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]
Apropos username, BTW.
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.
Have you actually looked at the conspiracies that Trump has pushed?
Birtherism (itself) was started by Clinton
Rafael Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) assisted in assassinated Kennedy
Global Warming is a Chinese hoax
Asbestos is safe
California is not suffering under a drought
Thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheered 9/11
Google is helping Clinton
Vaccines cause autism
Obama is a Muslim
Obama never attended Columbia University
Clintons murdered Foster
Scalia was murdered
ISIS provides phones to refugees seeking to enter the United States
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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
Some of us don't care that he lies. He will finally bring a strong government to America, forcefully smashing dissent and "politically correct" speech. Trump 2016!
Vaccines do cause autism. Trump is the only one with guts enough to say this. TRUMP 2016!
In light of recent events, the VIP email address spoken about was probably Obama's, not Clinton's.
Oh such Republican mock outrage.... where was it when George Bush was sending his emails using gwb43.com? His private email account used for official Whitehouse emails!?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
all politicians lie, the difference is trump hasnt been in public office. as such there might be some real change
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
well the people he is attacking are losers, hillary and obama, the republic establishment, all losers
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
Maybe Combetta asked a question on Reddit, but nowhere does it say he actually followed through and deleted emails as a result of the question he asked or that the question was in relation to his work for Clinton; Platte River Networks has a lengthy list of clientele.
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?
Sure, just maybe he asked about something that happened to also happen to Hillary's email which he was working on at the time.
I'm sure he had good reasons to modify data that was being subpoenaed, illegally.
Or maybe people are just inventing excuses that "could be" but aren't actually true.
It's not like we have videos of this guy getting away with lying to congress.
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.
I call bullshit since when I read the articles about it in the beginning they quoted him asking about already sent emails and "backup" files. How could he be trying to hide the email address from recipients after the messages had already been sent? Sounds a little "gatey" to me... Just voicing me opinion
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."
Alright... how many people Trump treated as badly or worse?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
FIND and REPLACE would have hidden the dot com address. The Reddit post was definitely intended to delete the emails
Thanks for proving my point, Anonymous coward.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
No the Presidential Records Act, is from 1978 and he broke it, and where were your screams of mock outrage then? He broke the Hatch Act too, that's because he sent Whitehouse data to Karl Rove and you can't mix your campaigning and Whitehouse duties. Was there double plus outrage? No.... Republican mock outrage... shocked I am...
We get it, you have a crap candidate and you can't do anything but whine. He must have done something dumb again, so you're bleating about emails again. Oh waaa waaa waaaa,
Considering that the FBI has *already* directly said that they won't prosecute for something more obvious and worse, is ANYONE shocked by this?
Yes, a sysadmin asking generally how he can purge someone's name from emails - how could anyone /possibly/ think that had anything to do with a coverup? Clearly, you'd have to be a paranoid Republican to believe that.
-Styopa
A very thorough timeline about the whole thing:
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/the-hidden-smoking-gun-the-combetta-cover-up/
Get a cup of coffee, it's long but worth it. The timeline is non-partisan and sticks to the facts, basically it is alt-right/trump troll/conspiracy free.
Bottom line: It doesn't look good at all.
October 28, 2014: The State Department formally asks Clinton for all of her work-related emails.
December 5, 2014: She turns over 30,000 emails from her @clintonemail.com account to the State Department. Another 31,000 emails from the same account were deemed personal, and Clinton kept those. Her lawyers did the sorting, no State Department or National Archives personnel had a chance to appraise or examine the remaining 31,000.
December 2014: Shorty after turning the 30,000 emails, Clinton decides she no longer needs access to any of her emails older than 60 days. Her staff is told to change the retention policy on her server, which will lead to the deletion of all her the emails that weren't turned over to the State Department.
The FBI later recovered about 17,500 of Clinton’s “personal” emails. FBI Director James Comey has said that “thousands” were indeed work-related.
March 25, 2015 and March 31, 2015: There were two conference calls between Clinton staffers and PNR, the company managing her emails. Between those two calls, Combetta, the PNR employee managing Clinton server (and Reddit user 'Stonetear'), has an “Oh shit!” moment and remembers that he’d forgotten to make the requested retention policy change back in December 2014. He immediately deletes all of Clinton’s emails and uses BleachBit to permanently wipe them.
He later told the FBI that at the time he was aware of emails mentioning a Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton’s emails.
Sometimes in 2016: The Justice Department gives Combetta some form of legal immunity.
