Slashdot Mirror
FBI Finds 14,900 More Documents From Hillary Clinton's Email Server (go.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: The FBI uncovered nearly 15,000 more emails and materials sent to or from Hillary Clinton as part of the agency's investigation into her use of private email at the State Department. The documents were not among the 30,000 work-related emails turned over to the State Department by her attorneys in December 2014. The State Department confirmed it has received "tens of thousands" of personal and work-related email materials -- including the 14,900 emails found by the FBI -- that it will review. At a status hearing Monday before federal Judge Emmett Sullivan, who is overseeing that case, the State Department presented a schedule for how it would release the emails found by the FBI. The first group of 14,900 emails was ordered released, and a status hearing on Sept. 23 "will determine the release of the new emails and documents," Sullivan said. "As we have previously explained, the State Department voluntarily agreed to produce to Judicial Watch any emails sent or received by Secretary Clinton in her official capacity during her tenure as secretary of state which are contained within the material turned over by the FBI and which were not already processed for FOIA by the State Department," said State Department spokesman Mark Toner in a statement issued Monday. "We can confirm that the FBI material includes tens of thousands of non-record (meaning personal) and record materials that will have to be carefully appraised at State," it read. "State has not yet had the opportunity to complete a review of the documents to determine whether they are agency records or if they are duplicative of documents State has already produced through the Freedom of Information Act" said Toner, declining further comment.
Anyone who has ever sent an email knows there are at least 2 copies. One on the sender's account. One on the recipient's. If anyone else is CC'd, then they have a copy too. Did anyone believe when she 'wiped her server' (even without a cloth), that they all disappeared forever?
Of course she had intent. She used a personal email server to avoid this very event. Now it is happening anyway.
Of course, it will be whitewashed anyway, too.
Good point. A President that the media hates means that the President is held accountable.
These are the candidates. You either vote for a walking Meme, conveniently resuscitated as a living anachronism of our post apocalyptic plutocratic future, or a woman who could have faced charges for everything from obstruction of justice to murder or even treason yet unaccountably shows up once a week in a $12,000 designer potato sack to advocate on behalf of the middle class.
alternate candidates? why i thought youd never ask! it boils down to a woman who openly questions the science of everything from GMO's to simple vaccination, and laundry list of "break glass in case of party meltdown" candidates with about a fortnight of facetime with the american people. See you at the polls! and in 3 years immediately behind the burnt out wreckage of an MRAP as we trade rations for ammunition and clothing amidst what used to be a shopping center.
Good people go to bed earlier.
As a moderate conservative, I'll be voting for Hillary. Any other choice is criminal.
That's about how long it took to nail John Gotti, also. Eventually the teflon wears off.
Stand tough and demand that trump show his tax returns
people who are distracted by the republican noise machine deserve to be treated like the (useful) idiots that the gop knows them to be
That certainly was the case with Nixon. He didn't do any more than what Kennedy did to him ten years earlier, but the press loved Kennedy and hated Nixon.
Why? The Democrats hate him. The Republicans hate him. No one trusts him. No one will work with him. He would be a lame duck before he stepped foot in the whitehouse.
Honestly, four years of the federal government in D.C. not fucking things up for the rest of us, regardless of party affiliation, sounds like the best kind of presidency.
Yeah well there's just so many other options to choose from. You've got the corporate Teflon, the thought crime promoting nutcase, the de facto plutocrat who would let the invisible hand screw us right on over, and the conspiracy nutter who thinks wifi will fry your brain, and two of them don't even count. The options are so shitty I can't even protest vote, and if you go to any of the more minor parties you find theocrats, would-be communist overlords, and other assholes. There is literally no one who represents me, no one promoting reasonable reform where necessary without all the usual wingnut idiocy. This election day I see no get out of bed, except maybe to write in I. C. Wiener on my ballot. This election is genuinely disheartening.
I predict that this, like the other fishing expeditions, will also show she's basically a do gooder that Republicans hate.
The FBI couldn't nail Al Capone for his crimes either, so they got him on tax evasion...
Clinton's crimes are far worse than these e-mails, but they might be what finally hangs her, or they should be...
Hillary is stupid, not malicious. Let's assume for the moment that neither Donald or Hillary are actually as evil as we make them out to be.
Let's also assume for the moment that Hillary wanted to have an e-mail address with a domain name the added to her marketing value and she asked some egg-head if he/she could make it happen. Now assume that the egghead recognizes that she's the secretary of state as well as the former first lady of a two term president.
Now the egghead hears her ask for this and he's like "Well, I can't put that on our internal servers... what else can I do to make it happen?" Of course the egghead isn't a lawyer and he/she doesn't want to be cock-blocked by some manager and then go back to Hillary and tell her/him (still not sure) that he screwed up and now her dreams of having a her marketing slogan as a domain name for her e-mail will not be possible.
So... what does he do? Well, not being a lawyer or understanding what it would mean, he sets up a new mail server that would allow her to send messages to Bill like "Make sure you leave your cigars at your intern's house before coming home... oh and buy milk." without them ending up as public record.
