Oversight Orders Reddit To Preserve Deleted Posts In Clinton Investigation (thehill.com)

HockeyPuck writes: The House Oversight Committee has ordered Reddit to preserve deleted posts believed to be written by Paul Combetta, an IT technician the committee suspects may have deleted Hillary Clinton emails that were under subpoena. This follows up on an earlier report on reddit users' findings. Reddit users found that Combetta, through the username "StoneTear," requested help in relation to retaining and purging email messages after 60 days, and requested advice on how to remove a "VERY VIP" individual's email address from archived content. The Hill says in its report: "It's unclear what, exactly, the committee will be able to learn from the information Reddit preserves. According to the company's public policy for handling official requests, it maintains basic subscriber information, like IP logs, which identify the computer used to access a site. According to the policy, Reddit can maintain deleted records -- like a user's account -- for 90 days if it receives an official preservation order. Otherwise, the information will be subject to Reddit's 'normal retention or destruction schedules.'"

Comments

maaaan

[Anonymous Coward]

people won't learn how to ask questions without giving up personal info. or does reddit ban tor?

captcha: toasted. indeed.

Re:maaaan

[adamjgp]

It's even worse than not using TOR. Combetta used the same handle "stonetear" that he used in multiple other places on the internet. (Etsy, Gmail, etc.)

Re:maaaan

[TheCastro1689]

They figured out it was him in a more a roundabout way. There was an article a day or two ago on slashdot that outlines how it was found. I'm on reddit over there and read it when it was first figured out. Guy used the same user name lots of places.

Re:maaaan

[Kierthos]

To play Devil's Advocate, though, wouldn't that mean that it would be 'easier' to impersonate him, in terms of a username?

I mean, think about it. We all know people who use the same username across a lot of social media platforms, or forums, or whatever. If someone was inclined to impersonate him, the fact that he uses the same handle makes it easier to do so.

Please note, I'm not saying that this is the case. But a handle in an otherwise anonymous setting does not and cannot, in and of itself, identify someone.

Re:maaaan

[meta-monkey]

What interest would anyone have in impersonating him two years ago when the posts were made? And for the lifetime of his account prior to the email questions?

Re:maaaan

[Kierthos]

I didn't say it was likely. I didn't even say it happened. All I said, is that you can't use a handle to uniquely identify someone.

Re:maaaan

[meta-monkey]

All I said, is that you can't use a handle to uniquely identify someone.

Are you talking metaphysically or legally? Legally of course you can. But if you're trying to be some "well, how can we really know anything?" pedant, then pffft.

Re:maaaan

[ComputerGeek01]

The guy worked for an MSP ( Platte River Networks ), he wasn't even a private contractor. What this does show is that Hillary Clinton cares even less about national security then anyone previously thought. At least a direct hire would have shown some foresight toward limiting the number of jokers with access to these documents. But no, what does this retard do? She outsources it to a bunch of garage sale technicians working at a glorified call center.

Re:maaaan

[irving47]

You're not wrong, but the pre-existence of the accounts, the dates involved, and the types of questions asked on each site would kinda blow reasonable doubt out of the water when they can be linked together so closely. The posting here on slashdot sure wouldn't help that argument, any.
Anyhow, the email address used to verify accounts on both sites would probably be a pretty good nail in the coffin if he verified on reddit. (You can, but don't have to)

Re:maaaan

[anyaristow]

To play Devil's Advocate, though, wouldn't that mean that it would be 'easier' to impersonate him, in terms of a username?...If someone was inclined to impersonate him, the fact that he uses the same handle makes it easier to do so.

So, this person who was impersonating him had the forethought to create a reddit posting history for him before the Clinton server was even widely known?

Re:maaaan

[Anonymous Coward]

Over 1000 documents had classified information at the time they were sent.
I believe 12 were so highly classified they couldn't even release redacted copies of the emails.
The agent investigating, with Top Secret clearance, had to get additional clearance even to view some of the emails.
Clinton used the same classification markings (that she said she didn't know what they were) in memos from State Department that she wrote and WikiLeaks has with her SIGNATURE on them.
There is an email from her asking to have markings removed and sent unsecured.

Yea, lets not let facts get in the way.

Re:maaaan

[tnk1]

In his defense, he probably didn't think he was doing anything wrong by removing those files, it was probably presented to him as a standard data wipe deal to make sure that the server could be decommissioned. Therefore, he probably didn't think he needed to fully cover his tracks or even that anything illegal was going on.

Granted, alluding to working for a VIP on a public forum is beyond stupid, even if you are totally legit, because then people take interest in you, and it is usually not the people who you were looking to impress.

Re:maaaan

[es330td]

Except that only a few documents were found to be marked classified.

Since it was "only a few" does that make it okay? It is okay if I only kill a few people or only steal a few cars?

Re:maaaan

[David_Hart]

Over 1000 documents had classified information at the time they were sent.
I believe 12 were so highly classified they couldn't even release redacted copies of the emails.
The agent investigating, with Top Secret clearance, had to get additional clearance even to view some of the emails.
Clinton used the same classification markings (that she said she didn't know what they were) in memos from State Department that she wrote and WikiLeaks has with her SIGNATURE on them.
There is an email from her asking to have markings removed and sent unsecured.

Yea, lets not let facts get in the way.

Not true... The actual facts are that over 1000 documents were RETROACTIVELY marked as classified by the State Department. They were not marked classified at the time. The agent investigating this issue had to get top secret clearance because of the retroactive classification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:maaaan

[es330td]

In his defense, he probably didn't think he was doing anything wrong by removing those files

Document retention regulations have been around for quite a while now. Any network engineer that isn't aware that there are rules in place about this, especially since he knew the identity of the VIP, isn't a very good systems manager. Back when I wore that hat, there were occasions when I made sure a request like this came from a supervisor and in writing.

Re:maaaan

[networkBoy]

Actually,
    Classified or not doesn't matter. The legal requirement is that all State business be handled on government owned infrastructure.

So, by that measure, even if the server in question was entirely non-sensitive information (note that this is different than unclassified, which can still be sensitive and just hasn't yet been subjected to the classification process), it *still* was a violation of the law.
-nb

Re:maaaan

[naughtynaughty]

Please provide a link to the law that requires "all State business be handled on government owned infrastructure"

Re:maaaan

[MachineShedFred]

No, but you can combine it with other data in order to get a better picture. Like source IP address and geolocation of that IP.

Sure, there's proxy hosts and VPNs and such, but if this guy is always using a particular subnet or two to access things that are known to be him, and those same subnets are used to access these posts on Reddit, the likelihood of impersonation gets rather small, especially considering the time factors.

Re:maaaan

[MachineShedFred]

Oh, well as long as it's only a few counts of inappropriate handling of classified information I guess it's okay, and there shouldn't be any punishment.

Now switch the italics with "a few counts of assault" and see what you think about that statement.

Don't be an apologist.

Re:maaaan

[MachineShedFred]

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

There were still 110 emails in 52 separate conversations that had classified information at the time sent or received, according to the director of the FBI during a televised statement, quoted above. Source, quoted paragraph 12.

Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential. At the time of sending or receipt. Stop being an apologist.

Re:maaaan

[Cajun Hell]

To play Devil's Advocate, though, wouldn't that mean that it would be 'easier' to impersonate him, in terms of a username?

Sure it's easier, as long as nobody really looks at it. That's why "This is the CEO, and I need this info immediately!" social engineering scams work.

But now people are looking at it, and might say "hey, I think this user is you. Is it?" So he's on the spot: he can either admit or deny it.

And if he denies it, then there's always risk of followup questions, like "the DHCP logs say the imposter connected from the same address that your house had that day. Did you notice any strangers in your house?" Or "There was a security camera at coffee shop from which the imposter connected, and the imposter looks just like you! Did your mother ever let slip any hints that you might have an evil twin?"

Next thing you know, he's driving his dead fiance's parents to see his house in the Hamptons. By all means, let's pull over and buy him a housewarming gift. Take it up a notch!

Re:maaaan

[postbigbang]

Hey, my AP was open. Anyone coulda impersonated me. Oh, wait....

Re: maaaan

[backwardsposter]

I don't know how many times this needs repeating to Hillary apologists but, just because SHE didn't mark it classified, doesn't mean it didn't CONTAIN classified information. The information was always classified. And Secretary of State knows the nature of classified information so it shouldn't be a surprise.

Actually I do know how many times it needs repeating. Every time. Because they have no room for new information on this topic.

Re:maaaan

[Bartles]

The information was classified at the time it was sent. Hilalry signed an NDA when she started as SoS that acknowledged that not all classified information will be marked as such.

Re:maaaan

[Dishevel]

From Comeys mouth ducing the press conference.

From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained secret information at the time; and eight contained confidential information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification.

So. Yes there was stuff that was done retroactively, but the director of the FBI made it really clear that hundreds of emails were Classified, Top Secret or Confidential at the time they were sent or received.

Re:maaaan

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yes, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy goes that deep! They play 4D chess when everyone else is doing tic tac toe! Tighten your tinfoil hat, man, they can READ that shit...

Re: maaaan

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Stop. Documents are not classified, information is classified.

Heh. Because that worked so well for the BT Tower in London. They just said its location was classified and suddenly nobody could find it!

Re: maaaan

[KenHansen]

So, this person who was impersonating him had the forethought to create a reddit posting history for him before the Clinton server was even widely known?

Or, you know, guessed the password on the existing account.

Re: maaaan

[KenHansen]

Not true... The actual facts are that over 1000 documents were RETROACTIVELY marked as classified by the State Department. They were not marked classified at the time. The agent investigating this issue had to get top secret clearance because of the retroactive classification.

There were emails that contained classified information when they were sent to/from Hilary's server. There were a few emails that containe partial classification markings sent to/from Hilary's server. The state department maintains two email systems, one for classified communications, the other for non-classified communications. It is impossible to communicate between those two systems, the classified email system does not connect to the public internet - it is a private, closed email system. There is at least one email sent by Hillary to a staffer that directs the staffer to explicitly copy some classified documents from the classified email system to the insecure public email system so it could be sent to Hilary's unsecured email server. The 'markings' you obsess about - 'they weren't MARKED as classified at the time' is a silly childish attempt to deflect responsibility. As Secretary of State, HRC should have known what is and is not classified. Hillary had her lawyers review each of her 60,000 emails, about half of which they deleted - tell me about the security clearances of the individuals she hired to review those emails? Oh, and while we are at it, are you really arguing that in her 4 years as Secretary of State HRC never ever received any classified emails? How did she do her job? How did her support staff know never to send her classified materials?