The FBI having Combetta take the fall for the deletions while making an immunity deal with him *could* be a particularly clever move to prevent anyone from being indicted. That part isn't clear yet.
In any circumstances, the FBI giving Combetta immunity makes no sense at all. It's the equivalent of giving a hired hitman immunity without going after the person who hired him.
Are we finally entering an era of fully homeopathic politics: where the issues are diluted until the point where there is no trace of substance and it is all 'magic water'? Where are the discussions about real problems, like the wars in the Middle East, or the several migrations crises, or the declining economy? Where are the realistic proposals for American politics over the next decade? Certainly not here; apparently it is much more interesting to groom one's personal navel fluff and gossip about the favourite celebs - in this case Clinton and Trump. So, when are we going to spend some real quality time talking about Clinton's choice of dresses and make-up (or the same for Trump, why not?)
Yes she's so incompetent that the GOP can't charge with anything. What does that say about the GOP?
It says the GOP is not the potential prosecutor in this case. Comey said that no one would seek conviction in this situation, because he couldn't find sufficient evidence to seek a conviction. Not that there wasn't evidence of malfeasance.
I am with you in being puzzled by people who think that Trump is somehow better than Clinton. What I am confused by are people who think that Clinton is great.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But if we're going to use these emails as part of a measuring stick as to who is more trustworthy, when we tally up all lie and half truths of our major candidates - Trump and Clinton - Trump loses.
No, America loses.
And what's sickening is that our parties have allowed such people to be the ones running for POTUS.
The founders wanted to pretend parties didn't exist so they didn't place any limitations on them. This was a gross mistake, one which must be corrected if we are to approach democracy.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What do printed emails from Outlook have to do with this? Why Outlook and why printed?
Ezekiel 23:20
That's such nonsense. He asked about this and then when he found out that what he was asking was not really doable, he deleted a bunch of emails with Bleachbit. We already know data was mishandled and tampered with and exposed, etc. It's the lack of intent that everyone is getting away with. This shows intent.
It is my understanding that Clinton's "turnover" of email records amounted to her aides using Outlook to print the emails and then give that to the State Dept et al. This has bothered me for months, but no one seems to be concerned about it. There is a lot of information that is lost by using this method.
It appears that they didn't have competent people working the IT for this private server project. Otherwise, they would know what they are doing and would have done a much better job of securing the server (both physically and electronically). They wouldn't be asking simple questions on Reddit. It sounds like when they were looking for people to do the job, competence was not the most important factor. It sounds like willingness to cover-up, lie, and stand by Hillary at all costs (including falling on their own sword) was the only requirement. Maybe they couldn't find anyone competent who was willing to do that.
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.
My biggest fear isn't the justices that he would appoint, although that concerning too. My biggest fear is that he will do exactly as he says, roll back the the checks and balances that we have in place for financial institutions. Because when he says that he wants to reduce regulation, that's what he really means. It's the removal of these regulations that lead to the housing crisis and allows for trading manipulation.
Your almost there, follow that money as Trump just said. Look at the Criminal Cabal that owns the Media/Banks/Supreme Court/Fed Reserve-(NotFederal)
Who controls ALL of that, that organized criminal organization has records on pediphiles, obama's gay clubbing in chicago, kaine crazy in Nicaragua. Look at why Epstein/Clinton Plane Ride Video's are not used to prosecute people? How did Epstein get 9months house arrest for Child Sex Slavery?
Your almost there keep looking you will find them. Here is a hint for you: Rev 2:9
Good luck, get all your friends to vote, family, drive them if you have too, get them to vote and ignore the fake poll numbers. GO VOTE.
1) Like TFA said, they may have wanted to put a place-holder instead of an actual and possibly still active email address, such as "[Person X]" instead of say "hrc@privateservers.com". That by itself is not illegal.
2) Please elaborate. It was against "proper practice"* to use it for WORK emails*.
3) Please elaborate. It was the Benghazi investigations that started the whole thing, not leaks. And being leaked does not mean it's not used anymore, it just means one is likely to start getting a shitload of spam and trolls.
* Outside services were not strictly forbidden, but H didn't get the written approval required by the official policies of S.D.
Table-ized A.I.
"It's not what it looks like."
"I would never do something like that."
"You just don't understand."
"Trust me, I wasn't doing anything wrong."
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
But if we're going to use these emails as part of a measuring stick as to who is more trustworthy, when we tally up all lie and half truths of our major candidates
If your best case for your candidate is that "they lie less than the other guy", and there are a huge long line of lies both candidates have, you're making the best case I have that you shouldn't vote for either one.