I honestly wonder if the e-mail is the best thing they can come up with. Hillary isn't particularly exciting, but she's pretty awful at her job... unless you consider her job as Secretary of State as a personal self-promotion, optimal for ladder climbing... where in that case, she's great at her job. She has to have incredible amounts of crap they can use on her without even digging too deep. And the e-mail thing which I'm damn near convinced is basically technical incompetence as opposed to intentional malicious deception of the country.
Let's also consider that there's absolutely nothing related to the e-mail that will cause Trump to win. He's like the golden goose or the gift that keeps giving to anyone who opposes him. After all, I think that even Dan Quayle could have won running against Trump. Al Gore could have creamed him. Instead, the country leaves Hillary as the opposition and while she looks like she has a landslide, you know you suck when it's months before election and people can still identify a possibility that Trump could possibly win.
Democrats... what the hell were you thinking when you supported Hillary?
Republicans... what the hell were you thinking when you supported Trump?
You both had better candidates and you actually chose the most entertaining ones as opposed to someone you might actually want in office.
That certainly was the case with Nixon. He didn't do any more than what Kennedy did to him ten years earlier, but the press loved Kennedy and hated Nixon.
Shit man, Nixon got us out of Vietnam and the press still fucking hated him.
That's funnyn comparing "tax returns" to a mountain of historic, verifiable corruption. I blame the public schools for removing critical thinking concepts from their curriculum.
This. Soooo much this. And, if you squint hard enough most of the pejorative monikers for one candidate can be interchanged with at least one or two others.
Makes me want a shorter election cycle for president with a corresponding shorter term. Flush the system quicker, limit the damage, burn through the current chaff and get some damn wheat. Only problem is the people we elect to the "feeder" offices (like governor, etc) are just as tainted and tarnished as the crop of whackjobs we fielded this time. And if Trump is indicative in the slightest of our private sector offerings for the position of POTUS our American experiment is well and truly over.
The worst part is that there are so many die-hard fans of these imbeciles. Watching large swaths of the electorate fawn over these incredibly flawed humans has somehow further degraded my already rock bottom apprehension of the American public. It seems the worse the candidate the more the people voting for them have to overcompensate with fervor and gusto for their candidate du jour. Its sickening to observe.
I hate being resigned and cynical, its so gauche. Seems the only other options are to revel in the embarrassing spectacle that is the American political system, or actively contribute to its downfall. With the latter I used to think that armed uprising was the only way to bring down this country. Now it looks like pulling a voting lever will do the job quite thoroughly. You don't even have to worry about messing it up, any one will do.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Given the number of people who seem to actually believe that the Clintons regularly have their potential enemies killed, the fact that desperately obsessing over emails is all they have says a lot.
A crook, two losers, and a buffoon.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Because... ? Trump Steaks? Vodka? Air?
By offending every voting bloc except white males, Trump has one and only path through the electoral college. He must win Florida (which can go either way), Ohio (no Republican has ever won the White House without this state) and Pennsylvania (which haven't gone Republican since 1988). If he loses any one of these states, it's game over. His support among white males is starting to weaken.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/donald-trump-white-men.html
I'm no fan of Trump, however unlike you, I can recognize he has been very successful at enough to be in a pretty good spot today.
As a politician, Trump is failure. George W., as the first CEO president, was a success in comparison.
She's been haranged by Republicans. She's constantly been protected by the press.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
If other parties have a decent showing then it may force the media to start paying attention to the other parties. A third-party vote is not a non-vote, it is a vote against the 2-party system. The desired outcome is presidential debates which feature more than 2 people, so that people can actually educate themselves about who represents them the best instead of voting based on fear.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
For this election, no. But if third parties get more votes this election they stand to do better next election. They might poll better next election which helps get them onto national televised debates, increasing their exposure. This election season has already shown people are sick of the establishment. People need to see third parties as a chance to get away from the establishment.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
There's no law requiring candidates to release their tax records - Nixon did it as a ploy to show he was a 'good guy' and thus begat the tradition. Are you a big fan of Nixonian traditions? If you are, then Hillary is your candidate this time.
Candidates ARE required to file full financials with the FEC under oath which are far more detailed and which Trump did indeed file a year ago.
Now, how about that other tradition of campaign transparency:
Candidates have never (before Obama) refused to release their academic records and birth certificates. Obama refused to produce a birth certificate until long into his administration, when he produced a low-res PDF of what may be a copy of his as a manipulation of the public. His refusal to release is what caused Hillary's 2008 campaign to start the whole "birther" thing, which brought wider attention to it. I'm NOT a birther, I think Obama cleverly used the whole issue to bring out the conspiracy nuts and then paint ALL his critics as crazy birthers. Obama has kept all his academic records sealed. We do not know what courses he took, what his grades were, or even if and when he graduated. It's curious that unlike past presidents, we do not know who his teachers were or who was in classes with him, etc. Again, I'm not implying a conspiracy here other than to ask why he is so opaque and why his supporters do not want to know this stuff that we have easily known about all past presidents- and why they demand to know stuff about Trump that they did not need to know about their messiah.
Trump is under no legal obligation to share his tax returns. I think that he should, but that is just an expectation of a candidate for the office - it holds no legal weight. But his situation is *very* different from the criminal activities that Hillary has been engaging in.
