protective markings removed from some documents - see above.
Your claim is basically rubbish.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure why this got modded troll, it's all true.
What's worse? We had a "quid pro quo" offer in the FBI dumps to retroactively declassify one of the items.
The other fun part is when first confronted on that, they blamed Russia! For the FBI FOIA material. Seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That is the worse thing you get from the emails, seriously. How about "let them kill themselves until they tire of it", this whilst supply arms to Saudi Arabia, who then supplied those arms to sex slavers, who took over whole towns and cities and lead to, at a wild guess, a million rapes (she even acknowledged full awareness of this and still signed off on the supply of arms and munitions). All this upon the basis of donations to the Clinton Foundation, which uses the money as payoffs for those who have arr
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The USCs involved DO NOT have intent as a qualifier anywhere in them. They are strictly "yes you did" or "no you did not" mishandle classified information. Go read the USC so you don't have to speak from ignorance.
FWIW, the whole argument against Comey from Gowdy is exactly that fact. Nowhere else is intent measured in determining whether or not the law was broken. If Intent was considered, Snowden would not have had to flee the US and Manning would not be in jail. They leaked because Whistle blower la
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes but that only means they should be in the cell next to hers. As the Boss she would have been expected to get off her fat ass, go down the hall and kick the shit out of who ever was sending her emails improperly. She didn't do that.
Basic State Dept email, if it is at all similar to our military email. You could send and receive confidential email all day long as long as you encrypted it before you sent it. I'm sure she had access to the higher level systems as well, but they are a pain in the ass to set up and have to be physically secured (locked doors, safes,etc) which probably didn't jive with her "I'm Hillary hear me roar attitude", which is why we have this mess in the first place.
My time in the Air Force this was hammered home over and over again to all levels. Her claiming she didn't know is very difficult to believe since training is required every year and mandatory briefings on security procedure every quarter with monthly updates and reminders as well. If she pencil whipped her training and briefing requirements that is entirely on her and her Boss (The President) no one else can be blamed for this. Over the course of my career I held everything from a secret (run of the mill security clearance all military get), secret SAR (special access request for my time working on the B2 Bomber, more than a Secret less than a Top Secret), and Top Secret (Russian crypto-linguist which I didn't stay in because I sucked at learning Russian but still ended up with the clearance anyway since they took so long to do.)
I watched dozens of officers and enlisted loose their jobs of much more benign violations of security protocols than the stunts she pulled.
Let's define terms to start off with.
CONFIDENTIAL – Will be applied to information in which the unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security.
SECRET – Will be applied to information in which the unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.
TOP SECRET – Will be applied to information in which the unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
Here are some examples to understand the different types of messages:
"Hey Joe call work, pack a bag, you are probably going TDY tomorrow" not a problem by any method.
"Hey Joe call work, pack a bag, we are sending you tonight TDY." Starting to edge into Confidential territory.
"Hey Joe call work, pack a bag, we are sending you tonight to Krap-ic-stan" (we don't normally go there for any reason.) This is definitely confidential and maybe even higher. You can't talk about this stuff outside on non-gov't un-encrypted systems.
"Hey Joe call work, pack your bag for a 6 month deployment to Krap-ic-stan. We are sending you and 30 other guys to an airfield to support 5 aircraft that are being sent there. This is most definitely Secret or higher now. You are not allowed to talk about this with anyone outside of work. You are not allowed to talk about this over unsecured networks. Email traffic has to be encrypted and only sent over the SIPR network (isolated secured network for Secret/Top Secret traffic) Anything higher level than that was way about my pay grade so if it exists I never saw it.
"Hey Joe call work, pack your bag for a 6 month deployment to Krap-ic-stan. We are sending you and 30 other guys to an airfield to support 5 aircraft. There are 200 other people being sent from the squadrons A, B, and C along with the Spec-Op guys who will be supporting the Army who will in turn will be supporting the rebels in Krap-ic-stan to take down their dictator." This is most definitely now Secret (we've been doing this
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How is that different than what the Clintons do with their foundation, and more particularly what Doug Band complained about Chelsea Clinton doing?