The newest revelation is the darling Hispanic Woman who says (no actual proof, which is what you're claiming for Clinton now) Trump said some "mean things" to her, was allegedly involved in a murder, and had relationships with drug dealers. A perfect fit for the Clinton Crime Family if you ask me.
AND if everything about the Clinton's is "ancient history" (as said by others) then why are they digging up what some Drug Cartel's Leaders old girlfriend has to say from 20+ years ago?
The double standards people use in defending Clinton is amazing.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Here you go:
s/Hillary@\Clintonemail\.com/Anonymous Coward/gi
Have gnu, will travel.
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 :)
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.
Altering data after a subpoena to preserve it is called tampering with evidence.
Doing it to conceal the identity of someone is an act of conspiracy, wire fraud and suppression of evidence.
Doing it to prevent others from discovery is contempt of court (in this case, contempt of Congress).
All of the above five (5) highlighted charges are criminal acts subject to federal indictment and conviction.
That is, unless the ruling administration says you're their friend. Then it's OK. Apparently.
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
Personally I despise the fact that Clinton is my only real choice this election myself but I see people doing to her what they did to Obama: he wasn't born here; he's a Muslim, he founded ISIS, etc.
You can disagree with a candidate's political views without resorting to outright dishonesty about them. With Trump, he's gotten this far by appealing to dishonesty.
Comey's decision is rooted in practicality. Frankly if it was a low level government employee, they probably would be in jail right now. But Clinton has money and can fight the case for years and the government would not get anywhere as it is a weak case.
However most of anti-Clinton crowd seems to forget that since she was never charged, double jeopardy is not attached. She still can be charged at a future date.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
Don't worry about his career. I'm sure he will be well taken care of going forward. Who knows what he has been promised in the form of cash, secret bank accounts, or a cushy, high-paying job in some 'foundation' in exchange for his loyalty.
SOP
I worked at a place that answered a subpoena with 9 track tapes. Because they figured the opposition would have all sorts of trouble deciphering the record layout and EBCDIC data. If we could have found a 7 track tape drive, we would have used that. IIRC we wrote the tapes at a half obsolete data rate. If the record sets had been bigger we would have printed them on greenbar with almost dead ribbons. The calculus was that the computer work would cost much more than the data entry.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
While I agree with you that she got most of her initial positions because she's Bill's wife, it is somewhat dishonest to say she has no accomplishments on her own. She has proven to be a capable Senator for New York. Her time as Secretary of State is certainly something she should be proud of. But she used a private email server and Benghazi happened while she was Secretary are two of the things people are using to negate and disqualify everything she's done.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You've forgotten the sandstorm of corruption that was Bush 43.
When the bar was lowered that much, it's hard to believe people are complaining about this.
The difference is the amount of light this thing sees by comparison.
Bush & Cheney colluding behind locked doors - off the record? What the shit was that?
Citation needed
What laws at that time were broken?
Well for starters
followed by
I think those are a pretty good start. Because she's running for president, which has constitutional qualification the disqualifications of Title 18, 2071, don't apply to the presidency but the 3 years still does.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
They don't want to reveal the email address that Clinton has been using illegally to circumvent public oversight into US foreign policy. Why? Is she still using it? Hasn't she stopped committing that crime yet?
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.
he founded ISIS
You're not really saying that you can't understand a rhetorical reference to the rise of ISIS coming from the power vacuum that Obama created by pulling out of Iraq. Really? Or are you that unable to understand those sorts of references?
Comey's decision is rooted in practicality.
Right. In practical terms, he can't recommend prosecution because it was clear before hand that Obama's political appointee in charge of the DoJ wasn't going to prosecute his designated successor no matter how clearly the FBI established her trail of untruths and mis-handling of classified material. Loretta Lynch (and thus her boss, Obama) is the decision maker here, not Comey. You're just pretending you don't understand this.
it is a weak case
Weaker than the presence of classified material in Patreaus' home safe? Weaker than a bit of sensitive material in the background of a sailor's selfy shot? You know, things that resulted in criminal convictions and even jail time? But her flouting of both administration rules and the law, her possession of many classified documents on unsecure systems and her passing them around to her staff and lawyers (people without security clearances) - that's "weak" by comparison? You're deliberately pretending you don't understand the situation.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
My biggest hope is that Trump seems to have a knack for surrounding himself with people who are better at their jobs than he is and follows their advice.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
She has proven to be a capable Senator for New York.