Jill Stein: WIFI harms our kids(1). Gary Johnson: Jews should be forced to make wedding cakes for Nazi party members by the government(2).
Jill Stein and the green party doesn't believes in a free press, wants flat or negative GDP(3). The GP VP hangs out with holocaust denier and 9/11 truther.(4)
Gary Johnson isn't Libertarian at all.(5)
1) http://gizmodo.com/now-jill-st...
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
4) http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
5) http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
we were thinking "How the _fuck_ are we suppose to create a viable progressive candidate when we've got to deal with the right wing in our party who think Jesus will somehow make Flint's water clean again?".
Hilary is a compromise between our right wing and our progressives. That's kinda the point of progressivism: Progress. Hilary is progress. Not a lot. Lots of us want more. But there's a _lot_ of aging baby boomers scared out of their wits right now who don't want _anything_ changed. Hilary's there for them. Bernie was there for the progressives, but we let him slide after he got some concessions out of the establishment because otherwise those boomers will stay home. They won't vote the big R. But they will stay home. Out of fear of Bernie the Big Bad (Democratic) Socialist. And we'll lose the election.
We did the same thing to get Mr Clinton in the Whitehouse. Worked then too. It'll probably work now. If Hilary was a man it'd probably be going smoother. Folks don't like Bossy chicks.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Democrats... what the hell were you thinking when you supported Hillary?
The super delegate system, plus some rigging at the DNC, ensured there was never really a choice. Potential qualified competitors realized that Hillary had all the super delegates bought and paid for, so they didn't even bother. Bernie was dug up as an 'opponent', a sham primary was had- it got a little out of control- and in the end, the pre-determined outcome was obtained.
I think few people really support Hillary. They're just being obedient to the party.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
You say something about "criminal" stuff in regards to Clinton, but I don't think that word means what you think it means. I suggest looking it up.
I agree with everything you said about showing your tax returns. Trump should do it - but he is under no legal obligation to do so. But Clinton has acted criminally - the decision not to prosecute her was left to a Democrat political hack. That doesn't change the fact that what she did was criminal.
One of the most convincing arguments that I've heard this election is that congress won't allow Trump to do anything, but the same cannot be said of Clinton.
This right here is what has convinced me that I'd rather see Trump in the White House than Hillary. If Trump wins the presidency, we might actually see Congress rein in executive power! If Hillary wins, forget it, we all lose.
Of course, I live in a state that's so blue that my vote is entirely meaningless (for any office, anywhere), so I'm going to be voting third party as well. Might finally get them enough votes to at the very least be allowed in a national debate.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Not the guy you decided to attack, but:
Do you completely separate your personal email from the work-related email?
Yes. It's called being a competent adult who is able to use a computer.
Have you ever mentioned work-related items in personal correspondence?
No. Again, it's really not hard to do.
Have you ever mentioned personal matters in work email?
Nope. Again, not really that hard to do. Believe it or not, my boss does not need to see my child's latest artwork from preschool.
Btw, I eagerly await your demand that Manning be released from jail, and all charges against Snowden be dropped. After all, they just made mistakes with classified too.
Yeah, a lot of stuff about Hillary is fabricated. And likewise, a lot of stuff about Trump is fabricated. In both cases, though, what we have video of actually coming out of their mouths is sufficient.
Hillary, I am convinced, is an enemy of the Constitution. There are a lot of anti Second Amendment "quotes" attributed to her which are completely made up. However, her proposal to implement something like Australia's gun laws -- which were, indeed, outright bans and confiscation -- is completely contrary to the to clear and declarative words of the Constitution. If she wants to repeal the Second Amendment, fine, get the votes for it and do it. But if "The Right of the People ... Shall not be infringed" can be abolished without the amendment to make it constitutional, then what possible protection do you imagine might exist for other rights which are the more weakly stated "Congress shall make no law." Not to mention rights that are emanations conjured out of penumbras.
Think about that. "Your Guys" are not forever and always going to be the ones running Washington DC. NEVER advocate giving "your guys" powers that you would be uncomfortable seeing in the hands of the "other guys."
I don't know if Hillary has learned anything from the email server thing. Her response has been one part "I didn't do anything wrong" and one part "I didn't do it nobody saw me do it you can't prove anything." Anybody who has ever held any sort of security clearance knows full well what would have happened to them if they had done what she did. Ask anyone who has ever held a clearance to access TS/SAP stuff what would happen to them. The FBI Director, in declining to recommend prosecution, added a statement that basically said "But nobody else had better try this, because they will suffer consequences, because they are not Hillary Clinton."
I absolutely abhor having anyone in public office who thinks they are above the law. And that goes exponential when the top law enforcement officials of the country agree that, yes, they are above the law.
The decision was made by a republican - and made on a basis that a LOT of such decisions are made: insufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
The thing about the favour-the-accused legal systems of the free world is they ALSO favour the accused when the accused is rich and powerful. If you can come up with a way to change that without destroying liberty for everybody else who doesn't have those resources I would like to hear it - but for now, it's the worst system in the world except for all the others.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *