Congress Opens Probe Into FBI's Handling of Clinton Email Investigation (arstechnica.com) 390
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Two House committees announced Tuesday that they would conduct a joint probe into the FBI's handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation. The Clinton investigation concluded with no charges being levied against the former secretary of state who was running for president under the Democratic ticket. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said in a joint statement that they are unsatisfied with how the probe into Clinton's private e-mail server concluded. Among other things, the chairmen want to know why the bureau publicly said it was investigating Clinton while keeping silent that it was looking into President Donald Trump's campaign associates and their connections to Russia.
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status," Goodlatte and Gowdy said in a joint statement. "The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic, and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight."
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status," Goodlatte and Gowdy said in a joint statement. "The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic, and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight."
Still not looking into (Score:2, Insightful)
The 4 dead service members from last week and the absolute cluster fuck that resulted in their deaths... but at least we are on top of this... thank god.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> The 4 dead
Thanks for the reminder! They better open another investigation into Benghazi!
Re:Still not looking into (Score:5, Insightful)
We've got hundreds of special forces troops running around in Niger. Some of them got caught in an ambush and fought their way out of it losing 4 team members. It's not a fucking video game. People make mistakes and people die. I don't know if you know this or not but Trump doesn't go on those missions. It was a routine mission and likely the first anyone in the administration knew about it was when they found out 4 soldiers were killed. I served in the eighties and we had people die from training exercises or just working. Turning 18 year old guys loose with heavy equipment can lead to that. One rolled an off road fork lift, one electrocuted, one rolled a 2 1/2 ton truck. It's dangerous work even when people aren't shooting at you. It's the fucking military. Check out how many Sailors die every cruise.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have something to say, say it. Deflection is not a proper M.O. in a democracy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the hearings where people like Clinton, Comey and Lynch are able to give nonanswers, declare ignorance in the face of questions they should be able to give answers to, and generally be completely evasive?
Have you ever watched those hearings? They only serve to show how unaccountable you are when your political faction can run interference.
Re:Still not looking into (Score:4, Interesting)
Congress claims ignorance that they didn't know that we had troops in Niger.
Simply put, any Senator that states they didn't know is either full of shit or has no idea what they are doing at a very, very important job. The United States, among other countries, have been in a variety of different African countries since 2003 in the "War on Terrorism". Niger hosts US and French troops publicly, but it's no stretch of the imagination that other countries are operating there too in less public operations. African countries have become a boon to recruitment in terror organizations.
Basically if you are living in a first world nation and your government is worried about global terrorism, then it is safe to say that your country more than likely has a shit load of special units in Africa doing all kinds of really risky stuff. Every Senator is basically given that general overview before diving deeper into the details.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, no doubt on that. I'm just specifically speaking to the notion that Senators are surprised that we have troops in any African country. Senators should not be surprised or say things like, "We didn't know we had troops there." Better things to ask would be like what you said.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the troops from Chad were never in that end of the nation and the special forces would have been operating without backup in any case.
Hrm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
One wonder if Gowdy will manage to show up for more than 20% of the witness testimony this time. Or is he just going to implicitly acknowledge that this is a gigantic waste of time and money, and serves as nothing other than a distraction from what a colossal clusterfuck the Trump presidency has been thus far?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
How dare you compare clusterfucks to the Trum administration!? Clusterfucks are insulted!
Keep it up, if you dislike Democrats (Score:2, Informative)
Trump is more than happy that you complain his administration is a clusterfuck. because it keeps you and the other sheeple ignorant as to real changes he is making.
I say that as an outsider to both parties, able to see when the Democrats are clearly being snookered and going down a really bad path.
Speaking of wondering about such an investigation, one "wonders" if the investigation will do anything about the FBI director drafting orders to clear Hillary months before the investigation was over [ussanews.com]...
That is the
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes. The "Trump is really an 11th-dimensional chess wizard" argument. That kind of cognitive dissonance must be a real bitch to maintain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump doesn't have to be anything other than mildly clever to simply get a few things done while people like you call him a monster because he tweets and you all react like the pavlovian dogs you all seem to want to be.