Really? Are you referring to the totally failed, money-wasting exercise on upstate NY revitalization? Or were you referring to her support and vote for the war in Iraq? Or were you referring to all of those other great pieces of legislation she sponsored and saw through ... oh, right, there really weren't any.
Her time as Secretary of State is certainly something she should be proud of.
Why? Because her phony "reset" stunt with Russia worked out so well? Check with the people in Crimea and throughout Ukraine on that one perhaps. Or were you thinking of her proud handling of the affairs in Libya, where her championing of the use of force to topple the leader there, with essentially no further involvement, has resulted in chaos, death, and the insurgence of whole new ISIS and AQ-style franchises murdering people by the thousands? Yes! Really something to be proud of. Or were you thinking perhaps of her wise ability to so gracefully handle the situation in Syria, which has turned into a calamity for millions of dead and feeling refugees that are now swamping Europe and carrying radical jihadism with them? Yes, that was really a moment of pride, promising but never delivering on the support that the moderate anti-Assad segments of Syrian society needed, allowing the radicals to move in wholesale, followed by Russia and Iran. A real moment of pride, there.
I suppose what you really mean is that she can be proud that she leveraged her position as Secretary of State to get foreign governments to hand millions of dollars to her family business while she was in office, in exchange for better access to her while they had issues in front of the State Department. Yes, by her standards, she should definitely be proud of how wealthy she made her family while she held that public office. Way to go, Hillary!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What a wanker, every punter know you ask shit like that on stackoverflow.com not reddit, no wonder our cyber-security is so FUBAR.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Its beyond obvious that Comey is Hillary's stooge. Not only from his conclusions into her investigation but when you dig into the other ties between them.
I can't believe how anyone is continuing to take him seriously on anything, especially anything to do with Hillary.
Come to that, I can't believe how he's still employed and continuing to avoid his own prison stretch.
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.
despite the endless praise he gets from Latina women working in many management roles throughout his company
Really? Hotel room cleaners?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Statement by FBI Director James Comey
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.
Emphasis mine.
18 USC 793 (f):
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
So, to answer your question, 110 counts of violation of 18 USC 793 (f). Stop being an apologist.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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.
I'm not sure on that. He seem to indicate that he supports the second amendment but on things like the first it seems likely that his choices would be just as bad had Hillary's but on different aspects. On the 4th amendment it seems that both Trump and Clinton want more powers for government so there it would be a loss and the fifth seems like Clinton would be all for that given that she would likely like to still use it in the future. On the commerce clause I'm not sure there is anything that could fix that at the moment as it ha been so convoluted and with campaign finance Trump would seem like someone who would want to continue to buy politicians in the future. If by balance of power issues you mean the 9th and 10th amendment it seems unlikely that either would be in favor of those given how the last group who was about them (the TEA PARTY) doesn't like Trump and Clinton is all about the large all powerful federal government. If you meant separation of powers with 3 co-equal branches then Trump's justices may be better in ensuring that but likely would be partisan hacks just like Clinton's.
Time to offend someone
Really? Hotel room cleaners?
No. Business unit managers and officers. Even senior people helping to run his campaign. One of his most frequent PR surrogates is a Latina, not to take the fun out of your jab. Likewise with people from every other color, creed, and walk of life throughout his operations. Probably he doesn't promote too many crazy jihadi wackadoos though. Which is just plain good sense.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
not to take the fun out of your jab.
It was a question as much as anything.....in the form of a jab.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
...I wish I had mod points to give you. Perfect retort!
> Whoever, having the custody of any such record...
Which means she is innocent, as the FBI found. She did not destroy records. She had someone else do them. Go after them for their crimes. Leave her alone.
Well then that would make it a conspiracy wouldn't it.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
There's a lot of talking there. Do you have a specific quote(s) to demonstrate a specific sinister action by a specific person(s)?
Table-ized A.I.
There is no evidence she KNOWINGLY sent or received classified info. Thus, it's not a "lie". Lies require intent.
Sloppy and "incurious", perhaps, but that's a diff issue.
Also, the State Dept. screwed up by not sending her to Security Class. That's not directly her fault (unless it can be shown she played hooky.)
Regarding IRS, your own source:
Other sources do show "bad practices", but that's not the same as intent of political favoritism.
Table-ized A.I.
You're not really saying that you can't understand a rhetorical reference to the rise of ISIS coming from the power vacuum that Obama created by pulling out of Iraq. Really? Or are you that unable to understand those sorts of references?