The difference is in one case these are proven facts, in the other allegations made in an email, by a person who is trying to defend himself from improprieties.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have some evidence to support that claim?
Terrified of Crimina Corruption in the Whitehouse (Score:2, Informative)
Even though Google is attempting to censor searching for Clinton's scandals they are still visible. Mostly based on this [washingtontimes.com], but I added some missed.
Monica Lewinsky: Led to only the second president in American history to be impeached. Hillary [washingtonpost.com] is not "pro-woman" as her and pundits will attempt to claim.
Benghazi: Four Americans killed, an entire system of weak diplomatic security uncloaked, and the credibility of a president and his secretary of state damaged.
Asia fundraising scandal: More than four dozen
Re: (Score:3)
I'm surprised you didn't mention the connection to ISIL???
The Clinton foundation accepted donations from Qatar and tried to hide it, and according to wikileaks, the government of Qatar is funding ISIL. Since it was in her leaked emails, she obviously knew about it.
http://mobile.reuters.com/arti... [reuters.com]
From https://wikileaks.org/podesta-... [wikileaks.org]:
we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
Re: (Score:3)
I gave the source in the first paragraph, as well as the explanation. Would you care to discount that those scandals existed with facts? I was around through most of those scandals being the lead topics on every major station for months. The Government was basically shut down during the impeachment process while we listened to Bill try to provide new definition to the word "is". Yeah, the bias is strong with you.
Re: (Score:3)
Did I at any point say she was found guilty? No, I did not. Did those scandals have impact on the USA? Yes they did. Is there enough reason to look at those and distrust the character of the person involved? Yes, there is. Is there any reason to look at the current financial status of the Clinton's and have distrust? Yes, there is.
Unfortunately for you I have actually studied most of these issues having quite a few years on most Slashdot posters. Most of that list have tremendous factual backing, bu
Re:Terrified of Crimina Corruption in the Whitehou (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that the Clintons are always 1 foot away from going to jail after all these scandals going back decades proves that they're completely honest, upright people.
How many more scandals do you think they'll somehow narrowly escape consequences for during the next 4 years? I'm going to guess 17 new scandals -- one new scandal every few months.
Re: (Score:3)
How many more scandals do you think they'll somehow narrowly escape consequences for during the next 4 years? I'm going to guess 17 new scandals -- one new scandal every few months.
Let's try to guess what they'll be.
* Something related to voter fraud
* Documents revealing that she doesn't really carry hot sauce in her purse
* Murder
* Pant-suit gate
Re:Terrified of Crimina Corruption in the Whitehou (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never been convicted of any crime. Therefore, by your logic, I'm a more powerful criminal than Al Capone?
I think that you believe that Hillary has not been convicted because she's bought all of the investigations. But among her opponents are very powerful Republican politicians. Not just one or two, but all of them. Some of her opponents are also billionaires. She and Bill are certainly not poor, but they cannot play in the same leagues as the Koch Bros and Sheldon Adelson (and supposedly Mr Trump). Maybe add the Russian intelligence agencies to that list of enemies. And her opponents have been coming after her for decades, and have so far proved that Bill gets blowjobs and Hillary is not competent at email security. Rather underwhelming.
Look, Hillary and Bill are powerful people, and they have some rich friends, but nobody is that invulnerable. Al Capone just had a few government agents who had to work within the rules against him; Hillary has half of the most powerful people in the USA (and many outside of the USA) gunning for her. If she was guilty, there would be proof. Instead, all we get is Wikileaks about, um, black magic or something equally moronic.
Re:Terrified of Crimina Corruption in the Whitehou (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually when it comes to email security her private server is not known to have ever been hacked, but the State Department email system did get hacked during the same time.
