Slashdot Mirror
Comey Denies Clinton Email 'Reddit' Cover-Up (politico.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Politico: The FBI concluded that a computer technician working on Clinton's email was not engaged in an illicit cover-up when he asked on the Reddit website for a tool that could delete a "VIP" email address throughout a large file, FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday. Republican lawmakers have suggested that the July 2014 Reddit post from a user believed to be Platte River Networks specialist Paul Combetta showed an effort to hide Clinton's emails from investigators. However, at a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, Comey said FBI agents concluded that all the computer aide was trying to do was replace Clinton's email address so it wouldn't be revealed to the public. "Our team concluded that what he was trying to do was when they produced emails not have the actual address but have some name or placeholder instead of the actual dot-com address in the 'From:' line," Comey said. Comey said he wasn't sure whether the FBI knew about the Reddit posting when prosecutors granted Combetta immunity to get statements from him about what transpired. However, he added that such a deletion wouldn't automatically be considered an effort to destroy evidence. "Not necessarily ... It would depend what his intention was and why he wanted to do it," the FBI director said.
just get used to it. they have mastered the coverup and own everyone who could charge them.
Laws for people who are named 'Clinton' and laws for the rest of us.
[Insert pithy quote here]
And others are incredibly resistant to admitting that Clinton is clearly breaking laws and suffering no consequences for it.
I appreciate the lengths Comey has gone through to show the double standard justice system. He says Clinton had no intent to hide anything, he never asked her if she did. He says the administrator had no intention of doing anything wrong, and again probably didn't ask him. Comey also rewrote the law claiming Congress wanted intention to be part of the law, which they didn't include in the wording, without having asked them. He also outright ignored her lying under oath to Congress, along with all the people who lied to the FBI during the investigation. He also failed to investigate any of the bribes Clinton took while SOS, didn't even look into it to see if there might be something.
Meanwhile...
The IRS targets individuals because they don't follow the correct political views.
Peter Thiel is investigated by department of Labor because he supports Trump.
Were the tea party members asked if their intention was to break laws? Was Peter Thiel asked if he intended to be discriminatory in hiring? It doesn't matter in those cases because they are not "important" like Clinton.
My big question, what can they now do to restore confidence in the system? I actually don't have an answer to that question at this time.
Either way he obviously tried to alter records that we under subpoena. This is so fucking corrupt it is unbelievable.
Will I get the same leniency and benefit of doubt if the FBI or Justice Department ever investigates me for the same or less serious crimes? (not that I'm planning any)
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Vaccines do cause autism. Trump is the only one with guts enough to say this. TRUMP 2016!
Yet, absolutely fucking nothing anyone can seem to do about it.
Anyone else would be in jail.
Give immunity to people you could prosecute for leverage, but they won't talk anyways. Pure evidence of intent and corruption, but oh well.
I mean, we might as well have the North Korean dictator feeding us propaganda. We the people know it's all lies, but we can't do anything about it and our state media is just bobbing their heads saying what they're supposed to say with their talking points that get sent out every morning.
Talk about totally fucked as a country.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Why should Benghazi come up?
Other than the fact that multiple investigations by Republicans over many years failed to point to anything that was really her fault. No, it's just their desperation (and yours) to pin it on her. I think you'd pin the Lindberg kidnapping on her if it would make you feel better. Even in your response you can't separate Benghazi with other things she may have done.
That last bit IS about law breaking, but was more about the cover-up of her incompetence and lying. Her email arrangements, of course, were made so that she could run her foundation-related influence selling machinery without those pesky FOIA requests coming in later for a look.
Yes she's so incompetent that the GOP can't charge with anything. What does that say about the GOP? Let me ask you: if you think she broke the law, would you support the FBI going after the Bush administration for using private emails as well? Also they deleted all of them which were never recovered.
When Trump BSes about trivial rhetorical stuff, it doesn't help. Just like it doesn't help when Clinton does the exact same thing ("I never said the TPP was the gold standard ..." and similar demonstrable "little" lies, the type of which she also trots out every day). But when Clinton deliberately lies about her official conduct and has her entire staff getting immunity deals in order to protect her from consequences that would send anyone else to jail, it's an entirely different level of behavior.
Trump lies daily about small factual things like what he said for which there is video. He lies about everything. For Clinton's TPP lie, it was rated as halfway true by Politifact. Yes she said it but at the time the TPP was not finished. She clearly opposes TPP in its present form.
It's especially awful to watch her trot out a hearsay anecdote from an occasionally unstable Miss Universe contestant from 20 years ago to show how mean Trump is towards Latinas (despite the endless praise he gets from Latina women working in many management roles throughout his company) ...
Unstable? How do you know she's unstable, again. Are you already attacking her character first? Freudian slip?
Her story is that he called her "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping." If both are true, those statements are fat-shaming and racist. Your defense of Trump isn't that he didn't say those things (Frankly we all tend to believe he would) but that he can't be racist because he has Latina female workers? He certainly can say racist things (and he does) and still work with Latinas. The two are not mutually exclusive.
this coming from Clinton who personally launched the efforts to smear the reputation of multiple women with whom her husband had been screwing, including some of which were clear cases of abuse on his part. You can and should complain about Trump's ungraceful conversational style and bro-ish behavior.
Now you are deflecting about Trump's clear misogynistic tendencies by bringing up Bill Clinton. It still does not excuse what Trump does no matter how you want to deflect it.
But Clinton's career of personal enrichment at the public trough, character assassination, and decades of deceit and lying is far more sinister.
This is a false dichotomy as it implies Trump has never used character assassination or has had decades of deceit and lying. He has.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Show me where he passed classified information though his private address..... Then we can talk..
I guess you are OK with Bush's private E-mails? No? So Clinton has NO EXCUSE here... You say so yourself if you want to hold this issue up as an example of what not to do..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Or the Saudis. Who knows what Clinton got on that e-mail server. Who knows what Clinton Foundation / Secretary of State stuff mixed next to each other in a private e-mail account "off the books".
"Bush was worse" logic of liberals ...
Pointing to bad behavior to excuse bad behavior is supposed to stop working when you're like 5 years old. Why does it still work with adults?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Couldn't agree more. There is no reason to allow political parties unlimited speech. We limit advertisers in every other venue. Consumer protection should be at its maximum when it comes to politics; not to limit choices but to ensure good practices by all actors.
I think you are confusing what is really happening here. I've seen all sorts of arguments about Hillary vs Donald and it almost always boils down to one basic argument.
1) Trump is worse than Clinton (Excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior).
They mostly try to avoid her actual record, because quite frankly it SUCKS.Her four years as SoS are a complete disaster. Her stint as Senator is mostly resume lining material (no actual accomplishments), and that she won because she was Bill's wife isn't really that great either. Basically, she has no record of accomplishments. None. Which is why she is playing the "gotcha" game, and sitting there wondering why she isn't "50 points ahead". Well, when you run douchbad against asshole (I'll let you figure out which is which), it is clear that she shouldn't be "50 points" ahead, and why they are basically neck n neck.
If everyone who actually believes that NEITHER are good for America, actually voted for Gary Johnson (or Jill Stein), it would cause chaos in the election.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Even in your response you can't separate Benghazi with other things she may have done.
Because it was in the context of trying to get to the bottom of her (and her boss's) lying about the Benghazi mess for political reasons right before an election that it became clear she had been running her official email on (and ONLY on) a home computer. And in examining that situation, it became clear that she had - on becoming aware that she was under subpoena - that she destroyed tens of thousands of federal documents, and repeatedly lied about what she did, when she did it, and why she did it. Right: you can't separate the two topics because SHE is the one responsible for them being part of an uninterrupted spectrum of incompetence and deceit that doesn't begin and end with just one topic.
Yes she's so incompetent that the GOP can't charge with anything.
So the problem here is that you don't actually understand the different branches of government and how they work. That explains a lot about your rambling, here. "The GOP" is a political party. It has no authority. Are you talking about congress? They could charge her with contempt for lying as she did in under oath in front of them, and that's still a possibility. But otherwise, the only entity capable of charging her with anything is the Obama administration. You get that, right? No, apparently you don't.
Yes she said it but at the time...
Blah blah. She said that she did NOT say it, and that's simply a lie. Regardless, you're carefully avoiding the long career of deliberate lies about all sorts of things - from the ridiculously meaningless (why lie about why her parents called her Hillary?) to the clearly self-aggrandizing (landing under sniper fire!) to the long, long parade of lies designed to deflect from public awareness of her corruption. Everything from her days in Arkansas to countless bits of business under her control in the White House, to her frequent throwing-under-the-bus of staff with a lie about why, to her non-stop lying - right to this day - about her "mistake" in setting up an off-the-books mail server to hide her public records from scrutiny ... acts serious enough that the DoJ has been doling out immunity deals like candy. Focusing on how half-truthy her spin on the her "it's the Gold Standard" assertion was then or is now is just you trying to avoid the rest of her career's disingenuous handling of the truth.
Unstable? How do you know she's unstable, again. Are you already attacking her character first? Freudian slip?
OK, I guess you consider her to be a more authoritative voice on her character than the judge who said she threatened his life. Do you have a reason to consider that judge to be a liar? Please explain.
He certainly can say racist things (and he does)
Please explain some of the racist things he DOES say. Or are you one of these people who can't understand the difference between race and culture? While you're at it, of course, please chime in on Hillary Clinton's choice to do things like yukking her way through a skit at a fundraiser where the joke is that being late for events is an example of operating on "Colored People Time."
Now you are deflecting about Trump's clear misogynistic tendencies by bringing up Bill Clinton.
No, you just can't read. The issue isn't Bill Clinton, the issue is Hillary Clinton and her personal staff spending time and your tax dollars to deliberately engage in a campaign of character assassination against the women who - by either willingly or unwillingly being the Bill Clinton sexcapade and abuse show - were going to poison the well for Hillary's personal eventual quest for political power. She would never have progressed past being a lawyer getting rapists easy plea deals if she hadn't ridden her husband's coat-tails all the way to national office. S
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So the choice is between someone that says mean things, and an unindicted felon who is above the law, and played fast and loose with Top Secret information.
Glad we've got our priorities straight on what to care about.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
You make it sound like the intent in setting up a personal server was to enable Clinton to pass classified information to where it wasn't supposed to be. That is utter bullshit. The intent was to control where her emails (personal and otherwise) went - and maybe that's a significant issue. But what this is not about is the dissemination of classified information. The few classified items that (yes) slipped through - by being unlabeled or incompletely labeled - are only incriminating to someone looking for a technical excuse to prosecute. The information involved wasn't particularly sensitive, and probably would've been sent on the unclassified State Deparment system, had she been using it. Actual seriously secret info was sent on another, unwieldier system.
So, maybe there's a case to be made that using the personal email server broke some rule or other, but the FBI got involved to find out whether vital security secrets were revealed, and determined that basically they weren't - certainly not enough to prosecute. And the bottom line is that the whole criminality thing is a red herring for the whole political thing, which is a witch hunt to bring down a presidential candidate over an embassy attack, which was a horrible thing - but largely (mostly) not directly attributable to that candidate.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...