Trump is joking about something except when he takes it back. Then he takes back the take back. Then he denies he every took back the original take back. It's denials and lies all the way down, boys.
But let's address your point. So you're saying the when Bush removed the Baathist party from power when the US invaded Iraq which is the founding of ISIS, that was all Obama's fault? What's next? Obama was responsible for Pearl Harbor because he was born there 20 years later?
Right. In practical terms, he can't recommend prosecution because it was clear before hand that Obama's political appointee in charge of the DoJ wasn't going to prosecute his designated successor no matter how clearly the FBI established her trail of untruths and mis-handling of classified material. Loretta Lynch (and thus her boss, Obama) is the decision maker here, not Comey. You're just pretending you don't understand this.
You seem to ignore the fact that as soon as she is charged, jeopardy is attached. Frankly those who dislike Clinton should think that through; she would have never been successfully prosecuted under Obama according to you, and with jeopardy she could not be tried again. But you complain that by not charging her, there is still a chance to be prosecute her. Do you want to prosecute her or not as it doesn't seem you've thought about it at all.
Weaker than the presence of classified material in Patreaus' home safe?
Um hell yes. Petraeus (spell his name right) knowingly shared classified material with someone not cleared to have it. She admitted it. He admitted it. That seems to be a much stronger case when Clinton is fighting everything.
Weaker than a bit of sensitive material in the background of a sailor's selfy shot? You know, things that resulted in criminal convictions and even jail time?
It appears that you didn't read my comment above. Please read again.
But her flouting of both administration rules and the law, her possession of many classified documents on unsecure systems and her passing them around to her staff and lawyers (people without security clearances) - that's "weak" by comparison? You're deliberately pretending you don't understand the situation.
So do you support the FBI arresting and charging various members of the Bush administration with doing what you describe above. If you don't are you willing to admit your bias? I think they should all be charged; she didn't and they didn't because they are rich and powerful.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
And what would replacing Lynch do? Nothing. The FBI didn't recommend charges. Normally law enforcement has to file charges then the prosecution team takes the case. If law enforcement does not recommend charges, then it's already an uphill battle. Replace Comey with someone else is a more fitting response.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
She only deleted those deemed "personal". It's true some non-personal ones actually also got deleted, but there's no evidence it was intentional.
Electronically recovered versions of the "mis-deleted" ones showed no signs of a pattern to hide, but rather sloppiness/laziness in filtering, being the "skipped" ones had trivial topics. Comey said it appeared that whoever filtered the emails for personal-vs-work only read the title and maybe the first few lines rather than the entire message to see if it were work-related.
Again, there is clear evidence of sloppiness, but NOT of "intent" to hide.
If anything, there's the opposite because those electronically recovered after the fact did not reveal any "secret pattern" to the deletion. It's true they couldn't recover all the emails, but those who deleted them wouldn't know which of the personal-deleted set would wind up being eventually recovered in the lab.
Thus, there is actually counter-evidence of intentional hiding, because the FBI got to sample some of those intentionally deleted (for allegedly being "personal" when in fact they were not).
Table-ized A.I.
And what would replacing Lynch do? Nothing. The FBI didn't recommend charges.
Right, they didn't recommend charges because the entity that makes the decision about prosecuting wouldn't indict her. Not because they didn't gather ample evidence of her blatant mis-handling of classified material, destruction of records, and lying. The decision wasn't based on the evidence, it was based on whether or not Loretta Lynch would directly or through her underlings, pursue a prosecution. Obama signaled months ago, before the FBI had even been allowed to see much of the evidence, that there was no chance of an indictment on his watch.
But Comey said right to you that his decision about recommending an indictment was based on his assessment of the likelihood that the DoJ would actually prosecute her. It was a 100% political decision that came mere days after Clinton sent her husband to have a one-on-one private meeting with Lynch. Replacing Comey with someone else wouldn't have mattered, because the FBI director doesn't get to decide whether or not the idea of a prosecution will be preemptively shut down by the administration, which it was in this case.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
To be fair Trump would be well and truly under on multiple accounts of fraud if he didn't also represent the 1%. Dumbing it down to "says mean things" just shows your incredible bias on the topic.
Both of them are so deep in shit they are being kept warm by the core of the earth itself.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... "And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care." -George Carlin
Oh how I loved coming to get news for nerds since 1999. But you've gotten fatter, bloated, and uglier than I remember you from years ago. All the stupid shills and trolls, makes me think you've become another 4Chan, Tumblr, or what not. Please remove yourself from the Interwebz, as I no longer need you.
