Slashdot Mirror
FBI Agreed To Destroy Laptops of Clinton Aides With Immunity Deal, Sources Say (foxnews.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes a report from Fox News: Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, House Judiciary Committee sources told Fox News on Monday. Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the period after the email server became public -- in turn preventing the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources said. The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee fired off a letter Monday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking why the DOJ and FBI agreed to the restrictive terms, including that the FBI would destroy the laptops after finishing the search. The immunity deals for Mills and Samuelson, made as part of the FBI's probe into Clinton's use of a private email server when she served as secretary of state, apparently included a series of "side agreements" that were negotiated by Samuelson and Mills' attorney Beth Wilkinson. The side deals were agreed to on June 10, less than a month before FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency would recommend no charges be brought against Clinton or her staff. Judiciary Committee aids told FoxNews.com that the destruction of the laptops is particularly troubling as it means that the computers could not be used as evidence in future legal proceedings, should new information or circumstances arise.
who prosecutes them?
The people who signed off on that deal should be prosecuted.
stop all of the conspiracy garbage since there's no more evidence.
At first the immunity deal for Combetta was for destruction, to get him to talk to the FBI after using BleachBit on the server. This is unusual, because he could already have been prosecuted for this since an order was issued which doesn't allow for this. Clinton and her people asked him to do this, which means they could also be prosecuted. Furthermore, I'm genuinely confused why the other 4 immunity deals were offered. Were the 4 others granted immunity because they had a hand in the private server, or were they offered because the DOJ was looking out for them? I'm also confused why they fucking include a provision to destroy laptops (that apparently weren't subpoenaed or seized via warrant like in every other case) as intense scrutiny of this case is going on and Congress is attempting to force further investigation even though the DOJ and FBI are trying to stonewall it.
There's just too much smoke here for anyone to claim that there isn't a fire.
Yeah totally. Trump talking about the Iraq war on Howard Stern is totally on par with Hillary voting for and funding the murder of 500,000 Iraqis.
False equivalence, Trump Hitler, xenophobic, nazi, Islamophobia, racism, words, words, ignore the Clinton's evil bullshit.
Geez, you'd think destroying a laptop was like drowning a puppy from the way people react here.
Why did the FBI pardon Clinton's accomplices, and destroyed their laptops?
Why did Martha Stewart go to jail, but Clinton gets to go to the White House?
CNN et al. certainly say Trump is worse. Should we trust them?
And Heil Trump!
How the f do I block stories with 'politics' as a tag because I'm sick and tired of one bullshit story after the next.
Bye!
#LaptopLivesMatter
What America desperately needs is to start throwing politicians in jail. Right now we are on a path of ever-increasing corruption at high levels of government, and until we get back to the "everyone equal under the law" this situation will continue to get worse.
There is no moral high ground for Hillary. She's as low and disgusting as Trump.
Trump will probably lower my taxes, so I'm going to vote for him. Don't really give a shit anymore.
Well, Americans should care. Both parties need to crumble and we should look at the smaller parties for options. We're really picking between these two? No, there are others, and the complains I've heard against them are laughable compared to the major issues I've heard about Trump and Clinton.
We have one, it's called the Libertarian Party. They are polling in the double digits and are on the ballot in all 50 states. Hardly a fringe protest vote this time around when they have more support than Perot did in '92 and far more than Nader ever did. Johnson and Weld are running on a fiscally conservative and socially liberal platform.
It's only an "empty protest candidate" vote when you buy the herd mentality bullshit that voting for a 3rd party is a "wasted vote" and people let the debate commission get away with shunning them and moving the goalposts.
The only difference between an "empty protest candidate" and a serious 3rd party is polling numbers and the financing that brings. If you want another party, STFU and start voting and contributing to one.
The forensics would have been done on a cloned HD anyway:
"Sure we'll destroy the original, but the chain of evidence will clearly link the contents of this HD back to the original HD and implicate you if anything actionable appears in it."
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Clinton is the "stay the course" candidate, and Trump is the "make changes" candidate.
A bit over half of Americans are on the brink of poverty, so a lot of people are looking for things to change.
The other slightly-less-than-half people think things are going pretty well, and don't want anything to change.
Add to this the fact that corporations don't want changes that benefit the American people because of the expense, a media that feeds on emotional investment (for advertizing clicks), and a political party that uses emotional involvement and guilt to gain support (refugees, illegal immigrants, and so on) and you have the situation of today.
Half the nation is hurting badly with no end in sight, the other half thinks that any change whatsoever would be bad for their personal selves.