The only legit complaint about her email server is that is violated transparency guidelines. But note that, nobody else is reacting to it in a way that we get to read their emails; The Bush administration used the RNC email server, Colin Power used a private corporate email (which he really thinks is different than a self-hosted one, but only in that it isn't secure), Bill Clinton refused to use email as President, though he was apparently using it privately for non-work stuff. There are lots of Governors around the country who have an aide whose main job is reading and writing emails, and usually not because the Gov. doesn't know how. We don't have everybody else's email, so the actual transparency problem is hard to pin down.
Clearly she didn't follow President Obama's transparency directives any better than anybody else, but we don't have their emails either "for whatever reason." The reality is that almost everybody in politics agrees that if they think the public will read it later, they can't actually do work in that channel, because even if they don't do anything wrong it will feed lots of "gotcha" type nonsense that is all taken out of context.
I've been stopped by the cops over a hundred times, and I've never even paid a parking ticket. I have paid library fines, 50 cents already this year, but that is my only proven misdeed. I guess I'm a master criminal too! Or I just wear clothes the cops don't like, and they aren't any good at their job.
Re: (Score:3)
You also used to pretend you were a civil engineer who knew all about skyscraper construction. That was a lie. After your posts about how the military must have killed all those US civilians on the planes on 9/11 I very much doubt that you would hold the military in such contempt if you really are an Army Vet.
Are you being honest this time?
Re: (Score:3)
I seem to recall Petraeus giving the information to his mistress, a journalist? While Hillary used the information (she kinda needed it for her job, after all) she did not give classified information to unauthorized folks. Kinda not the same thing at all.
Also, the Petraeus case involved in some other crap (stalking, harassing, lying to investigators, etc); I suspect that the mishandling classified information charge was a plea-bargain to avoid more stuff.
Interesting: while reading about that case, I see t
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I get it. Don't bring facts and documented history into conversations and the Leftists will be happy. There is a sad reality with most people on the left. Do you know how many people on the left complain about Ann Coulter yet have never read a single book and can't discount a single fact she provides in her book? Answer is anecdotal, but 100% of the people on the Left I speak with have that exact affliction. None have read Marx, Friedman, Aristotle, Rand, Machiavelli, Adam Smith, the Federalist pap
Re: (Score:3)
Copypasta is copypasta, not "facts."
Just run in circles shouting Ann Coulter, I'm sure you'll eventually find somebody who cares what she has to say. What is her job again, why do you presume she has some information about the topic?
I sure as fuck don't Ann Coulter, but you're a total dipshit if you think I haven't read all of Ayn Rand's books, or Adam Smith. Who the fuck told you that liberals don't read Aristotle? Is that code for complaining that they agreed with Plato more, or do you actually think that
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they didn't change their conclusion because the important matters didn't change - she's still white, wealthy, and powerful.
We have come a long way in a historically short time to casually include a woman in that set.
Re: (Score:2)
Up until a century ago, women couldn't even vote in most Western countries, and in several had pretty severe constraints on obtaining divorces, inheriting property or enjoying a number of other legal protections. For Chrissakes, they were chattel.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, they let her off easy with a years long investigation culminating in a public announcement two weeks before the most important moment in her career, turning a near certain win into a neck and neck race.
Re:No constitutional crisis at all. (Score:5, Informative)
Something I don't get: vetting content sent TO her should not be her job. There should be professional scrubbers doing that kind of work. I've worked in many orgs, and executives aren't expected to be doing that kind of "grunt" work. It goes to cubicle peons, like me.
Also, her home server is not necessarily more or less safer than the regular office email. In fact, the regular S.D. email server was hacked. (There is a separate message system for classified content, but it's not technically "email". It's a diff animal.) The home-vs-office dichotomy seems moot, at least as far as handling classified info*. Putting it on the wrong office box versus the wrong personal box seems the same sin to me.
* She didn't get "official" approval to use a home server, and also didn't follow the proper rules for archiving. But that's diff than the classified info issue.