You claim that I'm biased, yet I tell you truthfully here that I would never *ever* vote for Trump, and I only *might* vote for Clinton if everything breaks her way over the next month, knowing that the US House of Representatives will put the brakes on anything outside the norm that these two might try to pull. And, I'm a swing state voter, so my vote actually counts - the electoral votes of Ohio aren't a foregone conclusion in anyone's column yet.
For me, the best case scenario at this point is that Clinton gets elected, and the Congress stays an opposition Congress which would force compromise. This, of course, also depends on getting congress critters that are interested in compromise, but as I said - it's a best case scenario. But, it would allow us a 'do over' on this election cycle in 2020 where maybe we could get a reasonable person to stand up and get nominated.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
More Gov't != More corruption unless you let it be. And no, you won't reign in corruption by having less gov't. Nature abhors a vacuum, and all you'll do is create a power vacuum into which the mega rich will flood like noxious gas. This is how it was for 5 thousand years of recorded history.
Liberty isn't messy, but it's complex and you have to be willing to pay for it _for_everyone_. Let me emphasize that some more: FOR EVERYONE. That means when somebody ask (usually in a whinny voice) "But who's gonna pay for it?" the answer is: You are. That's the price you pay for civilization. If you don't like it go bugger the fuck off and live in the Ozarks or something so the rest of us can have a civilization please.
And speaking of quotes the worst thing I ever heard was: "I'm from the gov't and I'm hear to help". It wasn't uttered by a G-man (one of those paid for my buddy's insulin so his Type-1 Diabetes didn't kill him) it was shat out by some right wing scoundrel who wanted his billionaire boss' taxes cut.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and a Bureaucrat. She's one of the folks who actually governs and shit (as opposed to shmucks like Ted Cruz & Paul Ryan who just wanna tear it all down so they can put their own power structures in place. Seriously, if you think those bastards care one whit about freedom you must be smoking something the Libertarians want legalized).
/. nerd. They're tools. Means to an end. Would you keep track of every screwdriver you put a beige box together with?
The odds are much, much more likely that she didn't recall asking about a server 7 bloody years ago. She doesn't think about computers all day long like your average
But hey, anything to stop that crazy bitch from getting into office, right? You'll even vote a crazed orange cheeto and religious whackjob in. Oh, and if you want horrifying conspiracy theories try googling the phrase Donald Trump 13 year old girl. Hey, I'm just asking questions, right?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Can you quote the statue? The FBI decided they couldn't convict Hilary, but you make it sound so pat and obvious. And I didn't see any of you there ready to prosecute Reagan and Bush Jr (who deleted 22 _million_ (que Dr Evil pinky) email to cover up misconduct in Iraq). We can prosecute Hillary just as soon as we get done throwing Cheney in jail for the rest of his life.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Bush Jr deleted 22 million emails to cover up misconduct in Iraq but nobody says he's a bad guy (well, nobody that matters). Face it, you're just repeating right wing talking points that have been crammed down your throat for 20 years in a desperate effort to torpedo Hilary's political career. Hey, you know what, maybe Hilary's not perfect. Who the fuck is. But we can, and just might, do a hell of a lot worse. Unless you are a white, heterosexual Christian male with a fondness for looking down on minorities you do _not_ want whatever the hell Mike Pence and his orange sock puppet are selling.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
She's neither. She's a pragmatist. She ran a private email server to hide her daily doings from her enemies. Which are legion since she's a right of center progressive with a chance to up end the non-stop crazy train of right wing madness we've been on since you asshats got hoodwinked by Reagan's charm.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
if it was anyone else but Hilary this would be a non issue. The 22 million emails that "disappeared" during the Bush Jr presidency prove that beyond all doubt.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and if my mommy punished me for something that she let my brother do all fucking day long I would be justifiable pissed off. Our point is that _your_ being irrational. You're holding Clinton to a much, much higher standard because _you_don't_like_her. Personally. The one being irrational here aren't us libtards. It's you guys.
So when you're done letting that fear of Clinton ground into you by a multi-billion dollar right wing political machine get the best of you then you can join us at the big boy table and be genuinely terrified of a Mike Pence Shadow Presidency and the resulting supreme court.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We can prosecute Hilary for a few emails right right we finish sentencing Dick Cheney for war crimes, the thousands of dead American Soldiers and the hundreds of thousands (look it up, it's a hard number to believe) number of civilian Iraqi deaths.