Even though the Clintons are complete crooks and disgusting people, Trump is even worse. We need to stop this witchhunt. President Chelsea Clinton will get to the bottom of it when she is elected.
The problem with this statement is that it's hollow - there's nothing to back it up. Trump isn't worse, at best he's an unknown.
Trump has been called a narcissist, which is probably fair, but a narcissist is exactly who would make the best president. The one thing that matters most to Trump is his brand.
Trump wants to be the best president in the last 100 years, and if possible the best one ever.
Everything about him points to that one aspect: he wants to win, he wants to be the best at everything.
He's stated in so many words that he wants to change things for the betterment of the people.
Clinton just wants to stay the course.
ALIEANS!
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Re: Trump: It matters because we have to choose between two evils.
Personally, I'll take the Evil One without A.D.D.
Table-ized A.I.
How the f do I block stories with 'politics' as a tag because I'm sick and tired of one bullshit story after the next.
Is this bullshit?
I thought bullshit meant something "not true". I know that trust in journalism has fallen recently, but do you really think the things stated in the article aren't factual?
At the very least, it shows that IT professionals who might be offered immunity can ask for concessions.
Given the number of IT professionals who read this site, that might make the article of interest to a lot of people.
Or are you complaining because it puts Clinton in a bad light?
No, they're both rock bottom. There is not one better than the other. They're both completely unworthy.
So, which candidate is more likely to get this person their meds?
Maybe that's more important than who cheats more on emails/taxes.
Table-ized A.I.
I just hope that enough citizens will realize that the Founding Fathers came up with this whole "elections every 2-6 years" notion for a reason. Would YOU please help me in voting against every sorry ass criminal holding office currently or formerly? There shouldn't be more than mebbe a small handful of incumbents remaining come 2017, and they'd better have a damned solid history of exposing and opposing the big $ corruption taking over OUR lives.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
We have one, it's called the Libertarian Party.
More credible than the Republican Party is not the same thing as credible. I repeat, there is no credible second party in the US.
What's Aleppo indeed...
It's because the strategy of the Left is not to have a debate at all. It's to attempt to silence voices that trigger them. The safe-space mentality is a disease, and it is a disease entirely of the Left.
They don't want to hear about flagrant violations of the law. They don't want to hear about secret meetings on airport tarmacs. They don't want to hear about the hilarious lack of evidence for "Russian" involvement in the DNC hack, or the murder of a young staffer. ("It was a mugging!"). They don't want to hear about tens of millions of "donations" from the banking cartel to the Clintons. They don't even want to notice the bizarre disconnect of calling themselves populists, while the working class sides with Trump. They don't question our supposed "moral" reasons for being in Syria while a million are dead in South Sudan. It goes on and on. These people really are crazy. They practice selective attention at a pathological level. You could present them with a live video of Clinton murdering babies and they would blame the Russians, the Deplorables, White Supremacists and other figments of their imagination.
But like the Brexit vote, they will be utterly shocked (shocked, I tell you) when their little echo chamber implodes at depth.
Manipulated data and manipulated media don't actually change reality. But shhh. Don't tell them that.
They'll just accuse those slinging facts and evidence as "conspiracy theorists", "racists", "mom's basement dwellers", "elitists", "new Right" or any other nonsensical name they can come up with in order to avoid recognizing the truth. And the truth is, that Clinton is a deeply corrupt, corporatist neocon, with a 100% neocon foreign policy, and an anti-populist domestic agenda.
That makes the FBI complicit in Clinton's crimes. Destruction of evidence is a felony.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And please describe how the Democratic party is not due for a breakup after being caught throwing the election wholesale to a committee chosen candidate? Funny how no on caught on earlier when the Dem debates stated with only 2 viable candidates, no?
Apart from all the simple-minded stupidity that Libertarian beliefs entail, are you really going to vote for someone who doesn't know or can't remember what Aleppo is, nor name any foreign leader?
Whatever your beliefs on Libertarianism, Johnson isn't credible as a presidential candidate.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Hillary said he ALREADY pays zero tax.
Then she said he wants to lower it.
Is Hillary stupid? No, she's just can't help lying.
I had considered Johnson as a third party even though I'm not really a libertarian but he is so clueless on international matters and the practical side of the POTUS I just can't do it.
Translation: we're fucking giant pieces of shit so we only care about the crimes of people who don't have a (D) by their name.
People with immunity are generally held in contempt if they plead the 5th.
Combetta pled the 5th while under immunity protection. No contempt of court was issued.