Re: maaaan

[KenHansen]

Would you like a link to the emails sent to all staff workers at State under Hillary's name that directed them to not use private email for work-related communication?

Re:maaaan

[Coren22]

https://www.archives.gov/about...

Specifically:

https://www.archives.gov/about...
and
https://www.archives.gov/about...

Re: maaaan

[Coren22]

For what?

Re:maaaan

[Coren22]

It worked for Bill ;)

Popcorn.

[0100010001010011]

Both sides are a shit show in their own special ways. At this point I just want a comfy chair and some popcorn.

Re:Popcorn.

[Anonymous Coward]

And people still will vote for "the lesser of two evils" instead of considering any other choice. I have lost all faith in humanity.

Re:Popcorn.

[Mashiki]

Between the two, I'm personally enjoying the absolute and complete clusterfuck known as the Clinton campaign. If they're not trying to declare a war on memes, they have incompetent IT people who are trying to break the law or actually breaking the law.

Re:Popcorn.

[31415926535897]

Sorry, you're not allowed to afford a comfy chair and popcorn. That would flaunt too much success [for a peon], so your resources are being confiscated to:
1. Pay for someone's socialistic wet dream
2. Pay for domestic spying, war and cronyism

Unfortunately, there is no option three. You cannot keep what you have earned.

Re:Popcorn.

[AmiMoJo]

Not really though. Clinton screwed up on email and arguably Benghazi, Trump's list is about a mile long. What Clinton did is just the usual politician fuck up kind of thing, Trump is way more dangerous.

The problem is that it's just like Brexit. The more you point out that it's a terrible idea and sure to end in disaster, the more people reject expert advice and facts and go with their feelings. GOP politicians have even started arguing that feelings are more important than facts now, like crime is down but people feel that it's up because there is so much media coverage and sensationalizing, so let's create a police state to make them warm and fuzzy inside.

Re:Popcorn.

[Mashiki]

Yeah. You've got no idea what you're talking about, what Clinton did was nothing short of criminal. What the people around here did, was nothing short of criminal. Going as far as pleading the 5th. What Trump has done is by far be a businessman and run with his mouth and actually listen to voters. Something that some politicians in the UK have done(which is why the brexit succeeded despite the politicians, the media, the political elite all saying "it's in the bag for us." In other cases, they decided to trot out the police and engage in police-state like activities like "paying visits" to people who post wrong think, and threatening them with hate speech if the police don't like what they're posting.

Re:Popcorn.

[0100010001010011]

and go with their feelings.

But when presented with matters of social justice, "women in the work force", safe spaces and all of the rest of your rhetoric you "reject expect advice and facts and go with [your] feelings"?

GOP politicians have even started arguing that feelings are more important than facts now,

I'm just going to bookmark this comment for the next time you want a safe space for you and your cohort's feelings.

Clinton screwed up

everything she's touched back to before Bill was a governor?

Re:Popcorn.

[AmiMoJo]

Are you saying that Trump University wasn't a scam designed to take people's money? He claims he personally vetted all the teaching staff.

Re:Popcorn.

[bulled]

There is no such thing as a comfy chair left in the US from which to observe the shit show.

Re:Popcorn.

[SvnLyrBrto]

Oh, get over yourself. What Clinton did was bog-standard "shadow IT". It's an issue in any and every large organization, and becomes especially prevalent as the company ages. It happens because, as they have to support more and more people with the same resources, IT people tend to become less helpful and more reliant on policies, procedures, and standardized lists of supported hardware and software; and these wind up not adequately fulfilling the needs of the users. And don't imagine you're immune. If you work for anything larger than a small to medium sized startup, you have users somewhere who are doing something that's against "the rulez".

Re:Popcorn.

[Fire_Wraith]

"Clinton screwed up on email and arguably Benghazi"

I'm sorry -- but there is a very long history of her "screw ups and lies". Whitewater ring a bell? I don't want to list them all out as I dont want to type a "mile long" worth of dirt.

Oh, but please do - because it's not so much a "mile long list" of dirt, so much as it is a mile long list of overhyped nothingburgers that Republicans repeatedly tried to turn into major scandals in an ongoing effort to destroy the Clintons politically. About the only respite from it was when Hillary was seen as a rival to Obama after she lost the primary to him in 2008. Once she became part of his cabinet though, it was "game on" again.

It's actually somewhat more telling that despite all the relentless scrutiny, investigating, and endless parade of hearings, over 24 years now, there still has yet to be a single indictment or criminal charge against her. Either she's the canniest most effective schemer ever (yet simultaneously incompetent enough for all the rest of these minor screwups), or there's really not a lot to any of it.

Re:Popcorn.

[networkBoy]

That is a true statement, but what sets Clinton apart is that her actions had a *direct* impact on national security.
She doesn't get the choice of shadow IT.
End. Of. Story.
-nb

Re:Popcorn.

[Hodr]

It's actually somewhat more telling that despite all the relentless scrutiny, investigating, and endless parade of hearings, over 24 years now, there still has yet to be a single indictment or criminal charge against her. Either she's the canniest most effective schemer ever (yet simultaneously incompetent enough for all the rest of these minor screwups), or there's really not a lot to any of it.

You find it telling that someone who is married to a former president, who has friends in places of power in the government and private sector, who is incredibly wealthy, and who has maintained high profile political positions for decades doesn't get an indictment or criminal charge?

You must believe Putin is a stand up guy too. Right?

Re:Popcorn.

[wierd_w]

NO.

He *IS* entitled to be allowed to participate. He just is not entitled to be listened to. If a white supremist shows up at a BLM rally, and opens his fat mouth with verbal diarrhea, he has ever right to be there. The BLM people there have every right to tell him to shut the fuck up.

DO NOT go down the route of Animal Farm, and assert that some people are more equal than others.

Re:Popcorn.

[rickb928]

"Trump is way more dangerous"

The power of his pen won't match the power of Hillary's pen, if she is elected. Hyperbole much?

Re:Popcorn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait so you condemn Clinton as criminal but Trump gets a free pass because his shitpile of corruption hasn't hit the courts yet? Neither has Clintons so by your own logic how can you condemn her? You might be the biggest retard I have ever seen.

Re:Popcorn.

[rhazz]

what Clinton did was nothing short of criminal.

What Trump has done is by far be a businessman

The engineers of the banking crash were also business men.

Re:Popcorn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that Trump University wasn't a scam designed to take people's money? He claims he personally vetted all the teaching staff.

Don't know, it hasn't been through the courts. And unless you're one of those assholes that believes everything laid out in front of you, then you'd give it, it's day and court and we can all agree on what happens in the end.

Then again, you've shown in the past that you really like social justice aka mob rule. Fuck courts with that right?

The law has decided not to charge Hillary, yet you still maintain she's a criminal and needs to be stopped? So the rule of law applies only when it's convenient, then?

Re:Popcorn.

[Jhon]

"Yet somehow Clinton is the liar, because there was some confused reporting that was quickly straightened out."

No. They lied. It's their first reaction. And they 'straighten' out anything after clear evidence is waved under their nose. Remember the emails?

Re:Popcorn.

[0100010001010011]

I'm not interested in people feeling

See, there you go again. Your position on facts/feelings changes depends on *your* feelings.

Safe spaces are absolutely vital

But the facts about safe spaces don't back that up. It didn't even take a separate comment thread for you to "argue that feelings are more important than facts now".

and thus you need places where people can safely discuss controversial ideas.

Which is the exact opposite of a safe space.

You are not entitled to be part of every conversation.

Tell me more of your feelings on the matter.

Re:Popcorn.

[Raenex]

Clinton released her medical records

No she didn't. Even the Clinton News Network denies that claim:

"This is certainly not a release of medical records by any means. This is very similar, in some ways, to what we got in July of last year," Gupta said.

Re:Popcorn.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

And to add to that the amount of people around her who were involved with various activities that she was a part of who have ended up in jail. When I heard her say "The company you keep says a lot about you" I immediately though about how that would apply to her over the years. Whitewater, cattle futures, Lincoln Bedroom, Travel Gate, Robert Byrd, Rose Law Firm, etc.

If the republicans wanted to run an ad that would seem like a good one, open with that quote from Clinton, then list off all of the people who ended up in trouble with the law or have a bad background and mention their relationship to Clinton. Then in closing replay the Clinton quote. Then again this year I am, jokingly, hoping for Russian intervention or Giant Meteor in the first debate as the best outcome.

Re:Popcorn.

[dywolf]

are you nuts?
slashbertarians aren't interested in facts and logic, only in burning the witch.
and they use the same logic they used back in salem: if she drowns, she's ok, but if she doesn't, she's a watich so burn her.

Re:Popcorn.

[dywolf]

if republicans had a single shred of evidence do you honestly think they would hesitate to use it, especially while controlling both houses?

its just like all the BS directed Obama over the past eight years: they got nothing. nothing but their own warm moist bloviating breath.

Re:Popcorn.

[dywolf]

classic case of blind conservative projection.

Re:Popcorn.

[Maltheus]

The problem is that it's just like Brexit. The more you point out that it's a terrible idea and sure to end in disaster, the more people reject expert advice and facts and go with their feelings.

And yet, Brexit didn't turn out to be the disaster that was predicted. More often than not, the "experts" are just going with their feelings as well. The sky isn't actually falling as often as people would like to believe.

As for Clinton, are you really not including Libya and Syria on that list? Benghazi aside, she bragged, in her own e-mails as to being the driving force behind removing Ghadaffi. The region is in chaos and refugees are fleeing everywhere. Siding with the "rebels" against Assad hasn't worked out too well either. Hundreds of thousands are dead due to her regime change games.

Re:Popcorn.

[Solandri]

The Trump University stuff will need to go to trial before I can form an opinion. What most non-business people don't seem to understand is that any business endeavor is a risk. There's a chance you may succeed, there's a chance you may fail. The idea is to try to find or create business ventures which have a higher than average chance of succeeding, and spend your time (and money) on them.