Also, go read this while your at it. Say what you will, but no jury alive would convict Hilary save for one hand picked by Karl Rove, and even then I'd give even odds.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Go read this. There's plenty of good reason not to prosecute Hilary. Not the least of which is that a conviction was virtually impossible.
Another person on this thread made a good point. What Hilary did was basically speeding. Just about everyone in gov't does it. If there wasn't a right wing hate machine pumping stories about her misdeeds non-stop you wouldn't have even noticed. They've been after her for 20 years because they don't want her to be president. Think about that. A lot of very wealthy, very powerful folks with a long history of being shmucks don't want her to be president. If that's the the most ringing endorsement I've ever heard I don't know what the fuck is. You wanna stick it to somebody? Vote Hilary. You'll piss off way more people and who are way more powerful than you or I'll ever be.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
See here for why. Oh, and if by "anyone else" you don't include George Bush Jr (22million emails deleted) then you might be getting closer to the truth. Still way, way the fuck off it, but closer.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Oh...wow. Did they print them manually, one by one, too?
Ezekiel 23:20
Congress certainly can constrain the executive branch's handling of foreign affairs. The Constitution identifies several cases where Congress is required to approve specific foreign-relations actions (treaties and wars), has explicit grants of regulatory powers over the executive branch's performance of its duties, and so forth.
And I'll tell you what I tell everyone that makes this logic error:
Just because some Republican shithead was a shithead, doesn't mean that a Democrat shithead gets to go unprosecuted when they clearly have broken the law. That kind of thinking allows these people to just continue being shitheads because "the other guys did bad things too."
Indict them all, and let them rot in jail. I can't believe that people are so willing to let someone slide because they happen to be from your chosen tribe. Wake up.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
So the choice is between someone that says mean things, [...]
Says mean things? Trump doesn't pay his taxes, he regularly speaks ill of non-whites and women, he calls an entire nation's population rapists, he makes things up and lies in the face of evidence, and he wants to make laws that treat people differently based on their religion.
[...] and an unindicted felon who is above the law, and played fast and loose with Top Secret information.
Clinton is literally not a felon. If you think so, then YOU believe yourself to be above the law.
I understand why you might not like Clinton; her policies, her shady business world connections. Maybe you think she's shown herself to be sloppy with national secrets and the safety of diplomats and troops abroad. Maybe you are genuinely worried about her health. Sure. And I understand why you might like the Republican, Conservative or even Libertarian ideas and politics. I understand why, even though I do not agree with them.
But to diminish Trump's populism, his racism and misogyny, his outrageous lies and spreading of rumours, his complete lack of diplomacy and political experience – all of this, as simply 'saying mean thing', as if he's the Linus Torvalds of US politics, that is truly outrageous and sad. And this does not include Trump's shady affiliations with foreign powers, his refusal to show his tax returns (for made-up reasons), or his image of being 'one of the people' when he has a fucking gold-plated penthouse in New York and uses other people's donated money to buy paintings of himself.
I wish I didn't have to care so much, but US politics are unfortunately world politics.
I could continue with a rant about how Clinton would have been treated if she had children with three men, was twice divorced and now married to a man 26 years younger than herself, ... but that's enough for today.
Projection! You guys claim other people lie but offer zero evidence. It's political impressionism.
I suspect clubby partisan moderation is going on here. This topic has been corrupted.
Table-ized A.I.
There's no evidence she knowingly did such. There are things that perhaps she should have been more curious about in terms of the secrecy, but this is a grey area.
It's fair to apply Hanlon's Razor at this stage. Hillary didn't pause to smell the paperclips.
And there should have been an active review board at State Department rather rely on employees to police themselves. A good many mistakes I see at work are institutional: if you don't have good processes in place, human laziness and bias does its magic.
Table-ized A.I.
Addendum
Here is an article on the topic that explains the "Tea Party" tax exempt filing situation. I must disclose it's from a left-leaning source, but it gives you nuggets of info to cross-check in other ways.
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
Table-ized A.I.
If you look at snopes.com, you'll find them debunking a fair number of accusations against Trump. Right now, I don't trust accusations against either Clinton or Trump until I get some sort of evidence (and normally Snopes and Politifact provide this in verifiable form).
I've been studying the accusations against Clinton enough to know that they're largely unfounded. The number of people who think she did something seriously wrong about Benghazi, or who believe the Clintons kill their political enemies, is frightening. The anti-Clinton people have achieved the "boy who cried wolf" status with me for the most part. I haven't studied the anti-Trump stuff as much.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Wanting them all indicted and prosecuted is a valid position, but it's not the one I generally see. I see people who are "meh" about violations of the law until they involve a Clinton, at which point they get outraged.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I knew a guy who committed suicide, and some people who have been in accidents. I'm a geeky ASD introvert, and the Clintons are widely politically active extroverts. It would stand to reason that the Clintons know a whole lot more people than I do, and that correspondingly more people involved in the Clinton's actions would be dead than those involved with me. So far, I've seen a lot of whispered speculation about people dying, and precisely no evidence of any wrongdoing, or even evidence that Clinton associates die in greater than statistically greater numbers.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Do you know why Obama pulled out of Iraq? Because it was required by a treaty that Bush negotiated and signed. Obama tried to negotiate to stay longer, but couldn't get acceptable terms. Personally, I figured that the US pulling out was going to be a disaster of indeterminate proportions, but I didn't see things getting any better by prolonging the occupation. The big mistake was the Bush-ordered invasion, and the botched early occupation by Bush appointees. There was no salvaging the situation after the Iraqi army as a whole was disbanded. (To be honest, I don't think that was what Bush wanted to happen. It wasn't in the occupation plan.)
He couldn't recommend it because there was no precedent for anyone doing what Clinton did facing significant criminal charges. Worst I've seen was a misdemeanor charge, later dropped.
Petraeus deliberately transferred classified material. The sailor deliberately took a photo that contained classified information. That seems to be the dividing line between prosecution and no prosecution. Clinton was negligent, and did not deliberately do anything against the law.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
First, Clinton didn't destroy tens of thousands of government documents. She destroyed tens of thousands of personal emails, and didn't get it done right. She's clearly sloppy about the computer practices she is involved with. I haven't seen good evidence yet that she lied about Benghazi. She did say things that can't be confirmed, but that's not the same thing.
The Benghazi congressional hearings were there to find wrongdoing, which would presumably be turned over to another branch of government. The fact that Congress is limited in what it can do when it finds wrongdoing doesn't mean the Republicans weren't out to get her. They failed to find wrongdoing, and it wasn't because they were afraid of her or went easy on her for political reasons.
During the campaign, Politifact listed Clinton as the most honest politician. Their methods aren't really rigorous, so it's entirely possible that a more rigorous analysis would have given that to Sanders or Kasich, but the gap between Clinton and most of the Republican field is massive. My best reading is that she's fairly honest for a politician, which admittedly isn't great praise. To repeat, thee was nothing wrong with having a private email server, and assigning blame based on that is either stupid or malicious.
Which judge claimed Clinton threatened him? A quick google search on "clinton judge threat" produced nothing. Why do you believe an unnamed judge over other people who have steady contact with Clinton?
As far as Trump's racism, let's go with the judge of Mexican descent. That isn't culture. That's racism.
I also wonder what you have against the US criminal justice system. Clinton was a public defender, and was assigned to defend an accused rapist that she knew was guilty. US jurisprudence is to give everyone some chance at a decent defense in court, and I'd rather not have that changed. She got him into a plea deal, which means the guy served more prison time than most rapists. There's nothing to her discredit here.
"Pandering" to women's rights? Politicians have different visions and agendas. Typically, if you like them, you call them "fighting for" or "crusading" or something. When you dislike them, it's common to call it "pandering". It's a subjective word, and emotionally loaded.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Please elaborate on the IT side.
A home server versus AOL versus a "regular" gov't office email server NOT designed for classified info* doesn't make any LEGAL difference. The existing laws say nothing about server selection or ownership. The real issue is that none of the 3 listed were designed for classified info.
If somebody "put" classified info on ANY of them, a mistake is being made. As far as whose fault it is, well, that's an administrative/authority issue and NOT an IT issue.
* The "other" office system that was for classified info is generally not considered to be "email".
Table-ized A.I.
Right, they didn't recommend charges because the entity that makes the decision about prosecuting wouldn't indict her.
That's rather circular logic. If they did recommend charges, the Justice Department could still refuse to indict her. But that does not stop the FBI from recommending charges.
But Comey said right to you that his decision about recommending an indictment was based on his assessment of the likelihood that the DoJ would actually prosecute her.
No I said it was tough case to win not the likelihood of prosecution.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Do you think that they won't get filibustered until the cows come home if she doesn't pick people that are confirmable by the Senate that the voters send to Washington?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.