I think it utterly hilarious that people claim, in the same breath, that Trump has a huge ego and cares what others think. How many egotistical people do YOU know that give a rats ass what YOU think about them? None. So he smiles when you call him names and signs another order dismantling
Re: (Score:2)
When you only know how to do one thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No its the Wookie defense. Their boy in the WH is looking like a petulant brat, time to pull out the "Whooooo...Clinton...scary!". And just in time for Halloween.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the Chewbacca Defense. [wikipedia.org]
Let's just hope our heads don't explode when they say: "Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!"
Re: (Score:3)
Their boy in the WH is looking like a petulant brat
That's been true since 1946, though. Somehow no one seems to care.
Re: (Score:2)
Yikes! Congress could use a distraction [youtube.com] right now. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Conway Twitty [youtube.com] (applause applause).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:When you only know how to do one thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Ha! You fucking wish! This is distracting the populace from looking at the laws they are going to pass.
Last year I would have agreed with you, but so far they haven't been able to pull anything together. Republicans in congress don't seem capable of passing much.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep doing it, ad infinitum.
Yup... and we all know what is defined by expecting different results too.
Re:When you only know how to do one thing (Score:4, Insightful)
You keep doing it, ad infinitum.
If the article is correct, which it might not be, I think the situation is actually reversed.
Previously the Republicans were investigating Clinton's emails with the goal of turning them into an election issue.
Now, two Republicans are investigating the FBI investigation of Clinton's emails and asking why the FBI turned it into an election issue.
Maybe they're just trying to whitewash it, but whatever side you're on it's hard to argue that the FBI didn't bungle the election campaign really, really badly.
Re:When you only know how to do one thing (Score:4, Insightful)
It's "ad nauseam"...
That would imply that the doer gets sick of doing it. You think that's the case? No? then it's ad infinitum, like the GP said.
Trump's Benghazi (Score:2, Insightful)
Bone spurs (Score:3, Insightful)
If itâ(TM)s ok to investigate Obama over his birth certificate.. an offense allegedly and speculated to have been committed decades ago, why canâ(TM)t we investigate Trumpâ(TM)s draft dodging? Last I checked draft dodging was a crime. Some other guy had to go die in Vietnam because Trump paid his way out of the draft. Anyway at the very least we should investigate how bone spurs can disappear over time. You never know, Trump might get the Nobel prize for medicine for such a discovery.
what a load (Score:5, Insightful)
The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic, and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight.
LOL
*snort*
That ranks up there as one of the biggest piles of unadulterated bullshit I've ever seen. I don't care which tribe you subscribe to, everyone should realize that our justice system is anything but evenhanded or impartial.
Re: (Score:3)
The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic, and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight.
LOL
*snort*
That ranks up there as one of the biggest piles of unadulterated bullshit I've ever seen. I don't care which tribe you subscribe to, everyone should realize that our justice system is anything but evenhanded or impartial.
It's bullshit, but not for the reason you think. All of this talk about impartiality, objectivity, independence, blah blah blah, is an excuse for re-opening Hillary stuff in order to distract from investigations the current POTUS is facing.
Re: (Score:3)
Glen Greenwald (of Snowden fame) gave a pretty enlightening talk at Yale on that very topic, for those interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Impartial as granite (Score:5, Insightful)
"Those scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status".
Ha ha, very funny. Of course they don't! The rich, powerful, and politically connected always get EXACTLY the same treatment as the poor from the justice system.
Being on good social term with the judge, the DA, or the Attorney General could never do an accused person the slightest good. And the prosecution would be just as likely to frame up a wealthy, influential political donor as the lowest miscreant.
Yes, folks, thank goodness it's a government of laws, not persons!
Re: (Score:2)
"I could stand on fifth avenue and shoot someone" (Score:4, Insightful)
"I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone, and people would still vote for me."
Yes, Trump fuckers. I will post this delightfull quote from your beloved peodophile in chief every chance I get, or untill I'm IP banned.
And downmodding me to hell won't change the fact that you knowingly, freely, and willfully elected for president a man who thinks that you're all fucking morons, and told you to your face.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If he shot you. I'd still vote for him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least Trump tells it like it is. What would HRC do? Be awful and then deny being awful?