In that respect, it does not surprise me at all that some of the people who paid for Trump University weren't successful afterwards, and were dissatisfied with the course. Are their numbers large enough to characterize Trump University as fraud? I don't know, and with the press highlighting only the people who were dissatisfied it's impossible to say.

If you want guaranteed success, put your money into a savings account or CD at the bank. If you want a better return than the paltry 0.25%-1% those instruments will give you, then you need to be prepared to take some risks, and be ready to blame failures on yourself or just bad luck instead of on others. The better businessmen pick themselves up and brush themselves off after a failure and move on, chalking up the time and money lost as a cost of learning lessons on what not to do in the future. The poor businessmen dwell on their failures and don't move on, trying to pin the blame on someone else, thus decreasing their chances of finding a new successful venture.

Re:Popcorn.

[khallow]

I have to roll my eyes at some of the exaggerations here. She's sloppy enough to get caught in multiple felonies involving national security and repeatedly caught changing her story every time a revelation comes out yet somehow "the canniest, most effective schemer ever"? That's not the phrase I'd use to describe Clinton.

Re:Popcorn.

[thegarbz]

Trump is way more dangerous.

That's why I'm hoping he wins. Clinton is an example of corrupt establishment that is slowly driving the country into the ground. The USA needs a shakeup. Trump's damage will be limited by what he can get through congress so he's not as dangerous as anyone makes out. But at this point I think the best thing for the country would be to not have a career politician at the top.

Re:Popcorn.

[thegarbz]

It's actually somewhat more telling that despite all the relentless scrutiny, investigating, and endless parade of hearings, over 24 years now, there still has yet to be a single indictment or criminal charge against her. Either she's the canniest most effective schemer ever (yet simultaneously incompetent enough for all the rest of these minor screwups), or there's really not a lot to any of it.

Or she's called Clinton. Telling indeed.

Re: Popcorn.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

At this point I just want a comfy chair

I expected a congressional investigation, not the Spanish Inquisition!

Re:Popcorn.

[AmiMoJo]

I didn't argue that feelings were more important than facts, I argued the exact opposite! Both times! If you are so stupid that you can't even understand simple, clearly stated agreements there really is no point debating anything with you. Your seem to misunderstand almost everything based on your pre-existing ideas.

You accuse "SJWs" of ignoring things that go against their established views, but that's exactly what you do!

Re:Popcorn.

[AmiMoJo]

If I invite some friends to my home to talk about stuff, no one else is entitled to be part of that conversation.

Re:Popcorn.

[Mashiki]

The law has decided not to charge Hillary, yet you still maintain she's a criminal and needs to be stopped? So the rule of law applies only when it's convenient, then?

You mean besides for anyone who actually looks at what she's done and is actually criminal? Or that she has so many connections in the beltway that it's suicidal to charge her with criminal charges and live to tell the tale at the end of the week. Or that various investigative agents under oath stated that her actions were criminal, but were told how to peruse the investigation. Or that in a couple of cases, her actions were criminal but she was apparently too incompetent to know that? Remember that old saw of "the ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Re:Popcorn.

[gzuckier]

Between the two, I'm personally enjoying the absolute and complete clusterfuck known as the Clinton campaign. If they're not trying to declare a war on memes, they have incompetent IT people who are trying to break the law or actually breaking the law.

It's against the law to delete my old emails off the server? Uh oh

Re:Popcorn.

[gzuckier]

Yeah. You've got no idea what you're talking about, what Clinton did was nothing short of criminal. What the people around here did, was nothing short of criminal. Going as far as pleading the 5th. What Trump has done is by far be a businessman and run with his mouth and actually listen to voters. Something that some politicians in the UK have done(which is why the brexit succeeded despite the politicians, the media, the political elite all saying "it's in the bag for us." In other cases, they decided to trot out the police and engage in police-state like activities like "paying visits" to people who post wrong think, and threatening them with hate speech if the police don't like what they're posting.

yeah, and the fbi have no idea what they're talking about either. meanwhile, your concept of "businessman" seems to include "crook", which is, I suppose, a variety of businessman.

Re:Popcorn.

[gzuckier]

That is a true statement, but what sets Clinton apart is that her actions had a *direct* impact on national security. She doesn't get the choice of shadow IT. End. Of. Story. -nb

the direct impact being that, when the official state department server was hacked, her server wasn't. omigod the republic is doomed.

Re:Popcorn.

[gzuckier]

"Clinton screwed up on email and arguably Benghazi"

I'm sorry -- but there is a very long history of her "screw ups and lies". Whitewater ring a bell? I don't want to list them all out as I dont want to type a "mile long" worth of dirt.

God damn it man! The FIRST inclination when she faints was to LIE about it until a video pops up showing her collapsing! There is ZERO trust in anything she does or says.

That said, the Democrats nominated someone who would lose to a rabid coyote. Not to be out done, The Republicans nominated someone who could lose to the Democrat's choice!. Literally ANYONE who can fog a mirror could beat the other.

Is it really a GOOD thing when the HONEST campaign pin on BOTH sides says "Vote for me! I'm not the other guy/gal!"

whitewater? yeah, she was found guilty of her husband being noncooperative in his testimony over a blow job, said testimony having happened during the investigation which came up with nothing else. omigod, the republic is doomed! man, if you're pulling up whitewater in 2016 as proof of hillary's criminality, you are really coming up dry.

Re:Popcorn.

[HornWumpus]

If Chelsea's dad hadn't died in prison, Hillary would be disbarred and likely still in jail over whitewater.

The original investigation was about Bill, Hillary got a pass.

Re:Popcorn.

[HornWumpus]

'Considering every argument' is antithetical to safe spaces. Some arguments are 'triggering' or some such nonsense.

Wipe the servers

[penguinoid]

And then when questioned joke about wiping them with a cloth.

Give some protection to Combetta

[LichtSpektren]

At this point it's really important that Combetta is put on suicide watch and given a bodyguard. A lot of people affiliated with the Clintons end up in, how do you say... "unusual circumstances", like getting murdered by a 'robber' that actually didn't take anything, or 'committing suicide' by shooting themselves in the back twice.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[LichtSpektren]

Seth Rich, allegedly killed in a robbery where nothing was actually stolen: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

Vince Foster has a whole Wikipedia article devoted to his suspicious death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[Kierthos]

Considering how much time the right wing spent on "Is Obama a secret Muslim?" or "Was Obama even born in this country?" or "Tides go in, tides go out, you can't explain that." (Okay, maybe not that last one), they've kind of lost a bit of credibility when it comes to other things.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[Mashiki]

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll end up dead in a botched robbery, with two bullets to the back of his head and all of his possessions still on him.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[LichtSpektren]

Considering how much time the right wing spent on "Is Obama a secret Muslim?" or "Was Obama even born in this country?" or "Tides go in, tides go out, you can't explain that." (Okay, maybe not that last one), they've kind of lost a bit of credibility when it comes to other things.

Funny thing about that, the whole birther controversy was started by the Clinton campaign in 2008, when she was running against Obama for the presidential nomination. I guess that means her credibility is even worse than the right-wing's, right?

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[Kierthos]

Supporters of Hillary Clinton, not the Clinton campaign.

And the right wing took that football and ran with it. For years. Hell, Trump hasn't given up on it. He's basically said he's dropping it to get his campaign to move on. Sheriff Joe Arpaio STILL thinks the birth certificate is a fake.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[AmiMoJo]

This is getting as bad as the birthers. Which Trump says Clinton started, the gaslighting asshole.

It's a typical conspiracy theory. No evidence, but lots of coincidences and tenuous links. How come Lewinsky isn't dead, if they have killed equally prominent people over less?

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[will_die]

Hilliarys campaign also popularized the Obama is a muslim back in 2007.
Granted he is an apostate muslim, still that is different from what the hilliary campaign was pushing.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[JoeMerchant]

Lewinski could, actually, have been a carefully crafted political maneuver. The country didn't really have anything better to do than an impeachment process at the time, the man in control won the day, still got his full 2nd term, and made the impeachers look like a bunch of impotent whiners. On the flip side, Newt Gingrich actually left office over his scandal. I met him a few months later (didn't talk about his retirement, though), I'd judge him to have taken the scandal as an excuse to leave office and do other things - he was very different in person than the fire breathing table thumping clips they showed on CNN.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[mwvdlee]

The burden is on the accuser to prove guilt.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[Esteanil]

This is getting as bad as the birthers. Which Trump says Clinton started, the gaslighting asshole.

Clinton did start it. Even far-left magazines and newspapers who aren't in the tank for Clinton can trace how Clinton ops in 2008, told investigative reporters that they should look into it. And many actually did, going as far as sending investigative teams to look into it. It was one of her campaign strategies.

None of these links say anything about Clinton starting anything of the sort.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[AmiMoJo]

Believe it or not, in the last few days...

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Yes, even the tides.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[ScentCone]

This is getting as bad as the birthers. Which Trump says Clinton started

Right, he should have been more specific. It was a Clinton campaign worker that started that, and was then thrown under the bus because it was done so publicly. Enter the usual Clinton stealth operative, Sidney Blumenthal, who talked it up behind the scenes where he normally performs his mercenarial tasks.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[ScentCone]

I know, how about we let the FBI director explain to you that she lied repeatedly about her efforts to avoid public scrutiny of her public records and her casual mis-handling of extremely sensitive classified material? She's on the record lying about it from the day the coverage of that mess started, and she's still doing it today - though she's learned to spend eight months at a time without a single press conference in order to avoid digging that hole any deeper.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[AmiMoJo]

The telegraph is a right wing paper, it absolutely hates the left.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[Nidi62]

Supporters of Hillary Clinton, not the Clinton campaign.

And the right wing took that football and ran with it. For years. Hell, Trump hasn't given up on it. He's basically said he's dropping it to get his campaign to move on. Sheriff Joe Arpaio STILL thinks the birth certificate is a fake.

Actually, it's kind of impressive how Trump is taking credit for "ending" the whole birther circus when he was pretty much the only person keeping it alive the past few years. It's like someone opening up a dam, sending water downriver to the nearest town and once it's about to flood, closing up the dam then claiming they saved the town.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[JBMcB]

The first link give links to a strategy memo where the author, Penn, suggests that Obama has comparatively weak American roots and that Clinton could make a big point of her middle class middle American roots. It never questions that he is American, or suggests implying he isn't. This is categorically not evidence that Clinton or anyone associated with her claimed Obama wasn't American.

Isn't that a bit hair splitting? Don't you see how, if we were talking about a republican candidate, this would be labeled, in the very least, as running a xenophobic campaign? The details may differ but the insinuations are the same.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[Tesen]

I know, how about we let the FBI director explain to you that she lied repeatedly about her efforts to avoid public scrutiny of her public records and her casual mis-handling of extremely sensitive classified material? She's on the record lying about it from the day the coverage of that mess started, and she's still doing it today - though she's learned to spend eight months at a time without a single press conference in order to avoid digging that hole any deeper.

Comey Let's quote him shall we?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked Comey at the July 7 congressional hearing, "Did she lie to the public?"
Comey responded, "That's a question I'm not qualified to answer."

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," Comey said in a July 5 statement.

Comey also said that there were some emails that were insufficiently marked and there were no basis to conclude that Clinton lied to the FBI about her email practices.

So here are the issues:

1) Did Clinton lie to the public? If so why? Was it to cover it up, or was there material and reasons that we as the public and not security authorized to know and she took the best approach she could? BTW YOU and I are not qualified to answer that beyond offering an opinion (and they are like assholes...).

The ONLY thing we can go on here is the integrity of the FBI Director and the Justice Department; the fact they are NOT intending to press criminal charges implies a) they are corrupt (again, please prove it) b) or the wrong doing was not sufficient enough to constitute criminal negligence or intent.

2) Now the remaining issues of her operating a private email server stem back many administrations as Colin Powell has provided a glance in to himself. Also, the Bush administration would routinely use an RNC email server for correspondence and have committed massive intentional email purges. All of which has NEVER came under any congressional scrutiny like Hillary Clinton's has.

Why is it that we have a culture in our government that thinks they can do whatever they want? Why is it we have a culture in our government that think they can spend our tax dollars targeting one person for their parties gain? If you think Trump will be any different you are totally wrong. He has shown zero transparency AT ALL during his campaign (worse than Clinton, which quite frankly is shocking) and his distinct lack of answering any questions directly or producing any solid and concrete details in his "policies" is just dumbfounding.

This entire situation is a freaking mess and anyone that thinks it comes down to one person (Hillary) is quite frankly so stupid they need their internet access revoked. If the right actually wanted to help the country, they would not have been focusing solely on Clinton during Benghazi or this email situation they would have broadened the scope of the inquiry to include decades of Embassy security issues (including deaths) and decades of operating informational sources outside of government control and oversight, and the amount if information security breaches of existing government systems, instead, it is all about stopping Hillary Clinton... great...

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[Tesen]

Nobody has cared for years. Now it's just a handy red herring for the left.

No, it is not a handy red herring it is a great insight in to the opinions of a man running for president. Past comments and opinions DO MATTER no matter how inconvenient it is for your candidate.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[Tesen]

Funny thing about that, the whole birther controversy was started by the Clinton campaign in 2008, when she was running against Obama for the presidential nomination. I guess that means her credibility is even worse than the right-wing's, right?

Funny thing is that it was NOT. There were a lot of questions thrown around by both the left and the right; most of the questions were whether he was a Muslim or not (who cares anyway) and a few Clinton supporters and surrogates repeated anonymous emails asking, "Is he an American?" in a desperate attempt to keep her campaign afloat, but it was dropped by these individuals pretty quickly. Cue the right (who already were involved) running with it, in fact foaming at the mouth with it.

Now if we step back to 2004, Andy Martin accused Barack Obama of being a complete fraud and who had lied about his heritage" in his memoir. So this was the actual start of accusations Barack Obama was lying. Cue 1st Obama presidential cycle when a post on freerepublic.com commented on him being sworn in on the Koran for his senate seat and not being naturally born and it took off from there where Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Grant and Trump etc all foaming at the mouth and screaming he was not naturally born.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[ScentCone]

So you're trying mighty hard to ignore the repeated questions (about Clinton's statements) put to the director, asking if her statements were true. His repeated answers: "That was untrue."

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[niaxilin]

Was it Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump who said Obama was born a foreigner? Quit trying to deflect. Only one of these two people went on a full-bore birther crusade.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[Tesen]

So you're trying mighty hard to ignore the repeated questions (about Clinton's statements) put to the director, asking if her statements were true. His repeated answers: "That was untrue."

Again you claimed the director she said she lied:

"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."

Comey also said that there were some emails that were insufficiently marked and there were no basis to conclude that Clinton lied to the FBI about her email practices.

Clinton asserting that Comey said her public statements were true may have been a stretch by Clinton, but his lack of damnation and making the comment he is not qualified to comment on them is not affirmation she lied.

Truth does not require trying hard...

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[dywolf]

obviously Lewinsky was a plant to build sympathy for hillary 20 odd years later.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[Mashiki]

None of these links say anything about Clinton starting anything of the sort.

Proving once again that in /. land not RTFA is just a suggestion.

Re:Give some protection to Combetta

[dywolf]

i see youve been using yoru sock puppet to mod down the facts.
well. you're still wrong and spreading bullshit.

Re:Reddit to the rescue

[houghi]

There is a difference between willing and able. e.g. I am able to move out of my moms apartment.

Timing?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what was the timing of the Reddit requests?
Was it before or after this thing became an issue under investigation.

Before could be just normal incompetent it support.
After could be a nice, neat evidence trail for a coverup.
Dumber things have happened.

Hopefully it's the first, but if it's the second, the trail would go thru the IT guy.
Physical protection for him might be prudent.

how is this still relevant?

[nimbius]

It's unclear what, exactly, the committee will be able to learn from the information Reddit preserves

or why it would be applicable to a closed criminal investigation that resulted in no indictment and no charges. at this point its just a political fishing expedition to slander the character of a presidential candidate thats already generally reviled by Americans yet unaccountably still able to secure her parties candidate nomination.

maybe if republicans had spent the time it took to conduct four hearings into benghazi more prudently by...say...building a functional candidate and forming meaningful foreign and domestic policy that address genuine issues in the upcoming decade, we wouldnt be stuck voting for a criminal in a twelve thousand dollar potato sack that lectures ad nauseum on the middle class.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[LichtSpektren]

a presidential candidate thats already generally reviled by Americans yet unaccountably still able to secure her parties candidate nomination.

Yeah, I mean it's not like there were leaked emails from DNC officials that demonstrate that the whole nomination process was rigged in her favor from day 0.

Is it sunny in that land of self-delusion you live in?

Re:how is this still relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with republicans and everything to do with more and more evidence surfacing about Hillary's criminal behavior. Everyone knows she committed the crimes but the reason there were no charges is because "they couldn't prove intent". I think this is a strong bit of evidence that proves intent, so now they will need to find a new story for why they can't charge her.

If you think this is a political fishing expedition you need to look in the mirror for a while and think about how partisan you are acting. What difference does it make if she is a presidential candidate? Appeal to authority fallacy much? Look what the president of Brazil has done. This is the same shit.

How the fucking hell do you not have a transcribed, taped, deposition regarding something like this.... the PUBLIC evidence is mounting that she deleted these e-mails after the subpoena was issued. The FBI/CIA/NSA have all the information and know she is guilty as hell but since Obama/Clinton control these people, only the PUBLIC can stop her.

Gah... what am I doing... you are so far gone and will never open your mind to what you are letting these people get away with.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[wisnoskij]

The biggest thing right now, from my understanding, is that Combetta had immunity, with the condition he did not hide or lie about anything. From my understanding he has now lost that. Now even if Hillary does not go to jail, her IT guy sure looks like he will.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[BradleyUffner]

That's not what he's talking about, and you know it.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[Jhon]

"or why it would be applicable to a closed criminal investigation that resulted in no indictment and no charges. at this point its just a political fishing expedition to slander the character of a presidential candidate thats already generally reviled by Americans yet unaccountably still able to secure her parties candidate nomination. "

A closed criminal investigation != acquittal. There's no double-jeopardy involved. If it's found she really *DID* lie to investigators and she really *DID* actively try to keep state department emails from going in to the record then hey! The "closed" becomes "open" pretty quick.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[__aaclcg7560]

That's not what he's talking about, and you know it.

Please enlighten me.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[__aaclcg7560]

So, if a cabinet level position takes hundreds of millions in bribes to direct US foreign policy, yes they should be prosecuted after leaving office even if not running for president.

I look forward to seeing George W. and Dick Cheney being convicted of war crimes in Iraq.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[ledow]

Because this is new evidence that may show someone lied to the court, or provide new avenues for charges?

If this guy was asked "Did you delete emails?" and said no, this case is wide-open again because he could be found to be lying based on this discovery. If his competency was used as a factor in ensuring the regulations were met, that might be brought into question by experts if the court interprets this evidence in certain ways.

Double-jeopardy doesn't apply if new evidence is brought in most countries.

But then, most countries don't have nonsense laws like that anyway, or prescribe them in such a way that they only stop harassment of a defendant rather than letting murderers get off because the lawyers were stupid but it doesn't quite qualify as a mistrial.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[bohmt]

They would be if they'd step into the EU. That is why "The Hague Invasion Act" exists.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[LichtSpektren]

Feel free to implore your elected representatives to do so.

However, both of those individuals are out of power, so it's less urgent to press charges against them than it is against Clinton, who has a terrifyingly good shot at becoming President soon.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[__aaclcg7560]

[...] so it's less urgent to press charges against them than it is against Clinton [...]

She's guilty of being a master politician. But that's not a criminal offense.

[...] who has a terrifyingly good shot at becoming President soon.

She has an excellent chance of becoming president. Trump needs to win Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. If he loses any one of these states, it's game over. Florida can go either way, no Republican had won the presidency without Ohio, and the last time Pennsylvania elected a Republican president was 1988. Trump isn't doing a damn thing to win any of these states.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I look forward to seeing George W. and Dick Cheney being convicted of war crimes in Iraq.

Based on the history of "war crimes trials", that should come just after Iraq invades the US, conquers it, and occupies it.

And at that point, noone will be surprised at Bush/Cheney war crimes trials.

Note that I expect the war/invasion/occupation to come almost immediately after the Second Coming of the Christ. Well, maybe not quite that soon, but sometime after that, anyway....

Note that Iraq can, if they wish, go ahead with the war crimes trials right now, if they'd like. But the entire world is going to just laugh and point if they do. When all's said and done, the prerequisite for "war crimes trials" is overwhemling military victory.

And if it's not obvious, no I don't approve of the concept of "war crimes trials". Even when applied to ex-NAZIs after WW2. It set a dangerously stupid precedent....

Re:how is this still relevant?

[__aaclcg7560]

Based on the history of "war crimes trials", that should come just after Iraq invades the US, conquers it, and occupies it.

A special prosecutor should have been called the day after Obama got sworn into office in 2009. I can understand why Obama didn't want to pursue the issue, especially since the country was still in the middle of the Great Recession. Victory or not, it doesn't excused killing a million Iraqis for non-existent nuclear WMDs.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[cdrudge]

Double-jeopardy doesn't apply if new evidence is brought in most countries.

It doesn't matter what happens in most countries, it only matters what the law is in the United States.

In Clinton's case, jeopardy never attached so double jeopardy doesn't even apply. If an actual trial had happened, a jury sworn in, and a dismissal due to lack of evidence or an acquittal happened, double jeopardy definitely would apply even if a "smoking gun" was later found. Once a case has been decided in trial prosecution doesn't get the opportunity to try, try again if better evidence shows up. That's the whole reasoning behind not bringing charges even when everyone "knows they did it" but there isn't sufficient evidence to prove it. If sufficient evidence later is found, then charges may be able to be brought up then to gain a conviction.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

voting for a criminal in a twelve thousand dollar potato sack

No that wasn't a potato sack, it was the bag for my vacuum

Re:how is this still relevant?

[dywolf]

don't we all.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[dywolf]

yes, how dangerously stupid...to prosecute people for the horrific things they did.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[__aaclcg7560]

Trump has added new swing states.

That doesn't seem likely.

The old political formula is dead.

Trump made the electoral college relevant and not in his favor

His populism attracts new people to his cause.

He will need 70% of the white male vote to overcome the minority and women vote. Reagan had 67% in 1980. Romney had 62% in 2012. Since he's an equal opportunity offender, he doesn't have much wiggle room.

If Hillary has another major medical event, it's game over.

Hillary could drop dead but Trump still won't win the election.

Re:how is this still relevant?

[__aaclcg7560]

That would require you to first remove your political/ideological blinders and we all know that ain't about to happen.

Which "political/ideological blinders" would those be?

Re:Reddit to the rescue

[Anonymous Coward]

Judicial Watch made an FOIA request for Huma's emails from State Department. They found a good number of Hillary emails, to Huma, that the FBI were not able to find after a 2 year investigation. They showed requests for State Department help being forwarded to the donation center for Clinton Foundation and then being answered by State Department after appropriate donation. No, yoga was not mentioned in those emails, and as far as I know not a single email mentioning yoga has been found to date.

FBI never once considered looking for emails from people Hillary frequently sent emails to, to verify no work related emails were deleted. FBI from the beginning decided to not recommend indictment and that pretty much proved it.

"Sir, explain what you meant by 'yiffing.'"

[meta-monkey]

Apparently from his reddit account he was in to furry shit. I really want the House Oversight Committee to ask him "sir, could you explain to the Committee what you meant by 'yiffing' in some of your comments?"

Re:What about Slashdot?

[0100010001010011]

There are? I only found 3 posts.

The IIS patches aren't on liveupdate, you have to go get them

- https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re: "Big Brother" and the Web

Gasbag Joe Liberman ... LOL right on! I just moved from Michigan, and he's one quack I'm not sorry to see gone. Well everyone knows that the liberal agenda includes removing any personal responsibility or blame for your actions from you, and putting them in the lap of big scary corporations and 'the internet' and such. Blah. ;) ST

- https://slashdot.org/comments....

And my personal favorite:

Document Retention - How Long is Too Long?

I'm contracted to a state government, and let me tell you, everyone here saves EVERYthing for cover-your-ass purposes.. it's really sad to see every little memo back to 1997 in someone's inbox taking up PHAT amounts of disk space on the GroupWise server ... sigh

https://slashdot.org/comments....

I guess once you get to certain levels of government the "CYA" is deleting all of your e-mails.

Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Anonymous Coward]

Johnson is the only other candidate on the ballot in Georgia - aside from Trump and Clinton. He's polling in the double digits here - the first time ever for a Libertarian or any third party.

I'm voting for him for POTUS. And then Democrat for everything else I can. The Republicans have pissed me off so much with their brinkmanship over the last 8 years and then to insult us by blaming everything on the Democrats. The Republicans have failed in showing me that they are capable of governing this country. And all the incumbents are Republicans so it's also an anti-incumbent vote for me.

I get the nonsense that I'll be throwing my vote away but its insane to vote for someone you don't want.

We'll probably go all Republican because of the Bible Thumpers - all you gotta say down here is that you're Conservative and against abortion and gay marriage and for unrestricted gun rights and you're in - as long as you have a 'R' next to your name.

The Christians seem to have forgotten:

1. Thou shalt not kill.
2. Love they neighbor.
3. Turn the other cheek.
4. Blessed are the meek.
5. Blessed are the peace makers.

And I don't recall there being any sort of exceptions.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[JoeMerchant]

Read some old testament, there's all sorts of life lessons in there, mostly negative.

By standing up in the ballot box, you're not throwing your vote away, you're showing how many people in your state actually do care enough to vote against the tide. Even if that means that Georgia goes all R by 60-40 margins, it's still communicating to the Rs that 40% don't believe in their message enough to vote for it. If Georgia goes all R by 90-10 margins, those Rs are going to behave differently while in office.

R, D, L, I, they're all politicians, serving their constituency, and actually themselves: if they want to continue to ride the gravy train they'll keep their home districts as happy as they can.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[irving47]

How about stoning people who wear mixed fabrics?

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[orlanz]

Following the same logic as the grandparent. As for hoping which will benefit. I try not to give it much thought. I prefer Hillary over Trump by a long shot. But honestly its like choosing dry turd over wet turd. Even if I am going to end up with it, I prefer not choosing it too.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[bigwheel]

Keep in mind that Trump is not exactly the darling of the Republican party. They did everything imaginable to try and keep him from winning the primaries. I think he is only polling at 70% within the party, and many of the party establishment say that they are not endorsing him. Even Bush Sr has come out and said he is voting for Hillary.

To me, this election is not D vs R, but more of like Establishment vs Outsider. Trump could have run as a candidate for either party, and there would be the same drumbeat as to how bad/evil/stupid he is.

Sorry to get off-topic. But yesterday I did a quick Yahoo search "What is Lester Holt's political affiliation". I use Yahoo for any politics-related searches. Trump is being bashed for saying Holt (who will moderate the debate) is a democrat. The Yahoo page still had cached Wikipedia text that says "According to voter registration records, he is a Democrat". So, I saved a screen snapshot. But when you follow the link to the Wiki page, that text is now gone. At the bottom of the page, it says Holt is a Republican. But they only cite two articles, created yesterday, that bash Trump's statement, and use that as reference rather than voter registration records. Over the last day, they altered reality to fit the story that Trump is stupid/wrong. And if anyone tries a quick "fact check", they will hit up Wikipedia, which now contains bogus information and a circular reference. No doubt that by now, other places like answers.com have also been "updated".

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[harrkev]

against abortion

Thou shalt not kill

Those two are kind of the same thing...

Plus, the real quote is usually translated as "You shall not murder"(hebrew "rasah") which is different from kill. If somebody is trying to kill you, the bible does not say that you cannot defend yourself, which goes well with gun rights.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Atryn]

against abortion

Thou shalt not kill

Those two are kind of the same thing...

Plus, the real quote is usually translated as "You shall not murder"(hebrew "rasah") which is different from kill. If somebody is trying to kill you, the bible does not say that you cannot defend yourself, which goes well with gun rights.

Of course, if the woman is pregnant as a result of adultery or pre-marital intercourse, we should just stone her to death and "hope" the unborn child survives?

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[harrkev]

Of course, if the woman is pregnant as a result of adultery or pre-marital intercourse, we should just stone her to death and "hope" the unborn child survives?

Wow, you have some strange and barbaric ideas.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[gTsiros]

there is no christ in the old testament

the old testament is not for christians

being christian is meant to follow christ's example

(i'm an antitheist)

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[AmiMoJo]

I get the argument that you should vote for who you really want because then eventually they might stand a chance of winning, but sometimes the stakes are too high. This time around it's not like either candidate would be okay.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[fustakrakich]

:-) Still cryin' about Perot, eh?

Sorry, the guilt trip doesn't work for the republicans any better than it does for the democrats. You can't hold us responsible for people we didn't vote for.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to get off-topic. But yesterday I did a quick Yahoo search "What is Lester Holt's political affiliation". I use Yahoo for any politics-related searches. Trump is being bashed for saying Holt (who will moderate the debate) is a democrat. The Yahoo page still had cached Wikipedia text that says "According to voter registration records, he is a Democrat". So, I saved a screen snapshot. But when you follow the link to the Wiki page, that text is now gone. At the bottom of the page, it says Holt is a Republican. But they only cite two articles, created yesterday, that bash Trump's statement, and use that as reference rather than voter registration records. Over the last day, they altered reality to fit the story that Trump is stupid/wrong. And if anyone tries a quick "fact check", they will hit up Wikipedia, which now contains bogus information and a circular reference. No doubt that by now, other places like answers.com have also been "updated".

I checked Wikipedia, and the claim that Holt is a Republican has a source which cites a screenshot showing a Lester D Holt, living in Manhattan, being a registered Republican since 2003.

I also checked the history for the Wikipedia article, and found where he was listed as a Democrat. No source is given.

Now perhaps someone altered the facts to fit a narrative, but if that did happen, it looks far more likely that a Trump supporter did.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[penguinoid]

It's never "wasting your vote" if you already know how your state is going to vote. I'll just be the difference between "your state votes for [candidate], but [other guy] got a few percent of the vote too" and "state votes unanimously for the Demopublicans".

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[SvnLyrBrto]

Trump may not exactly be the darling of a certain few prominent members of the republican party. But, as a whole, the GOP as a whole chose him in overwhelming numbers to be their candidate, with 1725 out of 2472 delegates choosing him, for nearly a 70% majority, with the closest contender getting just 484 votes (@ 19.5%). In politics, 70% is a pretty clear mandate. Romney is no longer the republican party. Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and even Reagan are no longer the Republican party. Trump is. And that is the reality of the situation.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[ScentCone]

The Republicans have pissed me off so much with their brinkmanship over the last 8 years

Then why aren't you pissed at the Democrats, who ALSO refuse to get behind things they don't like? Why aren't you pissed at Obama for his own refusal to sign legislation that isn't changed until he likes it, or his own refusal to sign off and budgets and appropriations that don't check the boxes he wants checked? It's impossible for only one branch of the government to play "brinksmanship" - Obama is a 100% eager player that is just as unwilling to budge as the people you're saying you dislike. You're disingenuously cherry-picking so you can display some phony or low-information outrage.

I'm not religious, and derive my code of ethics from reason. But let's look at the list you're saying the people you don't like have forgotten:

Thou shalt not kill.

Which in the original language was "thou shalt no murder" (see the difference?)

Love thy neighbor.

Which you don't seem to be doing.

Turn the other cheek.

Meaning, man up. That's not the same as "let someone kill you."

Blessed are the meek.

How do YOU interpret that? That sounds like a religion throwing a metaphysical fantasy bone to those who've had bad luck or haven't made anything of themselves.

Blessed are the peace makers.

So, people who take the step necessary to shut down the violence-makers - those are peace makers, right? There's a reason that one of Samuel Colt's masterpieces was called The Peacemaker.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[networkBoy]

no, that's pretty much what the bible says to do...

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[harrkev]

no, that's pretty much what the bible says to do...

Yes, I should listen to somebody who has probably spent many, many minutes learning about the bible....

John chapter 8. Some guys bring a woman to Jesus to see if he is willing to stone her. His response? "Let any of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." Needless to say, the woman lived.

That is called the "New Testament" and covers the life of Jesus and shortly afterwords.

Re: Johnson and anti-incumbent

[orlanz]

As I said, I don't give that aspect of this much thought. I vote for the party & candidate that I have to make the least compromises with. I am ok with the fact that the collective may choose someone I don't like.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[RobotRunAmok]

No, actually it doesn't. The OT exists in the Christian bible as an historical perspective. It shows what happened, and where we have been. It's the NT and Christ's teachings there that are the basis for intended Christian behavior. Anything in the OT that is refuted in the NT is, well, refuted for Christianity. This is sort of like Religion 101 and I am frankly surprised that someone would come onto a forum as large as slashdot and get into a theology debate without this barest minimum of subject matter knowledge.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[MachineShedFred]

They are making a choice. They choose not to endorse either one of the major parties' nominees. Stop acting like the only choice is to vote for someone you find slightly less abhorrent than someone else you find to be completely abhorrent. That only continues the problem.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[JoeMerchant]

As an athiest, I suppose you wouldn't know that Christian churches include the new and old testament in their bibles, put the old testament first, and do still read from it in weekly sermons (though they _tend_ to focus on the happier passages of the New Testament, and the rare happy ones in the Old, disproportionately to their frequency of occurrence - the bible is full of damned depressing stories, not surprising since it is basically relating the stories of the human condition.)

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[BigDukeSix]

George Wallace won Georgia as a 3rd party candidate in 1968. We may safely presume he was at some point "polling in the double digits."

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[phantomfive]

I get the nonsense that I'll be throwing my vote away but its insane to vote for someone you don't want.

Whenever I get that, I figure out what party the person belongs to. Then, if they're democrat, I say, "You're right. If I didn't vote third-party, I would vote for Trump." If they're Republican, then I say, "You're right. If I didn't vote third-party, I would vote for Hillary." Confuses the hell out of them.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[niaxilin]

Over the last day, they altered reality to fit the story that Trump is stupid/wrong.

You idiot. A quick look at the Wikipedia history tab shows you the sentence "He is a Democrat" was added on 2 September by "Honestmedia" with no source referenced. Who, exactly, is altering reality now?

Now I expect a full apology! Or you can just alter your previous post to exclude your little false rant, which I'm sure you'd have to moral qualms doing.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[rickb928]

" it's still communicating to the Rs that 40% don't believe in their message enough to vote for it"

And Mitt Romney was castigated for saying EXACTLY THIS.

Would you people please get your story straight, or at least admit you will do anything, anything, to win?

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[rickb928]

"How about stoning people who wear mixed fabrics?"

Unless you are an Orthodox Jew, this was rescinded around 2000 years ago. Please use current documentation.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Anonymous Coward]

Your question is loaded. You claim he is not making a choice, but he is. He is choosing a third candidate. Your black and white thinking has made you incapable of even phrasing a question accurately, IMO.

It really doesn't make sense.

"Should we eat our family dog roasted or deep fried?"
"Neither."
"You're playing right into the hands of the deep fryers!"

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[MachineShedFred]

A minor point, but the Veto power exists specifically to allow refusal to sign legislation that the President doesn't like.

This is also why the Congress has the ability to override the veto, in case the representatives of the People in large numbers decide the President is wrong.

I agree that blocking legislative items specifically because of 'us versus them' is ridiculously stupid. Legislation should be passed on the merits of what the legislation does.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[ScentCone]

Stop acting like the only choice is to vote for someone you find slightly less abhorrent than someone else you find to be completely abhorrent. That only continues the problem.

As for continuing the problem: No. The only thing that makes third party candidates unviable is the third party candidates and politics themselves. The Greens are trotting out an anti-science doctor, and the Libertarians are presenting an isolationist guy who's banking on the recreational drug user vote. THAT is what "continues the problem."

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[ScentCone]

You can't hold us responsible for people we didn't vote for.

One of two candidates is going to win. When you choose to vote for a third party or not vote at all, you are making a choice that will impact one of only two outcomes. Wishing that away because you don't like it is just childish.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Anonymous Coward]

You make the same error again. There is NOTHING preventing voters from voting a third party. Your refusal to accept that is YOU trying to make it black and white, likely because you are genuinely unable to see that the issue is grey. You viewing an election as a foregone conclusion, and attempting to convince others of that, is an unintentional attempt to limit the true nature of democratic choices.

If there were a race between two candidates, and one was up 25 points in the polls, your thinking would lead to the conclusion that those in the minority position need not bother even vote, since you can fortune-tell election results. The only thing that decides an election is the election, fatalistic assumptions not withstanding.

Regardless, he has made a choice, just one which you deem futile.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Anonymous Coward]

NO because you are throwing out all externalities. If the only possible dimension of outcome of the vote was who is the president, then a vote for neither STILL isn't a vote for either.

But when you start adding in other residual effects of voting, then, it's clear that it's not simply black and white. For example, this isn't exactly voting, but enough people supporting Gary in the polls would have the absolute effect of getting him on stage in the debates. Voting wise, more votes for Gary will not elect him (in any real scenario), but could conceivably shift the direction of the national conversation and move power even if a little bit.

The thing the voter has to decide is whether the difference in the movement of power is greater a greater positive than the difference in the shittiness of either candidate. As long as the voter thinks yes, then it makes sense for them to vote third party.

The closer the two candidates are on the absolute shit scale, the easier it is to logically justify even a small shift in power toward the third party.

ON the other hand, if you personally believe that the difference at stake between Trump and Hillary is MORE significant than the possible social gains of increasing a third party visibility, then the logical choice is to take the lesser of two evils.

But stop pretending that one is is a waste and the other is not. Just because you disagree on how they weigh priorities doesn't mean that their voting decision is illogical *given* the presumed priorities.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[bigwheel]

@AC Thanks for this info. I didn't know you can easily review wiki history. I confirmed it by plugging the wiki info into https://voterlookup.elections.... Looks like "Honestmedia" has been busy.
@niaxilin If there is a way to edit my post, I'll gladly remove that paragraph. I was only reporting on my observations, which at least have been confirmed.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well to be fair in my state a vote for Trump with be entirely wasted, just as in Texas a vote for Clinton would be wasted. So since I live in Minnesota and don't like Clinton or Trump what loss is it if I vote Johnson or Stein. Similarly if I lived in Texas and didn't like either of them what difference would it make voting for Johnson or Stein, I don't know if Stein is on the ballot there or not but it isn't important.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[JoeMerchant]

Well, especially in the R camp, "having principles and sticking to them" is a character trait that the voters value. Like so much else in the conservative world, what they say they want has a huge disconnect from how things actually are. No successful politician has rigid principles that they steadfastly stick to - times change, peoples desires change, and the politicians who stay in office are the ones who move with the times. The real art of being a successful R pol is to put out that image of "steady course, values will not be compromised," while adjusting and compromising enough to stay in office.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Bob the Super Hamste]

But by voting third party, means that Trump will be favored, therefore you are actually helping him thus contradicting your purpose.

Not in Minnesota. If enough people voted for Johnson over Hillary so that this state went for Trump it would mean that the Libertarians would no longer be a minor party. Since everyone likes to say that the Libertarians take away from the Republicans more than the Democrats this would truly be a huge swing. If instead we assume that enough people vote for Stein in Minnesota that it turns the state to Trump it would again likely mean that they are not a minor party and would be granted automatic ballot access as well as matching funds in the next election cycle.

If I lived in a swing state I would likely have a very hard decision this year but as I don't I can say fuck off to the giant turds in the major parties and instead vote with a clean conscious for president. For those in swing states you will get to pick which authoritarian statist ass hole will be our leader, but at least you get to choose which rights get trampled on.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if he thinks that the difference between the two candidates is less positive than the shift in party power that comes from increased voting share of a third party.

If Gary Johnson got 20% of the vote, he wouldn't win, but that fact could conceivable be a real catalyst and alter the course of the future compared to if he got 2% of the vote. Even if the same candidate won in either scenario. If the catalyst is more appealing to you than the slight difference than Hillary or Trump, then it makes sense to vote for that catalyst. Your single vote has the same amount of power to help Gary increase his percentage in your district as it does to help Trump or Hillary.

The other good thing about voting L is that in this particular cycle, given the three candidates, it doesn't seem like Gary's attractiveness is as extremely disproportional toward one major party, and thus won't shift the end result as much as it might in other years

However, if you are really worried about accidentally helping the other team, here's a solution. Find someone else on the other side of the fence who agrees with your position and both of you make an agreement to vote L instead of your respective R or D. They will even each other out (mostly) without giving either an advantage, with the net benefit of sending 2 protest votes. One, "Hillary's better" and One "Trump's better" can team up for two "they're both shit" without tipping the election. As a bonus, this act of solidarity will help mend the insane political divide in this country.

Of course this brings of a pseudo-prisoner's dilhemma, where it's in you're best interest to cheat if your unscrupulous. But it does still punish you for cheating (less Gary support), and again if you really think supporting Gary is an important message to send, then it is worth it to be fair to the pact.

Re: Johnson and anti-incumbent

[orlanz]

No, I already picked the lesser evil... it was the 3rd party. I never said the 3rd party was perfect, just that I prefer them over Hillary and Donald. The diff is much bigger than the diff between those two.

I want to vote for my pick, not for nor against someone else's pick.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is there aren't only "Two": outcomes. You're throwing away all externalities.

**Trump 51%, Hillary 49%** ...is not the same thing as:

**Trump 41%, Hillary 39, Gary 20%**

even if Trump is President in both scenarios. Those are two completely different pictures of the "will of the American people", and they will manifest in different outcomes at every social and political level. Not the least of which being both parties running to regain those votes with a shift in policies.

So the question becomes this: Would Hillary winning be a more important difference than the difference a strong 3rd party will make? Some say yes, others say no. In either case it is completely logical to vote for the difference you think is more important to see.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Triklyn]

as a non-practicing anti-theist. i must say that i think many of us are aware of the relationship between the 3 major monotheisms. and that i have a passing familiarity with the various denominations in christianity as a non-practicing american anti-theist.

christ was a jew. and muhammad had a nine-year old child bride.

also mormons have magic underwear. :)

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Triklyn]

to be fair. unless you live in a handful of states in a handful of districts... your vote individually is largely academic to begin with.

ain't no way a couple people on slashdot are going to swing california red or texas blue.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[fustakrakich]

Nope, your doesn't work that way, no matter what you wish. I only have an effect on the person I voted for. You can't hang me with statistics, just ain't gonna cut it. I shall continue to vote *no confidence* on your two choices. I am not subject to your guilt.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[AmiMoJo]

How do you reconcile a jealous, genocidal God in the OT with the more loving and less murderous one in the NT?

Re: Johnson and anti-incumbent

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You're mistaking a quote for a statement, apparently. Or using the wrong of the several definitions of antitheism. Or maybe both.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[JoeMerchant]

If you don't know about Jehova's Witnesses, you're probably happier not finding out.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Triklyn]

so many wingbats, so little time...

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[RobotRunAmok]

He got better?

Seriously, that's the whole point. The only reason the OT is included as part of the Good Book is that it helps provide context and narrative. That, and the fact that the early Christians were Jews first and old habits die hard.

The Bible is a story of civilization's redemption, not a Chinese menu where different sects can take one from Column Leviticus and two from Column Galatians. An overwhelming majority of Christianity gets that, but the butt-hurt and snarky will always point to the one or two sociopath Baptist cults like Westboro as if these in any way represent modern Christianity.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[ScentCone]

It's funny how you're the only one who ever uses the word "guilt" when it comes to this subject. All I'm doing is pointing out that the third party candidates cannot win, and that using your vote to support one of those cannot-win candidates will not, for example, do things like change which supreme court nominees one of the actual viable candidate will, in real life, end up naming.

We're all going to live with the actions and policies and appointees of one of those two viable candidates. You're choosing to stamp your feet and throw your vote away rather than impacting the actual outcome in a meaningful way. That you feel the urge to use the word "guilt" when someone simply points out the facts is your thing, not anyone else's.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[HornWumpus]

Jesus says: 'Let any of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone...'

A stone whizzes by Jesus's head and hits the woman square in the temple, she drops. Jesus slowly turns, and in an exasperated voice says: 'Mother...'

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[HornWumpus]

God is a woman, her cycle is about 4000 years.

OT == PMS and pissed

NT == Ovulating and horney

Count the years and keep your head down folks.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[fustakrakich]

The other side uses your exact same shtick word for word. Not interested in prison yard bullshit.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[ScentCone]

Not interested in prison yard bullshit.

Prison yard. I see. Replacement meds haven't arrived in the mail yet, today? Check the tracking number, maybe they're out for delivery.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[fustakrakich]

:-) Your weak diversions have no effect here...

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[VisceralLogic]

But it's a black and white matter. Something you're wishing it weren't. If you vote for Clinton or Trump, you're making a simple choice - support one or the other. If you have the ability to vote, and choose to either vote for someone that cannot win or choose not to vote at all, then depending on your local demographics, you are still - through that choice - supporting either Trump or Clinton. That you're pretending otherwise means you really need to re-evaluate your own understanding of what's at stake.

It's people like you who allow the two parties to have their power. The only winning move is not to play their game. Think for yourself, and realize you are not their peon.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[ScentCone]

Diversion? As usual, I address simple reality, and you go off on a hand-waving bender having zero relevance. See, you'll do it again right now.

One of the two main candidates will win the election. This is a fact. You don't like that fact, so you talk about guilt and prison yards.

Vacant Supreme Court seats will be filled by one of those two people. You are too timid to take the responsibility of influencing whether or not those seats are filled by liberal activist types or conservative/constructionist types. This is simple cowardice, but you will say that that you're somehow doing something noble by being sure that your vote goes to someone that cannot possibly influence this important process. But in doing so, depending on the state in which you live, you ARE choosing to lean your state's electoral votes to one of the two viable candidates. This is a simple fact. You don't like that fact, so you prefer to call reality a "diversion."

You will be unable to say anything on-topic in your response, because that would require you to either confront those realities, or lie. You don't want to do either in writing, so you'll of course say some sort of blathering nonsense about prison yards, guilt, and being hung with statistics or other childish attempts to evade the substance of the matter. Like you're about to do, right now.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[fustakrakich]

Try as you might, I am not offended, or taken by your diversionary FUD.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[ScentCone]

See? Completely unable to acknowledge reality, or completely unwilling to admit it.

So: how will your choice in candidates influence the next Supreme Court nominees that are named? Be specific, if you have any sort of ability to talk about reality. If you can't answer the question, it's just another sign that your entire ongoing deflection on this topic is just you being an intellectual coward. So: which nominees will have a more likely chance of being seated, because of your vote?

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[fustakrakich]

No, I just won't address your fantasies, but I do like to read them. They are very educational.

So: which nominees will have a more likely chance of being seated, because of your vote?

One or the other, but it won't be because of my vote. That is the reality you are afraid to acknowledge.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[ScentCone]

One or the other, but it won't be because of my vote.

So your vote has no effect on the election, then? You're choosing to use your vote in a way that deliberately reduces its impact on SCOTUS nominees?

So which do you prefer: liberal or conservative SCOTUS judges? There are real, substantive differences between them. If you DO have a preference, why are you choosing to use your vote in a way that you claim will not express that preference? Or, do you live in a state where you know that by withholding your vote from a candidate that actually can win, you know that you're already supporting the viable candidate that will sit the judges you want? Address this issue in less of a cop-out, non-answer way than you already have.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[fustakrakich]

You are making too many false assumptions for me to address. You are welcome to support the emperor's corruption as you see fit.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[ScentCone]

No, you're too much of a coward to even address the issue, as usual.

Here, let's break it down into the baby-sized bites you can't pretend you're unable to address:

Who would you like to see seated on the Supreme Court? Be specific. If you pretend you can't, we'll see you're just a craven BSer as usual. If you REALLY can't, then we'll see you shouldn't be voting regardless. So: name names.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[fustakrakich]

What an amazing coincidence, you sound just like a democrat... but your FUD still doesn't work.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[ScentCone]

So in other words you are too uninformed about the issues to name your preferred prospective Supreme Court nominees. This all starts to make more sense, now. You won't address any of these issues directly because you actually have no idea what's going on. See? Asked to name even one prospective jurist, you have to resort to more childish deflection in an attempt to avoid confirming your ignorance. So, now you've had a while to at least look up some names. Let's try again: who do you think should sit on the Supreme Court? How about just one name.

Hillary's for prison

[Joe_Dragon]

Hillary's for prison!

Because it looks like a cover-up

[davide marney]

The relevance is that the FBI granted immunity to the only two people in this saga who knew what really happened to the government-owned records, and those people took the fifth when testifying. So, it looks like an official cover-up.

FBI Director Comey said that "no reasonable prosecutor" would have prosecuted the case, yet he grants immunity from prosecution. Why? If no one is going to prosecute, then immunity makes no sense. The purpose of granting immunity to a small fish is so you can prosecute a bigger fish.

Further, why have these IT folks gone even beyond their protection against immunity to refuse to testify? What could they possibly say that would be prosecutable? Nothing.

Everyone is staying quiet. As long as no one says anything, everyone is protected.

Re:Because it looks like a cover-up

[Kierthos]

It depends on what they say on the stand, and the level of immunity granted. (Keep in mind, that I am not a lawyer.)

Okay, let's say, and why not, that you're called to testify about something IT related for your company. The prosecutor could choose to grant you immunity to prosecution for anything at all you that say on the stand, OR immunity to prosecution for anything that you say on the stand that is related to the case, OR not grant you immunity to prosecution at all.

So, let's say your company was up to various tax related shenanigans. You work in IT, and you have access to all the email records of the company, or various records, or whatever.

The prosecutor, finding out about this, compels you to testify. Now, if you were complicit in the tax shenanigans, maybe you're reluctant to testify. He could charge you, and make you a co-defendant, but maybe he can't prove you were directly involved, that could make his case weaker, etc.

Or he could make you a deal. "Testify about the shenanigans, and I won't prosecute you for the shenanigans."

Or he could make you a blanket deal "You won't be prosecuted for anything you say on the stand." (Although this would be stupid of the prosecutor if he doesn't know exactly how deeply involved in the shenanigans you are, or what else you might confess to.)

Now, by offering immunity from prosecution, the main goal is to get the testimony that you might be reluctant to give. But, see, you're not going to be charged with anything. That removes a huge roadblock. But it doesn't guarantee that the person offered immunity will still testify.

Re:Because it looks like a cover-up

[davide marney]

Yes, that explains why the IT people would accept a deal, but not why the FBI would offer it.

Re:Because it looks like a cover-up

[AmiMoJo]

Who are you talking about? There is Pagliano, but he used the fifth before he was granted immunity so it's obvious that it was granted in order that he would stop doing that and help the investigation. He hasn't used it since.

Who are these two people who used the fifth after getting immunity?

Re:Because it looks like a cover-up

[Ronin Developer]

Bill Cosby was told he wouldn't be subject to prosecution by to Montgomery County, PA prosecutors. The current prosecutor chose to ignore those promises and it was upheld by the courts.

In that light alone, I think it prudent for him not to testify despite given "immunity".

Re:Because it looks like a cover-up

[Fire_Wraith]

It's so the person will be willing to tell you everything. Even if you don't have anything illegal to hide, it is almost often is in your best interest NOT to talk to the police/FBI/etc. It's why you should at minimum consult your lawyer before you do so, and only do so in conjunction with them/their legal advice. If you can negotiate a grant of immunity prior to doing so, that's your absolute best guarantee that the police/FBI/etc won't take something you said and misconstrue it, and wind up charging you over it.

And knowing this, the FBI/police/etc will often use such grants of immunity to induce people to tell them everything and not hold anything back. After all, if they're not interested in prosecuting some low-ranking peon, why not?

Re:What about Slashdot?

[0100010001010011]

And archives of 'stonebear's Reddit Posts:

http://archive.is/KYaF0
http://archive.is/TCbPU
http://archive.is/OoSMr
http://archive.is/OoSMr
http://archive.is/MjyK3
http://archive.is/lDzk0
http://archive.is/o4hrr
http://archive.is/o4hrr
http://archive.is/cfCeL
http://archive.is/mYXp3
http://archive.is/kTDoF
http://archive.is/iOjnh
http://archive.is/TaYXV
http://archive.is/EgZJR
http://archive.is/MU0TL
http://archive.is/WBG4m
http://archive.is/HHHQi
http://archive.is/Sq21A
http://archive.is/zmpKK

Mmmmh

[nospam007]

" like IP logs, which identify the computer used to access a site. "

More like the router or VPN he's connected to.

Re:Mmmmh

[wisnoskij]

I did not see any reddit posts asking how to use a VPN.

Re:Unclear

[anyaristow]

How is it unclear? IP logs are a smoking gun.

You've been downvoted because slashdot users are too smart to believe that, and indeed you're probably being sarcastic, but IP logs are indeed a smoking gun. By themselves they leave reasonable doubt, but combined with other evidence they are convincing.

To believe he didn't do it, you'd have to believe that there's reasonable doubt someone else, who used a distinctive name that is the same as one he's used, used his IP address to request information that is relevant to his profession and job, on the day after a congressional order dealing with the subject of the requested information.

Any part of that leaves wiggle room, but together...smoking gun.

Re:Reddit to the rescue

[Jhon]

(cough)Killian Documents(/cough)

Thank God for the unwashed masses. Russia's solution would be to drop a radioactive ball in someone's bloodstream to make the problem "go away". You can stay here, keep your home and unpack your shit.

Re:Computer Forensics

[CaptnCrud]

This wasn't exactly over the table either, this was more like: "bob the contractor, who on top of setting up exchange for you, will also help migrate all my quickbooks data to peach tree" ...that's the sort of IT person in question.

Re:Reddit to the rescue

[anyaristow]

FBI never once considered looking for emails from people Hillary frequently sent emails to, to verify no work related emails were deleted. FBI from the beginning decided to not recommend indictment

They apparently did not get a single subpoena, and perhaps did not even request a grand jury, which would have been necessary to get subpoenas.

Re:Unclear

[__aaclcg7560]

It's only "unclear" to biased and corrupt Demo Sycophants in the so-called Press (now propaganda bureaus) and the running-dogs who support them.

You need to stop watching Fox News and get outside more.

What an oversight.

[ledow]

I'm just laughing.

A House Oversight Committee.

To me, that just sounds like a committee that looks and sees what it can forget to check or do, not a committee that watches and manages a set of people.

I know that, technically, the word also means to manage people but... that's not what I think when I read it.

And the summary headline just makes it worse. It makes it sounds like it's happened by accident.

The posts show intent and timeline

[mveloso]

The posts show that the guy knew he was deleting stuff in the face of a direct order by the authorities not to do that. That means he's going to jail.

Re:The posts show intent and timeline

[Anonymous Coward]

The posts don't show that he was deleting anything. He asked how when extracting emails to be turned over an email address could automatically be changed to something else that could consistently identify the person but not provided their email address to the public. In other words he asked a question about how to perform a common redaction done when responding to a request for records.

Re:The posts show intent and timeline

[Viewsonic]

No way dude, he broke the law and will be put in jail for at least 15 years. I know this because it is the internet.

Re:The posts show intent and timeline

[HornWumpus]

He got caught. Don't get caught.

This is odd...

[Anonymous Coward]

This thread is the only one where I consistently get a 'secure connection cannot be established' two or three times before the page will load. ONLY this story on /., no other story gives this behavior.

Re:IP - Computer ?

[FatAlb3rt]

Preponderance of evidence?

Re:What about Slashdot?

[Asgard]

I'm assuming there were multiple accounts on this server. Depending on how the discovery request was worded, if the VIP's email address was removed or modified from the from / to headers of emails, one could reduce the set of emails that have to be handed over 'where the VIP was included in the conversation'. Or perhaps remove embarrassing email addresses that were cc'd/bcc'd on sent mail.

The danger is that another party to the chain still has a copy of the email that shows it in a different state then would be in the archive which would expose the subterfuge.

Perhaps it was that concern that resulted in deleting emails rather than modifying them, as perhaps destruction of records is far less of an issue then falsification of records.

Deleting email address in metadata

[ShelleyPowers]

This who situation has been badly misrepresented. Did none of you bother to check the original Reddit post to see what it said? It said: "Hello all- I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP’s (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file,” stonetear wrote. “Basically, they don’t want the VIP’s email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out. I am not sure if something like this is possible with PowerShell, or exporting all of the emails to MSG and doing find/replaces with a batch processing program of some sort. Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?” From http://burningbird.net/republi... Any of you that work with email know that what he's talking about is removing the email address from metadata. Why would you do so? Primarily because you don't want the public to get their hands on the email address. Clinton's email address was already known at that time. She was no longer using it, the Committee knew it, and it wasn't relevant to the FOIA request (email metadata is typically not included in FOIA requests). This was _not_ about deleting emails. We don't even really know if this was about Clinton, or if the writer is Combetta. I thought /. used to be full of geeks? What happened?

Re:Reddit to the rescue

[rickb928]

No, that's incompetence as a cover for favoritism. Even a minimally skilled email admin would know to do this. Inexcusable.

Re:What about Slashdot?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

It indicates that if true extra effort was used to obfuscate things on the server, likely before Clinton would have handed things over to her lawyers to sift through for things that needed to be turned over. To quote Hillary, "At this point what difference does it make". And to answer that question probably not a lot as even if there is a smoking gun found that proves that Hillary was selling nuclear weapons to Osama bin Laden no one would likely prosecute as she seem to have accumulated too much power. At this point it seems like it is just making political hay. Those who hate her will say this proves that she is a criminal and still hate her. Those who love her will see this as just another right wing attack and still lover her. Of the three people who don't have an opinion of her one will make up their mind and the other 2 will likely walk into a post as they are so oblivious to things.

There were 3

[addikt10]

There were exactly 3 emails that had sections marked with (c) indicating classified, though it was meaningless without the related headers.

Additionally, zero of those 3 emails actually contained classified information.

Re:There were 3

[ComputerGeek01]

Additionally, zero of those 3 emails actually contained classified information.

You realize that that doesn't actually matter, right? The contents of the information is irrelevant, it could be a weather report for all the government cares. The fact that the documents were classified is what makes mishandling them a problem. The issue at hand is that it is not up to Mrs Clinton what is and is not classified, or how to handle that information. Personally, I don't even care about the criminal prosecution. This whole situation underlines a flaw in her character that IMO makes her unfit to lead a country.

Re:There were 3

[swalve]

Not being an information security expert is a character flaw now?

Re:What about Slashdot?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

I guess once you get to certain levels of government the "CYA" is deleting all of your e-mails.

Of course it is. At lower levels you need to preserve the evidence that you were actually told to do something by the higher-ups. This to ensure that you have their support when the shit hits the fan, rather than being an expedient way of getting the problem to go away, by being lead out in front of the bus.

Said higher-ups OTOH are the ones that actually give said orders. It's not in their interests to leave traces of them left, right and center as possible ammunition for your peers, i.e. the ones at the same level as you, that are out to weaken you, so they can be strengthened.

Hence, to be able to attack the those above you, you have to ally yourself with their enemies. There's really no other way. No-one else has the power to have your back. (Which of course explains why Snowden is in Russia. Where else on earth could he be?) Which is why such organisations value loyalty above all else. They couldn't function if they didn't.

Don't vote for Johnson if you value your Tech job.

[Nikkos]

I appreciate what Johnson is doing, and most of what he stands for - I even voted for him in the last election.

However his stances on Immigration and labor/jobs have always concerned me, Johnson is a libertarian, and the libertarian position on labor is ridiculously business-friendly, and the immigration position is akin to open borders.

After watching entertainment and other companies like Disney exploit H1-Bs, listening to tech cos cry wolf on the lack of STEM-qualified applicants to justify their actions, outsourcing countless manufacturing/tech/service/etc jobs, I've had enough. Fixing the artificially-depressed labor market,and ending immigrant labor exploitation are important priorities for me this year - and they may have the side effect of reducing crime and helping with some social issues - a community that works is a community that works.

Johnson isn't going to fix immigration and labor, it's against his party's principles.

Not that I use Reddit, but ...

[RockDoctor]

Actually, despite it's frequent mentions, I'm not even sure what Reddit's address is, but that's a by the by.

If people are using it for advice about things like IT, then it's obviously not an American company, with any American employees (subject to TLA pressure), and none of it's servers would be located in US jurisdictions. So this "House Committee," whoever they are can either blow, or get the records from the NSA already.

I know Slashdot is American, which is why nobody posts interesting security-related questions here. If Reddit are getting such questions, then obviously they're not American.