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.
In truth, anyone who has enough money and/or power gets to circumvent the law easier than poor people or average Joes.
A poor man and a rich man get charged with the same crime with the same amount of evidence; the rich man is more likely to walk away a free man. Various reasons: better access to better lawyers; society are more likely to take for granted the word of a well-dressed well groomed person than some scruffy guy in a hoody.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
In light of recent events, the VIP email address spoken about was probably Obama's, not Clinton's.
I'm surprised you didn't also mention Benghazi.
Why should Benghazi come up? That affair, in and of itself, isn't an example of her law breaking. It was an example (in the event of the death of the ambassador and three others) an example of her incompetence and dismissive attitude towards underlings. And it was an example (in the event of her and her boss deliberately, knowingly lying repeatedly to the public generally and to the faces of the dead people's families literally while standing next to their coffins) of her general aversion to the truth and her willingness to look you, me, and and everyone else in the eye and lie. About little things (where her name came from, whether she "landed under sniper fire," about being "dead broke" and having trouble buying her multiple houses, etc) and big things (like her motivation for and practice of running her State Department email off a home computer, the casual disregard for above-classified document security, and the destruction of federal records while under subpoena).
..." 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.
... 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. But Clinton's career of personal enrichment at the public trough, character assassination, and decades of deceit and lying is far more sinister.
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.
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
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)
Regardless, neither are well suited to the office. But one or the other of them will be seating Supreme Court justices. That's all that matters at this point. His choices - which will come from a list we've already seen - will skew towards constructionist jurists inclined to preserve the rights the Constitution protects. Her choices will without question be liberals who, like her, promise to act early and often to erode those rights. I'd rather have his likely flavor of jurists in place when we have future cases involving the Commerce Clause, campaign finance, balance of power issues, and friction around the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I've been doing this IT thing for a long time. A very long time.
I don't think there is an IT expert/admin on Slashdot who would attest that--if given the job to engineer/configure an email server for Secretary of State (much less, merely private citizen) Clinton--this server was in any way designed or implemented properly. Not for security, not for compliance, nothing.
So... am I to believe that Hillary Clinton is so woefully incapable of finding a competent IT engineer/admin? Here is ALL OF SLASHDOT. Am I to believe that? Because, if so, she's woefully incompetent for ANY governmental position; I don't believe she should be in any position of power that directly impacts me, my freedom. And anyone who supports her, at this point, in this community, given what is so obvious to see about her character and her intentions, either has to be insane or be seen as complicit in her and her "party's" power grab. It is that simple.
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
The mastery isn't concocting a coverup that is effective in perpetuity, the mastery is having the coverup unravel so slowly that people are desensitized to each revelation. Hillary is cleared of deleted 30,000 emails that are Government records, by an FBI director that is entangled financially both personally and professionally up to his eyeballs. Just detailing the facts are enough to make you sound like a Conspiracy Kook. 13 people associated with the Clintons have been murdered, 14 or 15 have died by suicide, another 13 in accidents and another 12 in airplane crashes and 4 of her former Secret Service have been killed by friendly fire; Hillary could literally kill somebody on television and do her little eyeroll and dismissive chuckle and 25% of American would think the witnesses were conspiracy kooks now.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Probably amazed he didn't know about Stack Overflow.
Actually the deletion of email was enough "evidence" of guilt because legally it can be assumed that doing so is evidence of guilt. Gowdy made that case when confronting the FBI director. In fact, Gowdy pretty much proved that the FBI was complicit in the coverup by not prosecuting Clinton on the grounds that the FBI director actually gave.
But there is more, Clinton's Lawyer AND personal Aide (convenient dual role) Mills said in sworn testimony that she didn't know about the server until after it was destroyed, but they just found an email in which she ASKS about that same server, years before. She perjured herself. But nothing will come of it, because she is both a Clinton Aide and her Lawyer. The convenience of having Aides that are also Lawyers will now be fully realized, they will be pretty much untouchable, because you cannot untangle when she was being a Lawyer, and when she was being an Aide.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Where in his press conference did Comey say that what Hillary did was not uncommon?
Did the head of the FBI really say that it was not uncommon for people in our government to handle classified information "extremely carelessly" (which, BTW, is another way of saying "with extreme negligence", which is what the law specifies as the violation)? If so, that is scary.
The problem with your explanation is that there ARE numerous cases of people who were thrown in jail for LESSER violations of the same law.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Let's run with your conclusion - average guy does this, loses their job.
Let's also add that average guy does this, is then blacklisted from ever having any job with a security clearance again.
Hell, I'd be more than happy to see Hillary Clinton avoid jail if she was disqualified from working in any position in the government that required a security clearance :)
then why would he delete the evidence, and what about the whole Bleachbit thing https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/08/26/1954241/hillary-clinton-used-bleachbit-to-wipe-emails
Or perhaps there have been so many actual conspiracy kooks reading such garbage into everything the Clintons have ever done that if (and that's a big if) there were something to one or two of the conspiracies, it could be easily discredited by all the crap spewed by all the conspiracy theorists.
Have you ever heard of "the boy who cried wolf"? Have you ever heard Trump or Guiliani or Rubio or Cruz cherry pick every bad thing that's happened in the U.S. since 1992 and blame it on Hillary Clinton? You don't buy credibility with that kind of nonsense, though apparently you can garner significant amounts of votes.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
That might work for the people appealing sentences under this mysterious new intentional gross negligence standard the FBI invented, but it won't help with respect to people who weren't properly indicted because they're above the law.