FBI Director Comey Confirms Investigation Into Trump Campaign (reuters.com) 537
FBI Director James Comey confirmed during testimony before Congress Monday that the FBI is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with a covert Russian campaign to interfere with the election. From a report on Reuters: Comey told a congressional hearing on Russian activities that the probe "includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. Because it is an open, ongoing investigation and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining," Comey said. Earlier, the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Republican Representative Devin Nunes, told the same hearing that the panel had seen no evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. Nunes also denied an unsubstantiated claim from Trump that there had been a wiretap on his Trump Tower in New York but said it was possible other surveillance was used against the Republican.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA (Score:5, Funny)
trump campaign investigates you
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (Score:4, Insightful)
Only in America!
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (Score:4, Interesting)
...and is reported by the US media, who also sought to influence the election.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest losers in the last election were CNN and The NYTimes. They will never regain credibility.
Because their polls were off? Weren't everybody's? If you mean being called out as "FAKE NEWS" by Trump, I don't think that's hurt their credibility at all - Trump is demonstratively full of shit. His fact-checking is non-existent.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
After Comey's October Surprise, Hillary's numbers BOMBED in the Midwest.
And the 2% win was right in the middle of the spread.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (Score:5, Interesting)
Hang on let me get this straight. The man who interfered with the election is accusing Russia of interfering with the election?
Only in America!
No, he's pretending to investigate the Trump campaign. I am sure his actions in the final weeks were clearly designed to ensure Trump's victory under the cover of being open and impartial. More than anything else, I believe this pushed the last undecideds into the Trump corner because it convinced them the email issue was never, ever going to go away and if Hillary was president, she was just going to resign in disgrace or be removed from office soon enough over it anyway and nobody wanted to watch Tim Kane become president by default. So given the help he gave the Trump campaign, I'm pretty sure that the final result of this investigation will be the shocking revelation that nobody in the Trump campaign did anything wrong.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (Score:5, Informative)
"Everyone working in intelligence all agree that if they did what she did, they'd 100% be charged. Never understood that one."
No need to understand something that isn't true. Go look at what they actually found on her. It amounted to nothing. The second hand stories that travel around are overblown, to say the least.
The reason Comey couldn't recommend prosecution is that he didn't have enough evidence for a prosecution. No prosecutor would agree to take the case.
FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Funny)
It's all fake news. The president tweeted that out just this morning. And if you can't trust the president then who can you trust? [1]
[1] Note .. for the sarcasm impaired, that was sarcasm.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Funny)
I only trust reliable sources, like the voice that speaks to me in colours when I touch the arcane metal orb that I found out hiking out in the wastes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Funny)
How often do you do president Trump?
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have far more confidence and trust in Comey, than I do President Trump.
Based on what?
The fact that Comey blatantly violated the law by interfering in the election (sending a big announcement of Clinton investigation right before election and then retracting it in a few days?)
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What the hell does any of this have to do with the fact that the Director of the FBI has confirmed that they are investigating links between Russia and the Trump campaign?
Nobody is contesting that Trump won. Hell, no one is really contesting that Clinton wasn't a horrible candidate who ran a bad campaign (her own husband has said as much). But again, that has fuck all to do with what is happening right now. It seems you're the one with the badly over-aged talking points.
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know very many people claiming the Russians altered the vote, and I think most people are aware the POTUS isn't selected by popular vote. The claim is that the Russians used a selective information/disinformation release campaign to undermine support for Clinton. And the US isn't the only country where this kind of these kinds of activities have been seen, so why it's so damned unbelievable in the US is beyond me. But at any rate, there seems to be this conflation between "interfering in the election" and "tampering with ballots" used by Trump defenders, the reason being the former has some people in fairly high places stating it happened, whereas the latter is indeed a left-wing conspiracy theory that no one takes seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
From the Washington Post:
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Informative)
He was the Republicans' bestest friend when he was after Clinton. Now all of sudden, the shoe is on the other foot, and he's the bad guy.
It's hilarious thought... no evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump, and confirmation that the FBI is investigating links between Trump's campaign and Russia.
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Insightful)
What did Democrats think of Comey right before and after the election?
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Informative)
Just because Trvor Noah and Rachel Maddow didnt bother to tell you that doesnt mean it didnt happen.
I'd expand that to Trevor Noah, Rachel Maddow, or anyone else. Nobody has presented any convincing evidence of Trump Tower wiretaps. What "NSA documents" are you referring to - Do you have some kind of special access that the media doesn't?