Re:No constitutional crisis at all. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sympathetic to arguments that classified rules are too strict, but Hillary shouldn't get special treatment. Elites getting special treatment is how we get unfair rules in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
The investigation began in 2012 when a waste station supervisor in Hampton, Connecticut, found Saucier’s cellphone with the submarine photos on top of a pile of demolition trash and showed it to his friend, who was a retired Navy chief and brought the phone to the NCIS, according to court documents.
So the photos were available to unauthorized people, and we have evidence of that. We don't have any evidence that it happened to Hillary's emails. There is quite a difference between speeding, and causing a traffic accident while speeding. And I know the example of General Petraeus, where we also have a quite different kettle of fish: Telling state secrets to someone not supposed to hear them for sexual favors.
All I take from the email affair so far is that s
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Something I don't get: vetting content sent TO her should not be her job. There should be professional scrubbers doing that kind of work. I've worked in many orgs, and executives aren't expected to be doing that kind of "grunt" work. It goes to cubicle peons, like me.
Also, her home server is not necessarily more or less safer than the regular office email. In fact, the regular S.D. email server was hacked. (There is a separate message system for classified content, but it's not technically "email". It's a diff animal.) The home-vs-office dichotomy seems moot, at least as far as handling classified info*. Putting it on the wrong office box versus the wrong personal box seems the same sin to me.
* She didn't get "official" approval to use a home server, and also didn't follow the proper rules for archiving. But that's diff than the classified info issue.
Except that those rules were not in place at the time that Clinton was Secretary of State. They were enacted after she left...
Doesn't matter. She can still be prosecuted for not turning over all of her State Department official correspondence and destroying it. Bill Clinton had to pardon former CIA Director Deutch because he kept government documents after he left the CIA. It is a real crime and is very often prosecuted. And you can't claim that she didn't know that she had the documents. Even if you did try to claim that, I do not believe the law does not require intent for that.
Hillary didn't destroy the email. Her email administrator was asked to delete personal email months before any subpoena. He was lazy and finally did it later. But there has been no evidence showing that he was ordered to do so after the subpoena by Hillary or anyone in her camp. He avoided prosecution by getting immunity and had the chance to implicate her and never did.
As for classified email, the vast majority were classified retroactively, except for the two or three that the FBI talked about with po
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at how other impeachment processes go.
Just for the record, she cannot be impeached for any of this.
Re: (Score:3)
The first two of four counts in Porteous's impeachment involved patterns of behavior that started while he was a state judge, not a federal judge.
Or take the instance of William Belknap, who resigned as Secretary of War. He was impeached and tried by the Senate after his resignation.
Impeachment proceedings are the ultimate check by the legislature on the other branches, and are not limited by when the misconduct occurred. They answer the question of whether an individual has disqualified himself or hersel
Re: (Score:3)
I even gave an example of someone being impeached after leaving their office.
No, you didn't. You're alliterate, or you'd know that you gave an example of somebody who was impeached while in office, in part for things he had done while in another office. The limitation isn't on when the thing was done, the limitation is on being in office when they impeach. That's why when Nixon resigned, they couldn't have impeached him anyways. Now, if he had resigned after they impeached him, but before the trial, then they could still finish the trial in order to prevent him from holding office a
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Could be a grinder presidency (Score:5, Insightful)
Health issues could also arise with her again. Perhaps Kaine would be a better President anyway.
No matter who wins on Tuesday, we will all lose.
Our Presidential selection really doesn't select the best people. It selects power hungry miscreants.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems unlikely, since you usually need to, you know, actually commit a major crime before being impeached, and as far as EVERY SINGLE INVESTIGATION into Hillary has shown, she hasn't.
Though, they impeached her husband for a consensual blow job, so never mind. Four more years of pointless investigations into the Clintons. I had enough of that two decades ago.
Re:Meh, mission still accomplished (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Will you be voting Hilary? (Score:3)
Trump's the radical one here. Same with Johnson & Stein. You can be a radical regressive and support Trump. Maybe even Joh