So in this case, immunity turned out to be a protection against testifying rather than an inducement to reveal facts. Combetta got to have his cake and eat it too. So did Hillary and all of the others that could be implicated by his testimony in this ridiculous farce.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
I'll take the evil that will not be given a pass on anything vs the evil that will be given a free pass. Only one candidate will bind both sides of congress working together to stop them, and that could be a good thing for us all.
Cool, so this didn't happen?
I can forgive a brainfart on Aleppo. He at least caught on after a few seconds. I doubt you could even point out Syria or Aleppo on an unlabeled map without a quick Google search first. The only reason Clinton can point it out is because is one of many of her foreign policy failures. The only reason Trump can point it out is because it's good ammo against Hillary. The other big "Libertarian blunder" was the fact he couldn't name a leader he admired. I can't name any that have been in power that I look up to either.
For someone that prides himself on being human and doesn't have an army of paid media jockeys to prepare material to spoonfeed people, he's actually doing a pretty admirable job. I actually prefer a candidate who's down to Earth versus paid shills lying through their teeth parroting canned responses prepared by an army of political science graduates and soap opera writers.
So yeah, I still consider Gary Johnson more credible and CERTAINLY more GENUINE than either mainstream candidate running.
I'd imagine since it was lwyers protecting lawyers on the Clinton side of the fence, they put language in barring cloning of data...
He's a dumb asshole, she's demonstrably evil and (once again) you're an idiot.
be as it may, one of the two is going to be president.
not one of the four, or six.
there are ways to reform the system, but voting for someone who is sure to lose is not one of the best ways. you risk effectively favoring the candidate you dislike the most.
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
I don't think the deal ever went through. The article is poorly written in that regards.
Table-ized A.I.
The guy who couldn't name one that HE ADMIRED. Yeah, him. And tell me you've never had a brainfart during an interview. He recovered quickly from that in spite of the guy turning around and being a complete douche to him as soon as the phrase came out of his mouth.
There's many instances of both Clintons, Trump, GW Bush screwing up just as badly on live TV or just spitting out incomprehensible bullshit that "sounded smart" to dodge the question.
He's already apologized for not being as talented a bullshitter on the spot as other candidates..... time to move on.
This email thing is nothing. Colin Powell and most of the Bush administration used private email servers to avoid scrutiny. This is just a witch hunt... just like Benghazi and Whitewater and a bunch of other "scandals". GOP is desperate... they got nothing. They are going down the tubes. It's fun to watch.
I have just one word for Trump... LOSER!
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
You really need to learn your history and the makeup of political parties and stop listening to Faux news.
The Nazi party was a conservative moment:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_Germany
Fascism is a an extreme form conservatism and is not liberal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Communism and socialism are extreme forms of liberalism.
The main parties of Japan in ww2 were proto-fascist not liberal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokumin_DÅmei
I bet you believe Sadam had something to do with 9/11 don't you?
Naming a foreign leader wasn't the issue, see some of my other responses. It was naming one he admired. "What is Aleppo" was an honest brainfart.
Gary might not be quick on his feet but compared to some of the bullshit Gee-Dubya Bush was famous for spouting, he's a fucking genius.
I've heard that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Trump, from the Clinton camp. I've heard that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Clinton, from the Trump camp. And a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson. It's the best deal on the market, three votes for one!
If I want to unload obsolete technology, I've got to take time off work and drive through some seedy neighborhoods to the recycling center. Next time, I'll just make a deal with the FBI - I'll bet they pick it up too.
#NotAllLaptops
(Score: -1, Stupid)
Nearly all of those things apply to Clinton as well. She too dodged taxes, offended nearly everyone, changed positions on e.g. TPP (not to real, of course, just to get elected). And then there are a number of more serious offenses (influence peddling, mishandling of classified info, lying to the FBI, to name just a few) for which any normal person would be in prison already.
Wait were those black lenovo laptops or white Mac ones? I have to know whether to riot & loot or make conspiracy theory
There probably were current legal and Democratic campaign strategy data on the laptops. Keeping them would leave them open to a possibility of FOA requests, leaks, etc. I would definitely expect that once the FBI looked at the laptop that any pertinent evidence would have been copied and cataloged and added to the case notes prior to destroying the laptops.
This was purely about the personal email server. How much "evidence" do you expect that the FBI would find on these laptops that they didn't already have? Anything other than the email server investigation was out of bounds.
Personally, I think that the Republicans are upset, not because of the agreement for computer destruction, but because they now can't subpoena the computers to go on a fishing trip...