Re: (Score:3)
This is the just the "GCHQ spied on Trump for Obama" claim. Even Fox News has repudiated that they ever said any such thing, and Napolitano has been revealed as a conspiracy theorist
Re: (Score:3)
A stopped clock is right twice a day. That conspiracy theorists will sometimes hit the nail on the head doesn't instantly mean their every proclamation is the truth. Napolitano based his claim on somewhat RT bullshit, in other words he was repeating Russian-sourced fake news.
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:4, Insightful)
What's wrong with being a conspiracy theorist?
Many of the "crackpot" theories regarding the government these "nuts" had over the past 3 decades have been proven to be correct.
I'll challenge your definition of "many" unless you've got a hearty list of examples. And if "many" were right, that means a "shit-load" were wrong. What's wrong with being a conspiracy theorist? Nothing absolutely, conspiracies exist. 9/11 was undoubtedly a conspiracy, but the "theorists" expand that to being a conspiracy involving the U.S. government which is just nonsense. Suggesting collusion between Obama and the Brits to wiretap DJT holds about as much water. Most of these nuts' crackpot theories are just that - Crackpot theories.
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here, as I've seen many times in other contexts is that those making these claims aren't really interested in whether the claim has any foundation in truth, or even in any way properly sourced. What counts is that the claim was made. The claim can be utter rubbish, and not even make any damned sense at all (i.e. Pizzagate), but once made, it can be published and then endlessly repeated. The point here is simply to say something, anything, and repeat it long after it was debunked. That way, when the issue comes up for discussion, the declaration can be made "Yeah well, I read this from a totally reliable guy like Napolitano!"
This, in the Creationist debate circles is known as the Gish Gallop, based upon (in)famous Creationist Duane Gish, whose debating style was to making as many unfounded and ludicrous assertions as possible during a debate, knowing full well that his interlocutors could never possibly deal with all of them in the allotted time, and then he and his supporters could champion those untouched claims as showing the falsehood of evolution. What's more, even where all the claims were debunked, he'd simply repeat them anyways.
The object of this kind of rhetoric is simply to overwhelm one's opponents or the generally incredulous with as many claims as possible, to overwhelm the opponents and make it seem as if they are faltering under the weight of the evidence of a vast conspiracy. And we see now how it has been used to extraordinary effect, that in this particular /. thread alone, there must be a dozen or more claims that were debunked or traced back to unreliable or non-existent sources. But they keep being made, over and over again.
Re: FAKE NEWS! (Score:4, Interesting)
How is it a good move? For the Democrats, at worst this is a Republican Benghazi, an investigation that goes nowhere. That didn't exactly seem to harm the Republicans, and you still see their supporters harping on about it. But if it does turn out that there was collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians, if that doesn't outright undermine Trump's presidency, it heavily damages his political capital (I'd argue, to some extent, that even the insinuations of involvement probably already area).
So, to put it simply, at worst the Dems come up with a fishing expedition that doesn't catch anything significant, and life goes on. But for a fishing expedition that is supposed to come back empty handed, it has already cost Trump's National Security Advisor his job and has forced Trump's Attorney General to recuse himself from anything to do with the FBI's investigation into Russian activities surrounding the election. That's 1.5 casualties thus far for a supposedly "FAKE NEWS" investigation. Thus we have the spectacle of the Director of the FBI telling Congress there's no evidence of any wiretapping of Trump by the Obama Administration, but that there is an active investigation by multiple branches into links between Russia and the Trump campaign. And it's not like Comney is breathlessly reporting vast conspiracies, he was very cautious and cagey in what he said, appearing neither dishonest or hyperbolic, but simply confirming, as much as he can, to an open hearing.
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just keep those fake claims coming. Now suddenly it's the "establishment"?
There was no wiretapping of Trump. Never happened. What there was was spying on Russians, and the fact that the likes of Flynn and Sessions are such fucking idiots that they would basically use open communication systems to yack with the Russians indicates not only are they traitors, but pretty fucking stupid ones.
Obama didn't order wiretapping, Britain's GCHQ didn't do it for him. It never happened. It was a conspiracy theory started by Mark Levin, picked up by Breitbart, and Trump, being a pretty stupid man himself, picked up that ball and went with it. Whatever comes out of these hearings and the FBI's investigation, the fact is that Trump asked for it. He's the one that demanded the wiretapping claims be investigated, he's the one that forced a Republican-dominated Congress to continue digging even when I suspect most House and Senate Republicans would rather not even pick up a shovel.
Re: (Score:3)
The question you should ask is "Was Trump's claims that he was wiretapped by US intelligence or by US Allies' intelligence true or not." And today before Congress that claim was discarded.
Yes, US citizens are at times put under surveillance, and long have been. Lincoln had every telegraph line that entered the Union tapped, and that was a century and a half ago. But this isn't about claims of general capability, this is about the specific claim that the Obama Administration placed wiretaps, or had through s
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation: No, Clinton operatives did not leak the information, but I need to sex up what actually happened to perpetrate the "evil Clinton Crime Empre" conspiracy I hold so near and dear.