Re:"I could stand on fifth avenue and shoot someon (Score:5, Funny)
GP: trump says his voters are morons.
YOU: Trump tells the truth. BUT HILLARY!!!111oneeleven!111
Me: well, you certainly proved Trump correct.
Wrong Title (Score:2)
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Interesting)
Destruction of evidence and lying to congress is considered to be criminal acts, and there seems to be an increasingly amount of evidence of that occurring. The immunity deals, the refusing to seize laptops as evidence, the allowing key witnesses to attend Clinton's unrecorded 'interview', needs to be examined under greater scrutiny. Of course the biggest question is why he declared the decision to not press for indictment occurred at the end of the investigation, and not months prior as the internal memo seems to indicate.
Maybe if we're lucky, we'll get another outburst of "We're not weasels!" from Mr.Comey after his mask of false sincerity begins to crack under pressure.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Interesting)
I know you're trolling with your CNN propaganda, but could you be less lazy about it?
We had the attorney general of the united states, meet with the spouse of a subject under active FBI investigation in a private meeting that lasted half an hour, and then refused to recuse herself afterwards. We have a director of the FBI who leaks his own internal memos, seemingly purposefully ignores evidence on laptops and celphones, ignores the destruction of the devices, and then claims that there was insufficient evidence of intent when that isn't even a factor to be considered under the statute.
We have immunity deals handed out, with witnesses like Cheryl Mills being proved a liar when she claims ignorance of the server, witnesses being allowed to serve as legal aid to Clinton during interviews, and even more oddities. There's other questions, such as if the donations to the campaign to Comey's wife may have had a bearing on how this investigation was handled.
But according to you this hearing is all to be a smokescreen for nothingburger TrumpRussia, for a news media that sat on the Urianium One story for over five years. Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere.
Haaaaahahahahahahaha (Score:2)
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status," Goodlatte and Gowdy said in a joint statement. "The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic, and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight."
And the award for Best Comedy of All Time goes to...
New Probe Into FBI's Handling of Clinton's Email (Score:3, Funny)
Where did we go wrong? (Score:3)
What happened to the government Of the people, For the people, by the people, with the Rule of law and justice and faithful execution over all politics as the commanding principle for all officials and government employees?
We are now probing investigations, because the investigation might have been done improperly.
How long before we have to investigate the investigation of the investigation?
OR how about a probe of the investigation of the investigation of the investigation of the investigation of X.
FINALLY how about an infinitely recursive investigation? We'll do an investigation of A and B, and investigation of the investigation of A and B, and the investigation of all potential investigations that cover A and B.
Re:Where did we go wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
Answer to first question: You grew up and realized it was a fairy tale.
Investigations only _start_ when the opposing party gets control of the process. Even then, the mutual dirt they have on each other keeps the serious stuff by the powerful out of the light of day. Like teenage kids with MAD dirt on each other, nobody is going to be the first.
Which is why the RNC is afraid of Trump. He isn't in on it. He will send Hillary to prison, even if it ultimately sends half of DC to prison. We can only hope.
Previous investigation a whitewash (Score:5, Insightful)
A common meme is: "The Republicans already tried to look into this and couldn't make anything stick. So clearly Hillary Clinton was innocent and the Republicans are just digging for dirt and hoping to find something." Variations on this have already been posted in this discussion.
What's extraordinary here is that the Director of the FBI intervened personally on Hillary Clinton's behalf. He wrote a draft of his speech exonerating her before the FBI ever interviewed her [cnn.com]. Her aides were given broad immunity [cnn.com], which is usually used to compel people to talk[1], but then they were allowed to just say things like "I don't remember". Hillary Clinton, or someone working for her, wiped her email server after a subpoena was issued [washingtonexaminer.com] requiring her to hand it over to Congress, and there were absolutely no consequences from that. A usual FBI investigation would collect as much evidence as possible as early as possible, but that wasn't done in this case... the Anthony Weiner/Huma Abedin copies of Hillary Clinton emails were found during an investigation of Weiner [cnn.com], but they should have been found earlier. When the FBI is actually investigating they are thorough about collecting evidence. They should have grabbed every computer Hillary ever touched, and as Huma Abedin was an aide to Hillary, every computer Huma ever touched. (They could have copied the hard disks and given the computers back right away.)
Most extraordinary of all: the Director of the FBI claimed that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute Hillary Clinton as no proof of ill intent was found, yet the laws she broke do not require intent but only require proof of mishandling of data.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447209/hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation-grand-jury-subpoenas [nationalreview.com]
Consider what happened to David Petraeus [wikipedia.org]. He was guilty, but what he did wasn't even a tenth as serious as what Hillary Clinton did. But the Director of the FBI didn't whitewash the investigation for him, so his career was over. (By the way, he didn't go to prison, so he still got better treatment than the "little people" would get. Consider the case of Bryan H. Nishimura [fbi.gov]. I would say that what Nishimura did wasn't even a thousandth as serious as what Hillary Clinton did, but he was treated much more harshly than she was. Note that he wasn't charged with any "intent", just the mishandling of data.)
I'm pretty sure that if a member of the Trump administration mishandles classified data, he or she won't get the special treatment that Hillary Clinton got. But the Democrats will get a President elected again sometime in the future and I would like to get a precedent established that the laws apply to Democrats as much as to Trump and his staff. I know that the law is not enforced perfectly even-handedly in this country (or any country in the real world) but I am appalled at the epic whitewashing done on behalf of Hillary Clinton to protect
Re:Hillary's for prison! (Score:4, Interesting)
You're reading this wrong. The article isn't about why wasn't Clinton prosecuted, but rather why of the two FBI investigations into the leading presidential candidates, how come only one (Clinton) was talked about widely whereas the other one (Trump) was kept quiet until after the election.
Given the short-sightedness and willingness to accept double-standards on the Trump side however, had the FBI publicly announced they were looking into Trump, he would have claimed he was the underdog and that "The Man" was out to persecute him and probably have increased his voter base.
Re:Hillary's for prison! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hillary's for prison! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, I gotta think this committee's going to uncover some stuff they weren't intending to uncover.
Actually, some of the evidence against Hillary was collateral damage from the investigation of Anthony Weiner's sexting. The laptop he used for sending penis pics had emails between Hillary and Huma Abedin.
About time (Score:4)
About time someone started investigating the investigation.
Re:Hillary's for prison! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Should they also have written Hillary's exoneration before the investigation is done?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I might think you are a diddler. I might even be looking into it. Maybe I could hold a press conference stating that you are being investigated for diddling. I might think the same of your neighbor, but he's 'special' so I won't tell anyone until I'm done. I sure hope my investigation exonerates you. I would hate for anyone to have the wrong impression just because I said you were being investigated for diddling.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They didn't find "nothing", they found that she and her compatriots had mishandled classified information, lied to investigations, and destroyed evidence - but Comey, having decided not to charge Clinton (his expected new boss) with anything before the investigation even interviewed her or her staff, made up the original interpretation that "negligence" - the actual term used in the US Code - suddenly required a deliberate motive in the mishandling, and that he would not recommend charges even though she d
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to the sailor sent to prison [theguardian.com] for taking unauthorized pictures on his unsecured cell phone. Hillary exposed far larger amounts of far more classified information and then destroyed much of the evidence. If she were anyone else, she'd be serving an effective life sentence.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, half of the present administration is using personal email for official business. Oops!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And... Have been told in no-uncertain terms that it will not be tolerated any more and have stopped doing this. Not to mention that nobody is now claiming they lost these E-mails or that the were not work related, OR contained classified information...
SO... Not the same thing here..
Just incase you don't remember, Hillary reprimanded one of her ambassadors for this very thing near the start of her stint as Secretary of State... Signed the memo and all...
Re:Because you'd be in jail (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They are not lying about it or destroying evidence.... Hmmm...
So which law are you talking about here? The only issue there could possibly be based on this rumor is conducting official business over private E-mail channels which are not being archived. This can be remedied by doing two things... 1. Using official channels going forward and 2. submitting any and all E-mail sent outside of official channels to be archived as required. I'm guessing this was done, but hey, this is all rumor anyway.
So far
I don't care. (Score:3, Insightful)
No harm was done. There's just a lot of speculation and all these "what could have happened." fantasies - no actual evidence.
The ONLY reason the emails were even discovered was because of the Benghazi witch hunt. And as we found out, it was all because the Pentagon didn't have any "military assets" (as they put it) close enough to respond. NOTHING to do with Clinton.
So, I'm bored now. The emails are an irrelevant issue.
In the meantime, I'm concerned about what's going to happen to NAFTA, healthcare and t
Re:I don't care. (Score:4, Insightful)
No harm was done. There's just a lot of speculation and all these "what could have happened." fantasies....
With that as a legal standard, I guess a LOT of stuff just becomes fine and dandy...
If I want to run that red light or slide though the 4 way stop It's OK.. Just have to make sure "no harm done" so as long as I don't cause a wreck, no ticket can be issue or fines assessed.
If I want to drive 50MPH though the school zone near my house with kids present in the cross walks, fine! Just don't hit a kid or do any harm and you get off Scott free..
If I want to own a Title 2 regulated firearm, large capacity magazines and a couple of live grenades, forget he law about background checks and tax stamps, as long as nobody gets hurt, no harm is done, I'm not going to be charged for violating any gun or explosives laws.
Are you starting to get the picture here? "No harm done" is not a good legal standard... I'm thinking you need to rethink this. Maybe a "letter of the law" standard might be better?
Re: I don't care. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: I don't care. (Score:3, Interesting)
Or we could pay actual soldiers the rates we offer mercenaries. Then the soldiers would stop leaving the military to do the same job at higher pay and triply inflated profit margin to the contracting agency.
Added bonus, more experienced soldiers stay on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't care. (Score:5, Insightful)
Every embassy, owned by every country on the planet has spooks operating out of it. Mostly as 'Military attaches'.
It is SOP.
Re: (Score:3)
The charge would be unauthorized release of classified info. So who authorizes it? A judge? Nope. As the Secretary of State she had ultimate authority of classification of anything originating from her office, which was the entire state department. From a legal standpoint, if the Secretary of State emails their staff classified information originating from the State Department, they are de-facto declassifying it. That is why the whole investigation is bizarre and why no charges were brought. You can debate whether this is good judgement or not, but the idea of anything happening legally is absurd.
That isn't the way declassification works. Try educating yourself rather than repeating the misinformation you heard from some random source.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, some of the emails had highly sensitive info on them. Stuff like the actual names of citizens of other nations working for the US in in their country. That is life and death type of info and is classified far above Top Secret. If I remember correctly it is Eyes Only or something close to that. Ambassadors do not have that type of clearance, and neither do members of Congress who are members of the Intelligence oversight committees.
This is some very serious stuff.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Dude;
It's about email. How techy can you get?
And it's also about biology and physics.
Like how often can you beat (physics, impact, collision) a dead horse (biology). Geeky stuff!!
Re:I visit slashdot to escape this political bs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, when we had all the articles that mentioned Trump and Russia, those were important issues that needed to be discussed and transcended issues of tech. Now that we're talking about something inconvenient, politics suddenly needs to be banished.
When Bill Clinton received a $500,000 check from a Kremlin-linked bank in 2010 to give a speech in Moscow it served, to the FBI, as further evidence the Russians had unleashed an influence campaign designed to get access to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
F
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The world hasn't ended, but respect for America has.
Re: (Score:3)
There we go. One moderator, one registered user, and one AC. Not bad for a half ass troll attempted.
Of the three, only the moderator has found truth. He detected my obvious toll and tagged it as such. Good job.
I don't read or reply to AC posts, so I don't know if he is agreeing or not.
So now we have dave. Someone who's TDS was bad enough that he had to respond despite it being a obvious troll. Dave also responded in the exact manner I predicted he would. He responded to my rock-hard fact whit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did U Know? That the "20% of US uranium deposits" never left the United States? Did you also know that it was never intended to leave the United States?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know who the attorney general works for? The head of the FBI?
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly would a Democratic administration without control of the house or senate prevent it?
Last I checked, both the FBI and DOJ are under the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how well did interfering with an FBI investigation work for the CURRENT president?
Sorry, I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first time, but I'm not playing the cagey-question-lilypad game with you. if you have an affirmative point you'd like to make, I'll be happy to discuss.
Re: (Score:2)
In the "Mark Felt" movie, they (the FBI) said they specifically don't work for the White House.
Or do you just mean they're appointed by the White House and then are independent?
Re: (Score:2)
In the "Mark Felt" movie, they (the FBI) said they specifically don't work for the White House.
Movies take a lot of creative liberties with facts. There's a decent discussion of the issue here [constitutioncenter.org]. An excerpt:
For much of the 108-year history of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it had only one director – J. Edgar Hoover, who led the agency for a few days short of 48 years. He was as near to a truly independent official in the federal government’s Executive Branch as the Constitution allows. He had his own special relationship with Congress, and ran the Bureau much as he wished.
His successors have not been as powerful, nor as independent. Indeed, one director in the Bureau’s history – former federal judge William S. Sessions – was fired for ethical reasons by President Bill Clinton in the summer of 1993, a little more than halfway through a 10-year appointment. The President’s public explanation was that there had been a loss of confidence in Sessions’ leadership. Then-Attorney General Janet Reno recommended the dismissal.
It is sometimes assumed that the President can oust an FBI director only “for cause” – that is, for some misconduct in office. But, as a Congressional Research Service study of the director’s office pointed out two years ago, “there are no statutory conditions on the President’s authority to remove the FBI director.”
The constitutional reality is that, if a government official is clearly placed within the Executive Branch, that official serves at the pleasure of the President, and can be fired “at will.” That history has had a recent illustration: earlier this month, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., struck down part of a law by which Congress created a single director to lead the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau – a law that specified that the director could be removed by the President only “for cause.”
The appeals court simply deleted that phrase from the law, thus making the agency’s head subject to being fired by the President for any reason, or no reason at all. (The government has not yet indicated whether it will challenge that ruling in further appeals, perhaps to the Supreme Court.)
That is very much in line with what the Supreme Court has ruled over the years, to preserve the power of the President to be fully in charge of the Executive Branch. Since 1968, a federal law has provided that the head of the FBI will have a 10-year term in office. But the situation legally is that the chance to serve a full term depends upon retaining the confidence of the President.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very nice way of saying 'He had dirt on 99% of congress and could do _anything_ he wanted'.
Re: (Score:2)
He's confusing Congress with the administration, i.e., the White House. If attorney-general Jeff Sessions were going to bring charges against Hillary, if it was winnable, if it's even a good idea to go after your former opponent just after the election's over, he would have done so already.
The story here is about Congress, but all this means is they'll hold hearings and issue subpoenas to force people to grovel in front of TV cameras while Congresscritters grandstand to show how tough they are as they look
Re: (Score:2)
And here comes the "-1, Truth Hurts" contingent -- just like clockwork.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, the "FREE STUFF!!!!" campaign was very popular among weak-minded sheep
Bernie's supporters were not sheep. They were simply voting in their own interest. He was promising free stuff to young educated white people, so of course they are going to support him. The problem is that his support didn't extend beyond that group. He never got much support from minorities, working-class whites, or voters old enough to realize that someone has to pay for the free stuff, and it was going to be them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, the "FREE STUFF!!!!" campaign was very popular among weak-minded sheep
Bernie's supporters were not sheep. They were simply voting in their own interest. He was promising free stuff to young educated white people, so of course they are going to support him. The problem is that his support didn't extend beyond that group. He never got much support from minorities, working-class whites, or voters old enough to realize that someone has to pay for the free stuff, and it was going to be them.
Bernie is quite up front in saying that some taxes would have to be raised. A web site that lays it out:
* http://www.bernietax.com/
He basically tweaked some, and added a few, marginal tax brackets:
* $250,001-$500,000: 37%
* $500,001-$2,000,000: 43%
* $2,000,001-$10,000,000: 48%
* $10,000,001+: 52%
If you were making less than $250,000 your taxes would not have changed.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Shut up, they might still nominate a commie in 3 years. Don't queer it.
Re:The USA is a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it sounds crazy when you put it that way: "free stuff".
Maybe not so crazy when you specify what the stuff is. Education, for example. Health care. In both these cases insufficient access has an impact on society wider than the directly affected people. Stuff you end up paying for. Because when people have no money, they can still cost the rest of us.
A lot of people would be willing to pay more for the consequences of squalor than to risk someone getting something "for free". It's a principled position, you see. I'm more of a pragmatist, myself.
Re: (Score:3)
90 % of statistics like yours are pulled out of excretory orifices. As for your claim for social-Darwinist optimality, that is non-negatable. AJ Ayer would say it's devoid of cognitive content.
Re: The USA is a joke (Score:4, Funny)
Did you know that 72% of doctors and 104.3% of economists agree that only 6% of people would benefit from having enough money to live indoors and buy food?
Re:The USA is a joke (Score:4, Informative)
Do you even have any idea what the cost of living is in Denmark? If the income is the same a Dane pays more taxes, higher prices for homes or apartments, higher restaurant prices, clothing costs, higher prices for gas, higher prices for all utilities, etc.... Some of these higher prices are very daunting as they are 100-160% higher than in the US. That means more than double what those things cost in the US. For example, a pair of Levi's 501 jeans in the US averages $41.48 nationally. In Denmark that same pair of jeans is $108.49. All things considered a Dane's purchasing power is 16% lower than someone of comparable income in the US. Meaning, of course, that overall a Dane is 16% poorer than the equivalent American.
There is no free ride.
Re:The USA is a joke (Score:4, Informative)
*Of course* there's no free ride! That Dane is part of a society whose members have decided it is better (and cheaper) for everyone to band together and buy a shit load of stuff collectively (healthcare, social care etc) rather than buying it individually. So your jeans are cheaper, but your healthcare is waaaaaaaay more expensive. And guess what? No-one drops dead or loses a house from not being able to afford jeans, but they sure as hell do if they can't afford healthcare.
Danish healthcare expenditure totalled 10.8% of GDP in 2014.
US healthcare expenditure totalled 17.1% in the same year.
The Danes spent an average of $5199 on healthcare in 2016, of which $4374 was for government / compulsory services. Americans spent an average of $9892 on healthcare in the same year, of which $4860 was for government / compulsory services. Yes, you actually spent 12 US Levi jeans *more* per year on government / compulsory services in 2016 than the Danes, despite their being able to provide a universal service for that money, while you put up with terrible safety nets, all because of the ridiculous state you've allowed your health system to get into, by being so in thrall to the notion of the free market as a political construct (although obviously not an actual political objective in US health policy for the Republicans or the Democrats).
Re: (Score:2)
You'll get your chance in seven years. In the meantime, you learn patience, same as the Rs did while the Ds were whitewashing.
Re: (Score:3)
You'll get your chance in seven years. In the meantime, you learn patience, same as the Rs did while the Ds were whitewashing.
I don't recall a Democrat-sponsored e-mail-gate investigation crawling up the ass of Colin Powell when George W was in the White House.
Re: (Score:2)
I recall all kinds of politically motivated fishing expeditions.
They wanted a serious investigation, they waited until they were in charge of the executive branch.
I no more trust the Ds to investigate themselves than I do the Rs. The investigations happen after the turnovers, same as always.
Re: (Score:2)
Try again chimp [snopes.com]
Seriously chumps, every time you post a right wing screed you look MORE stupid
Re: (Score:3)
Couldn’t be bothered when it happened or even discuss it but now the GOP Congress is investigating it - slashdot bothers to post an article about how this is just to deflect from the Trump Russia investigation.
Are you fucking retarded? There were tons of stories posted to /. about this. Like this one:
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Or this one:
https://politics.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Or this one:
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Or this one:
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Or this one:
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Or this one:
https://politics.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Or any of dozens of other stories. Are you really so deluded that you just block this shit out of your memory or are knowingly posting shit like this to get pe
Re:Where are the Niger hearings? (Score:5, Insightful)
What does the Niger incident have to do with this, other than to serve as yet another 'whataboutism'.
You're complaining about a double standard, for a probe investigating a double standard, i.e. the unusual activities of the DOJ and the FBI in relation to Clinton. This kind of corruption spanning multiple branches of government can't be just brushed aside just because the parties involved were able to run out the clock. There needs to be answers, there needs to be accountability.
It happens to be democrats on the receiving end this time, and hopefully with republicans too there can be transparency and accountability with the public. I say a pox on both their houses, it is in the public interest to know the truth.