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.
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.
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.
This wasn't "normal" discovery. It was half-assed discovery that might get someone sanctioned in different circumstances. Withholding evidence from a private party is bad enough. Withholding it from the Feds is yet another example of something that the little people get severely punished for.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This is totally false. Did you forget the 9 hard drives that simultaneously failed a few years ago? I read a nice article covering the odds that 9 drives would fail immediately upon request of the data on them, and the number of zeros before the decimal on the percentage was staggering. They did totally remove emails, just because it wasn't a delete icon on a mail client doesn't mean they were not destroyed as soon as someone asked for them.
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...
I think we would all understand your naive point of view if it weren't for the fact that
a) She intentionally went through the pain to have this server to begin with
b) She tried to obliterate every e-mail that she didn't directly approve to hand over (i.e. you can't try to run discovery again, with better parameters or per a court order)
c) Lie to the public about what her team did when handing e-mails over (she said repeatedly that with certainty she had handed over every work e-mail). She did not say "we tried our best" and would be happy to look again if you think we made a mistake
d) Lie to investigators about what her team did
e) Knowingly lie about transmittal of classified information
f) Lie about (not?) knowing what classified information marks are
g) Lying about approval of the setup...
Shall I go on?
You claim normal discovery. I think it was normal discovery + a through scrub + a bunch of other shady shit.
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.
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.
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.
She told us that about Benghazi because it was a few short weeks before the election. Obama was campaigning on a "everything is just fine, we have been doing a great job" campaign theme. Hillary needed to control the narrative. It doesn't help that the reasonAmbassador Stevens was in Benghazi was to sell weapons to ISIS.
So few people mention the timeline. It was a burgeoning October Surprise, and so they decided a Filmmaker protest would work as an explanation until after the election.
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/...
Even if you though she could have her own private email server, She had a Fiduciary Responsibility to maintain ALL the proper records and get them archived properly. She failed either due to incompetence or malice. And quite frankly, I don't care which answer people choose, both are disqualification IMHO
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
So if she wanted to be all above-board, and use good software - why did she PRINT them out, forcing the FBI to scan and do OCR and patchup on tens of thousands of pages of text? She could have just turned over that database you claim she could filter through...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Her husband lied under oath. Now she's lying under oath. What do you expect from the Clintons? I thought she would wait until she became president, but she has surpassed my wildest expectations.
There is plenty of disappointment to go around.
Democrat, come on...you should have know. You guys think of yourself as the educated ones and yet education must not preclude the possibility of insanity. It seems like you've repeated your mistake expecting different results.
Republican, I can't really blame you. The rest of your candidates sucked too.
Libertarian, too bad you can't find a candidate that isn't a non-interventionalist. Come on, Americans love to meddle. If you can't win this election you should just give up. Disband. Whatever parties do when they are no longer relevant.
If you're not disillusioned with this election, regardless of your party, you must be insane.
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.