And for fuck's sake, the WP has been delivered leaked information for a long goddamned time now. Do you feel Nixon got a raw deal because Deep Throat picked Bob Woodward? At the end of the day, leaks suck, but if the leaks actually point to misconduct and malfeasance, ought not your primary concern be those doing bad things, rather than those who blow the whistle?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that while that will certainly play to Trump's supporters, he does not in fact have a lot of supporters in the one place right now where it counts: Congress. For now, Republicans need to play nicey-nice with Trump because they have a legislative agenda they need to get passed, but if the President keeps getting nailed with allegations of links to the Russians, or even worse, investigations end up mapping up clear ties between Trump and the Russians during the campaign, then even a Republican-
Re: (Score:3)
Just how many fake claims can you make in four sentences? I applaud you, sir. That is amazing demonstration of the fevered nature of your imagination.
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Funny)
Can we trust Comey?
Sure. Inversely proportional to how much Trump likes him.
[ (Trump Likes) x (We Trust) = Constant ]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure how well we should trust Comey, but so far he's being pretty level. Most important question asked so far. "Is there any evidence that votes were change in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania..." to which the director of the NSA and FBI both stated "no".
When the Benghazi hearings were going, we had Democrats yelling about gun control and demanding censorship of Youtube instead of asking questions related to the actual issues. The grandstanding to keep the hearings away from Clinton were simply despi
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Informative)
The Benghazi hearings were proven to be a political charade anyways where even after months of investigations the Republicans couldn't find any wrong-doings.
But speaking of asking questions unrelated issues, you should listen to some of the Republicans asking questions. They're more concerned with whether the freedom of press applies to news organizations publishing classified leaks than the actual issue of Russian meddling with the election.
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Informative)
But speaking of asking questions unrelated issues, you should listen to some of the Republicans asking questions. They're more concerned with whether the freedom of press applies to news organizations publishing classified leaks than the actual issue of Russian meddling with the election.
Killing off the free press was always one of Trump's stated goals with his desire to open up libel laws in order to facilitate suing the press.
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Interesting)
Killing off the free press was always one of Trump's stated goals with his desire to open up libel laws in order to facilitate suing the press.
Freedom of the press was largely lost when two things happened - ownership became highly concentrated and the press lost a diversity of opinions and morphed into Fox News on the right and everything else on the left. Concentrated ownership contributed greatly to the polarization.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Killing off the free press was always one of Trump's stated goals with his desire to open up libel laws in order to facilitate suing the press.
That's not exactly right. He doesn't really want to kill the free press. He wants try to make everybody but Fox News report from the sideline so that they lose influence. He's not trying to shut down, say, CNN, but he wants to limit their access to him. I have friends who honestly believe that the only fair and impartial news source at all is Fox News. They all believe that CNN is insanely liberal and they have no idea at all that MSNBC is actually pretty far left of CNN. They don't seem to know that MSNBC even exists. There's no need to kill the free press when half the country believes that only one news sources is accurate and impartial and that news source is so biased it's not ever going to say anything against a Republican. You can let CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc. report all they want to, but when half the country by choice refuses to listen to what they say, they are pretty effectively silenced although technically still alive.
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:4, Insightful)
The press is just miffed that they didn't find it and disclose it first. Really, if the DNC hadn't worked to sway the primaries against Sanders, and CNN employee Brazile hadn't violated journalistic ethics by leaking debate questions to HRC and then lying about it, there wouldn't have been much fire beneath the smoke. Pointing to the Russians or Wikileaks is just an attempt at misdirection by blaming the messenger for revealing things the media would have been praised for revealing.
Oh, and HRC flat-out lied about Bengazi, first by telling the public and families of those killed that it was an unpredictable violent protest over a video while privately admitting to a planned and foreseeable terrorist attack.
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah no... the content has no bearing on the debate. The ends do not justify the means in all but the smallest and most extreme examples. You might note that we have this thing called the 4th amendment for just such events. It says,
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That makes the e-mail poison fruit. The fact that they we taken by a foreign power makes the whole event into a attack on our country. You are apologizing for the FSB attacking our core mission as a country for your own simplistic tribalism. That makes you a domestic enemy of the constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:FAKE NEWS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we trust Comey?
Effective government should not depend on trust of specific individuals. Designing laws and institutions is like designing a network protocol: You build in self-corrections for lack of integrity.
Re: (Score:2)
It's in the law; the presidant can't lie.
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
It all needs to be investigated, From Trump's current list of issues all the way back to seeing just how much involvement Russia had with pushing Clinton through the primaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree.
We need a government we can trust. You can't have an honest government or even fight corruption anywhere in the system if it exists at even the highest levels, as it clearly does (on both sides).
They also badly need to investigate what all the foreign governments "donating" millions to the Clinton Foundation was actually for, and where it actually went.
Re: (Score:3)
Voters say otherwise. I'm hearing that over half of voters distrust Trump and over half distrusted Clinton too. Didn't these two get about 97% of the vote?
We don't need government we trust; in fact, we prefer government that we think is constantly lying to us. If you don't seem dishonest, we don't want you.
Apology (Score:5, Insightful)
Why hasn't Trump apologized to Obama? It would seem to be the decent thing to do.
Trump kept saying Obama was born in Kenya. Then during the election when it was politically expeditious and like a weasel coward said "Obama was born in the US period." No apology nothing. Now the bully we elected president due to the lack of choice has slandered and falsely accused Obama of wiretapping him. What Trump is doing is evil, no president should be falsely accusing people of crimes. If anyone says anything negative about Trump, he takes revenge on them. Trump is like an female dog in heat who can't control control his emotional state. Expect him to carry out many injustices we won't even be told about. As a general rule don't believe in weighing evidence or considering two sides of an issue. Plus he is old, old people's brains stay fixed on an opinion even when shown opposing evidence. They may temporarily agree, and three revert back to their old opinion. It's been proven.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only has Trump not apologized, but he's deliberately insulted the US's firmest foreign ally to try firm up his BS claim.
Re:Apology (Score:5, Funny)
Why hasn't Trump apologized to Obama? It would seem to be the decent thing to do.
"Decency" has been a remarkably poor predictor of what Trump will do.
Re: (Score:3)
Disagree :) ..It's like a compass that points southwards. Quite usable, once you know it.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I pretty much totally agree with you but why is it all you liberals have a continuing massive blind spot to the Clintons blatant corruption?
The obvious selling out to foreign agencies, usually in return for $millions in "donations" to the Clinton Foundation, was alone enough evidence for most people I know to vote Trump.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>> A liberal elite who cares is much better than...
Sure. Let me know when such an entity ever comes into existence, because it will definately be the first time.
All Hillary ever wanted was more and more power to satisfy her own insatiable ego and a larger platform from which to enrich herself even more through conducting global-scale corruption by selling out the US to foreign islamic powers in return for "donations" to the Clinton Foundation.
I, for one, welcome our new FBI overlords (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to remind them as a low-UID Slashdot poster I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their investigatory bureaucracies.
Russians hacked Hillary's e-mail (Score:3)
Yes, that's wrong (if it's true). But it's like a cop opening your car trunk without a warrant. And finding a dead body. It's wrong and inadmissible as evidence. But the body was still there.
Elections aren't about selecting the first person that manages to escape a guilty verdict on a technicality. Had Hillary not used amazingly poor judgement in her handling of official communications, there would be no ammunition for Russia, Trump, or the GOP to embarrass her with and drive undecided voters to the other camp. The fact that it was Russia, with no right or jurisdiction to conduct an 'investigation' is also problematic. But from a point of view of ethics and justice rather than legality, the voters chose not to overlook the smell of a body in the trunk.
Re:The guy who cleared clinton ? (Score:5, Informative)
So the Guy who cleared Clinton of all charges even after she had classified material on a home computer is now feeding the rumor mill again.
The globalists are so afraid of Trump they are pushing any agenda to remove him before he can repeal Nafta and H1b visa laws.
Comney needs to get fired.
He could probably repeal them a little quicker if he played a little less golf or spend less time getting into twitter feuds with celebrities.
Re: (Score:2)
He could probably repeal them a little quicker if he played a little less golf or spend less time getting into twitter feuds with celebrities.
Now, now... He spends way more time (and taxpayer funds) flying back and forth to Mar-a-Lago in Florida *every* weekend, and I'm sure he gets some work done on those flights -- or, at least, catches up on nap-time.
Breathtaking arrogance (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, now... He spends way more time (and taxpayer funds) flying back and forth to Mar-a-Lago in Florida *every* weekend, and I'm sure he gets some work done on those flights -- or, at least, catches up on nap-time.
Don't forget that he flies to his resort at a cost of $3 million in tax money per trip just days after he proposes a budget to cut health insurance and benefits for millions of poor and middle class people. The arrogance is breathtaking. I'd say hypocrisy if it were anyone else but he's never been "one of the people" to anyone actually paying attention.
Re: (Score:3)
Worst. President. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
So the Guy who cleared Clinton of all charges even after she had classified material on a home computer is now feeding the rumor mill again.
You misspelled "The guy who helped Trump get elected by blabbing unfounded info about non-existent links between Clinton and Anthony Weiner."
Re:The guy who cleared clinton ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For sure, Hillary is much better at keeping her secret deals secret.
Re: (Score:3)
and she conducts all of her correspondence on a server in her house in order to avoid FOIA scrutiny of her conduct in such matters
Has this actually been supported by the investigators? I didn't notice any such news.
and then fails to turn over her records as she left office (as required by law)
From what I understand, Bush the Slightly Younger was guilty of exactly the same thing.
all while continuing to soak up cash from overseas businesses and governments in anticipation of getting the presidential crown to which she felt entitled
Well, *this* kind of political corruption is apparently common to all participants in your political system. Money wins. Go and reform it.
Re:Comey? (Score:5, Informative)
claimed Hillary didn't violate any laws
Incorrect. He said she did break the law, but he didn't recommend prosecuting her for it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
claimed Hillary didn't violate any laws
Incorrect. He said she did break the law, but he didn't recommend prosecuting her for it.
Wrong, they said they didn't find any evidence of criminal activities, and recommended closing the investigation.
This is the same guy that a week before the election said they found new evidence, but wait, not they hadn't. And never told anyone they were investigating Trump.
Re:Comey? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong, they said they didn't find any evidence of criminal activities, and recommended closing the investigation.
Wrong. He said they didn't find any intent to commit criminal activities, which was previously not a requirement for prosecuting mishandling of classified materials.
Re:Comey? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong, they said they didn't find any evidence of criminal activities, and recommended closing the investigation.
No, he said she violated the law surrounding the handling of classified materials, but that the punishment for the manner in which she did so would be administrative, like getting fired or having your security clearance revoked. Since she was no longer employed by the government, firing her isn't really an option.
But he absolutely did not say she did nothing wrong. He said she did do something wrong, just not wrong enough to go to jail. If the cop catches you jaywalking and lets you off with a warning instead of a ticket, that doesn't mean you didn't do anything against the law. You did do something against the law: jaywalking. The cop is just choosing not to punish you for the illegal thing you did. Comey and Lynch chose not to pursue punishment against Hillary for the illegal thing she did.
Re:Comey? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, having government email on a private email server is like jaywalking. It's a minor offence and the law that punishes it carries no real penalties.
No, the analogy was not meant to relate the severity of the crime of jaywalking to the severity of the crime of mishandling classified information. I was just giving an example of the commission of a crime that law enforcement chooses to exercise discretion against prosecuting. These are generally malum prohibitum crimes, not malum in se, because no one would understand an analogy in which the officer decided to let you off with a warning for rape and murder.
So what would colluding with another government to influence the outcome of a presidential election be like? Grand Theft Auto?
I don't know. What law does that break? I mean, we have lots of examples of representatives of other governments influencing our election. Trudeau spoke out for Hillary and against Trump. Was that Canada trying to influence our elections? Nigel Farage spoke at a Trump rally. He's an elected representative of the UK in the EU, is that the UK or the EU influencing our election? Obama went to Britain and spoke against Brexit. Was he colluding with the UK government to influence that referendum?
Assume Putin personally haxx0red the DNC and phished Podesta. What would he need to collude with the Trump campaign for? Clearly Putin would prefer someone who wants to ally with Russia against their common enemy (ISIS/general Islamic jihad) rather than someone who wants to set up a no fly zone for Russian planes over Syria and remove Putin's ally Assad. What's there to collude over? Just hack and release. There's no communication necessary. Assuming Putin was behind the hacking, do you think he would have done the same thing had, say, Rand Paul (also against intervention in Syria) been the nominee instead of Trump?
So, I'd need to know what law specifically (give me the statute numbers, please) you're alleging Trump broke to gauge the severity of the crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Right about one thing. There should be a trial for Hillary. Still can be.
Re:Comey? (Score:5, Informative)
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System [fbi.gov]
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
There was not a lack of evidence. There was a decision not to act on the evidence.
Is a person with security clearance sending, receiving, creating, and storing classified material on a private server in their bathroom illegal? Yes.
Was Hillary doing that? Yes.
Did they decide to prosecute her for it? No.
There was no trial due to lack of will, not lack of evidence.
Re:Comey? (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked at a secure facility for several years and had a high clearance for over 20 years. While I can't get into specifics, I am aware of several cases of people taking classified documents home with them, putting classified mail on an unclassified server, copying classified documents onto an external drive, etc. In one particularly bad case a modem was connected to a terminal on the classified network.
In all cases it was determined that the violations were either unintentional or without criminal intent. Usually it was to work on the classified data/documents at home in order to get some critical work done. All were punished administratively with no charges filed. I was not privy to he punishment though I know that in one case where the person was terminated.
The only case I am aware of that went to prosecution was a system admin who installed a private web server which was serving softcore porn (nudes) to some friends. The NY Times learned about it. He was terminated, fined, and perhaps given a suspended sentence.
Based on this experience, I would say not taking criminal action against Hillary Clinton was in line with many other cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Generally a conviction requires at least some nod towards intent. Yes, she broke the law, but without demonstrating intent, her lawyers likely could get her off, or at least with a much reduced punishment. And as others have pointed out, this is an administrative sanction, so the likely punishment would be pretty moderate. And generally when anyone is pondering a prosecution, the likelihood of conviction is weighed pretty heavily, and where it is deemed that the likelihood is small, it's often the case that
Re: (Score:3)
Generally a conviction requires at least some nod towards intent.
Only if intent is part of the law. It's not part of all laws by default. We really prefer them to be written that way, with a mens rea component, but our lawmakers have gotten shittier and shittier and they write shitty laws now. The laws about mishandling classified information are strict liability. [wikipedia.org] Same as an awful lot of states' laws about, say statutory rape. Nobody cares if you didn't know she was 15, or you didn't intend to sleep with a 15 year old. Did you do it? Yes. Guilty.
There's no mens rea requi
Re:Comey? (Score:4, Informative)
In the week before the election, he notified congress that a separate criminal investigation DID turn up new evidence related to the investigation of Clinton's mishandling of classified information. Why was it new evidence? Because Clinton and her aides (who had been granted immunity) said they had already turned over every scrap of data or device containing any record of the emails that Clinton handled from the internet-connected server she ran out of her house. This wan't true, of course. They had NOT turned over all of that data, or the devices on which it was stored. Because Clinton's closest aide had hundreds of thousands of such records on a laptop in her home - something that didn't come to light until the investigation into her husband's criminal activity exposed that fact. The FBI told congress about this, because congress was in the middle of investigations that relied on the FBI providing them with all such information, and the FBI - which had taken Clinton at her word that all such material had been turned over - suddenly found themselves with hundreds of thousand of new records to sort through, some of which might indeed cover some of the material that Clinto had destroyed while under subpoena. You don't think that matters? Or more to the point, you so wish it weren't the case that you're willing to try to lie it away from having happened?
And never told anyone they were investigating Trump.
Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it's because they WEREN'T "investigating Trump" at the time, and still aren't. They're investigating the manner and degree to which the Russians tried to influence public opinion during the election, and owing to political pressure, are including in that investigation whether or not individuals "associated with the campaign" had anything to do with such activity. They've also said, more than once, that they've seen no evidence at all that indicated any such thing. So what is it exactly that you're thinking they were supposed to disclose? They have nothing to show because they haven't seen anything - unlike in the Clinton case, where they had abundant evidence of her repeatedly lying, destroying evidence, and more. They pointed out that they weren't going to be able to get the Obama administration to prosecute the case, though they did say that if had been anyone else (besides Clinton) things would have been handled differently. I know, you're really trying to wish all of that away.
Re:Comey? (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the FBI director, there is an investigation into whether "associates of Mr. Trump were in contact with Russian officials, and whether they colluded with them."
Now, you may say this is not "investigating Trump", but in government corruption investigations, the FBI always works their way from "associates" inward to the main guy. These are not people that anyone would trust not to "flip" on the boss if they're facing jail time.
The noose is tightening. You can tell from the panicked tweets.
Re:Comey? (Score:4, Interesting)
We will reach the Nixonian "what did he know and when did he know it" at some point soon. Even the Republicans on the committee could only really gripe about leaks, which tells you even they know that this hearing is going to reach some damned dangerous ground. And don't imagine for a second that they'll sacrifice their political careers to keep a Republican President afloat.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt coming up with the new information about the Clinton leak was Comey's initiative. It's more that he did not see any way to withhold the new information. I recall that the problem was that if he didn't disclose it others would. So he sent out the information and tried to minimize the damage. Which did not work very well.
As for the current Trump investigation, I can imagine Comey did not see any way to refuse it either. Trump called on the FBI earlier to speak out and say the whole Russia-Trump link w
Re:Comey? (Score:5, Informative)
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System [fbi.gov]
The relevant part:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.
So, what she did was wrong and illegal (mishandling of classified documents), and that it's very likely someone doing this would be punished (administrative sanctions like getting fired, losing security clearance, etc). However, in his opinion, they would not be subject to criminal prosecution. And remember this is all the FBI can do...say that there is a case or is not a case. They can't find you guilty as that's the purpose of a trial.
Now, the next point of dispute here would be that the statute surrounding the handling of classified material that she violated doesn't say anything about "intent," so it doesn't matter what she intended by mishandling the classified material, she could still be prosecuted. Your opinion on whether what Hillary did was wrong enough to merit prosecution is likely dependent on whether you vote R or D, but to say Comey and the FBI determined that Hillary did nothing wrong is completely false. It is wrong and illegal for a person with a security clearance to have classified and SAP information on a private server in their bathroom, the FBI says that's what Hillary did, but not so egregiously that it merits prosecution.
Re:Comey? (Score:4, Informative)
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System [fbi.gov]
The relevant part:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
So, what she did was wrong and illegal (mishandling of classified documents), and that it's very likely someone doing this would be punished (administrative sanctions like getting fired, losing security clearance, etc). However, in his opinion, they would not be subject to criminal prosecution. And remember this is all the FBI can do...say that there is a case or is not a case. They can't find you guilty as that's the purpose of a trial.
to say Comey and the FBI determined that Hillary did nothing wrong is completely false. It is wrong and illegal for a person with a security clearance to have classified and SAP information on a private server in their bathroom, the FBI says that's what Hillary did, but not so egregiously that it merits prosecution.
Comey says here that there are "potential violations," but that's not "violations."
"Potential" can mean that you might find a violation after investigating more facts and more laws (but you might not), and you weren't able to find it so far. In other words, it's a prosecutor's speculation that a violation might (or might not) have occurred.
Saying that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" is legal-speak for saying that he found no provable violations, or in simple language, as far as the legal system is concerned, she's innocent. It's not just that she doesn't "merit" prosecution, but that the prosecutor doesn't think a prosecution could succeed. If the courts would never accept a situation like this, then in our legal system of common law and precedent, it's not illegal.
BTW a "violation" is not the same as a "crime."
Re: (Score:3)
No, he has to say "evidence of potential violations" because it's up to a court to determine that there were violations.
Saying that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" is legal-speak for saying that he found no provable violations, or in simple language, as far as the legal system is concerned, she's innocent.
No. No, absolutely not. It is not the place of law enforcement to say someone is "innocent." He specifically says there's evidence of violations and you're spinning that into "innocent."
Did Hillary send, receive, create and store classified material on a private server in her bathroom? Yes.
Is that a violation of the law? Yes.
Are they going to prosecute? No.
That is in no way the same as bei
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
can we stop spreading bogus claims???
Re:bloviated shit gibbon (Score:5, Informative)
Meals on Wheels receives federal grants, so yes, he can cut it.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair it only receives federal grant money in some States and even in those States it's not actually that much of their income.
In the States where they do receive 'Federal' grant money it is covered under the blanket Federal transfers to States which they can generally spend on anything. In a few cases they use a pittance of that transfer to help fund good programs like Meals but the vast majority of it goes to simple local pork projects.
Cutting these types of transfers will have more impact on some S
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair it only receives federal grant money in some States and even in those States it's not actually that much of their income.
Every meals on wheels affiliate receives a mix of local, state, and federal funding along with donations. It's not just 'some States.'
"The majority of Meals on Wheels programs get most of their federal funding through the Administration for Community Living, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services that serves the elderly and disabled. That agency has a $227 million line-item for "home-delivered nutrition services.""
HUD also provides some federal dollars to States that end up being provided
Re:bloviated shit gibbon (Score:5, Informative)
you have evidence current plays golf more often than Obama did; also we paid for Obama's Hawaii vacations including 2008 vacations before he became president. so, do you really have a point?
It's been well documented that Trump is spending public tax dollars at rate well over double what Obama did, in order to fund his trips to his private club.
All the time while Camp David stands empty.
And then you have secret service costs for Melanie in NYC, and the secret service costs for his sons as the fly all over the world undertaking private business dealings.
This from a guy who basically campaigned on fiscal conservancy.
Re: (Score:3)
no, not well documented at all with travel that including official government business being counted as pure vacation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, let's play this game.
Obama's 2008 vacations: total cost to US taxpayer: $4.8 million.
Every time Trump flies to Mar-a-Lago: cost to US taxpayer: $3.5 million.
Trump's travel expenses in first month alone: $10 million.
Total Obama spent over the full 8 years in office, $96 million US taxpayer dollars on security, vacations and travel.
In the first month alone, Trump spent $97 million US taxpayer dollars on security, vacations and travel.
So I guess it's fair to call him Parasite Trump.
Re:bloviated shit gibbon (Score:5, Insightful)
official government business was done in Florida, you are not accounting correctly
In that case the public record should show who Trump met with during his stays at his private residence. You can't have it both ways.
Re:bloviated shit gibbon (Score:5, Insightful)
You have no clue as to how much his almost-every-weekend visit to FL costs us as taxpayers and to the local community in which Mar-a-Lago is located.
In one month, it's predicted that he spent $10 million for his trips to Mar-a-Lago. He's done that for the last 2 months now, so he's probably close to $18-$20 million already. Obama spent $97 million over 8 years.
Don't forget to tally the near $1 million price tag that Palm Beach County has already had to spend of their own money for the extra police staffing and overtime while Trump is at Mar-a-Lago.
https://www.bustle.com/p/how-m... [bustle.com]
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-... [vox.com]
Lets also consider the taxpayers cost for Secret Service to shuttle the Trump family around on constant vacations, and Melania's insistence of staying in New York, which itself costs a substantial amount of money for security on a daily basis.
You can be upset at welfare families all you want but your Emperor is consuming vast amounts of tax payer money simply for playing golf, and will be surpassing what Obama spent in a matter of months.
But please... don't let these facts remove you from your precious bubble of ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:bloviated shit gibbon (Score:4)
There is also the fact that Trump is benefiting directly from these trips to his own resort. Do you really think it is a coincident that he is flying to his own resort to play golf every weekend rather than going to a resort owned by someone else?
How many weekends did Obama spend in a resort he owned during his first two months in office?
How much government money was funneled to Obama's businesses in the first two months he was in office (which is what Trump is doing by staying at Mar-a-Lago)
If you really want "major portions of the bloated fed government removed" then you should really be asking for military cuts not cuts to programs that only contribute 0.1% of the national budget.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not fake news merely because you can't handle the truth. Here are two questions for you:
1. Did Trump propose cutting the community development block grant?
2. Does that grant give substantial funds to meals on wheels?
The answers are respectively yes and yes which means Trump is indeed cutting funding for meals on wheels.
Re: (Score:3)
No. The cuts in the discretionary budget account for 3% of the Meals on Wheels budget.
You said "no" then detailed precisely the nonzero appoint he's cutting. That means "yes he is in fact cutting funding". You then went on to give reasons why you think the cuts are fine. And yet you claim the cuts don't exist.
Do you have no shame?
1. Should the Federal Government provide _ANY_ funding to _PRIVATE_ organizations?
Yes.
Full of Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that sounds good on paper, but obviously you've never attempted to apply any of those ideals to the real world.
Let's take for example, Education. By your accounting, that should be left up to the individual states, as that's not something that should be administered by the Federal Government.
In your worldview, every state can have different education standards, which would create chaos later in life -- when those students move to another state to attend college, some from, say Texas, might encounter problems when they suddenly find out that Jesus did not ride Dinosaurs and the Earth is round and not flat.
And the other problem is of course that in the real world, there's only ONE set of textbooks for all states regardless of education standards, because states cannot afford custom textbooks just for them.
So in the end, Texas sets the standards because they are the largest market -- meaning whatever the STATE legislature of Texas choses, that's what goes nationally.
So, we *all* wind up with Jesus rode Dinosaurs and the Earth is Flat textbooks. And Christianity is the only true religion. All others are going to bring you eternal damn-nation. If you find that one state can control what we think and teach our children throughout the nation, then essentially, all you're doing is moving Federal Power to a different State -- Texas.
Because that's how the REAL world works. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the rest of us have to live in this world, not your fantasy of it. And in that case, I'd rather that the federal government control this instead of the Texas state legislature -- which I didn't vote for.
Re:Fake News Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI confirmed an investigation - he hasn't confirmed the exact people (neither did the headline). It's pretty clear the investigation involves the Trump campaign.
The Republicans on the other hand, HAVE spent a lot more time examining the circumstances in which the information was disclosed even though it's unrelated to investigation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No.
Nah, that would have been her decision not to campaign in the Rust Belt where Trump was actively going out and asking people to vote for him. Didn't help that Clintonbots had been shouting that if 'Trump didn't accept the election results he was undermining our democracy'. Because when it came time to do recounts, they couldn't do it without looking like the pathetic idiots they ar
Re: (Score:3)
Well I'd call him the best of two bad choices. I certainly think that he needs to be investigated, at least to get rid of the obviously left-invented myth that the Russians helped Trump win.
In fact I seriously think that Putin would have preferred Hillary, because they could simply donate a few million $$ to the Clinton Foundation and gotten whatever they wanted.
Say what you like about Trump, but he's a businessman and negotiates hard and is far more of a pro-US Patriot than Hillary ever is. She had already
Re: (Score:3)
>> If you have some evidence of malfeasance in the Clinton Foundation, please provide it.
Oh dear God are you really that ill-informed, or just another one of those braindead Hillary fans that are determined to live in denial?
Just google "Clinton foundation corruption" or similar. Its all over everywhere. here's a few to get you started in case even that's to much of a challenge:
http://observer.com/2016/11/wi... [observer.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.realclearpolitics.c... [realclearpolitics.com]