"Back in 2007, the White House "lost" more than five million private emails. The story was barely covered"
"Back in 2007, the White House "lost" more than five million private emails. The story was barely covered"
Should we not hope for change? Expect things to get better as time goes on? Not to mention the fact that laws were changed after that particular email scandal. As far as I am concerned, though, you can throw the whole lot in jail. Everyone who has tried to hide anything under the FOIA can rot in prison.
"Your honor, my client didn't destroy evidence, he merely disposed of an old, rusty knife with some unsightly red fingerprints on it."
Seriously.
Get a fracking life.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The time to change the system is always going to be "next election". This one is sooo important, don't give a vote to the "other guy".
I don't watch Faux news and I don't believe in your little conspiracy theories. I am using liberal in the modern terms. I know the Nazi party was "anti-liberal" but so is the Democrat party of the USA. They're authoritarian, which wants to restrict what people do, rather than to allow citizens to make their own choices (true liberal).
As mentioned earlier, the complaints about him are laughable in comparison to the real issues regarding the two major candidates.
What matters is not which candidate actually makes it in. What matters is to what degree the individual voter is a hypocrite. The perfect candidate for everyone is never going to come. The question people need to ask themseves is if they compromise their values to a great extent to vote for someone who actually has a chance to get in, how much are they going to compromise their values in the other parts of their lives. At least that is the philosophy of my family.
opinion...
No, Clinton isn't learning from her mistakes. She looks at the polls and says the public says this is a mistake, so I'll say it is a mistake to win their approval. She has shown zero interest in understanding why any of her so-called mistakes were mistakes.
> I doubt you could even point out Syria or Aleppo on an unlabeled map without a quick Google search first.
As a candidate for POTUS, knowing something about the region is part of the job. He failed 2 basic interview questions (which developers do you admire, er uh...). He's unqualified, it's ok, lots of people are. Some of them are running for president anyway.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Trump doesn't publicly admit to mistakes. I don't go out of my way to make my faults known. I learn about why mistakes are mistakes and move on. Actually I do too much revealing to others when I made a mistake that had nothing to do with them and see others doing it that I've coined a saying: "Just because you've done something stupid, doesn't mean that you have to tell everyone about it." Trump just doesn't let his mistakes affect his public image.
I've heard that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Trump, from the Clinton camp. I've heard that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Clinton, from the Trump camp. And a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson. It's the best deal on the market, three votes for one!
While that is rhetorically amusing, the reality is that for most people, their presidential vote is unimportant, and vote for a third-party candidate is entirely appropriate as a mechanism to encourage further political discussion in our country--although they should pay more attention to their local races.
But for people who live in swing states, they have the opportunity to influence the election at almost no cost to themselves, and they give that up if they vote for a third party. "Vote Gary Johnson" should not be treated with the dogmatic purity of "Goto considered harmful."
Real lawyers write in C++
It's actually worse to destroy the laptop than to slaughter thousands of puppies, because puppies are cute meat-sacks while laptops are a record of government undertakings that people can go to to a limited extent to confirm or deny the reality of what people acting as the government actually did.
I wrote a statement agreeing with you for the most part, but nations are nations of people first and foremost and that little fact gets cast by the wayside when people want to trot out the nation of laws line.
Ethics is not a scalar value you can put people's ethics on. I have several different ethical principles that all of the candidates score differently on. When my family votes they use all of them with which to weigh their decisions.
I don't know much about the names of places in the Middle East region, but they really aren't necessary to know the issues involved. Not presidential material, indeed!
Except trump has committed no crimes and has not abused his power of being a public official for his own gain . Hillary has over and over . Not a big trump fan he is unpredictable but that is better than what we know Hillary will do . Lie cheat and steal
Read a transcript of the interview. He explicitly said that he could not name the former president of Mexico. There are lots of foreign leaders he could have said he admired.
I'm sorry, but if you have a "brain fart" on a foreign policy question, learning the names of a few foreign leaders is something that you obviously need to do. It's not being slow on your feet, it's being stupid about your preparation.
As for comparing him to George Bush, that's such a low bar that it says nothing about his intelligence.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
(which developers do you admire, er uh...). He's unqualified, it's ok, lots of people are. Some of them are running for president anyway.
That's a trick question, the correct answer is myself because everyone else's code is shit. I'm unqualified but that's ok, lots of people are. Most of them get development jobs anyway.
I rate ethics on a multivariable scale. Hillary's personal enrichment is a necessary evil in the evil of government as outlined by Thomas Hobbes, who was unaware of the necessary consequences of what he was describing. He tried to include elements into one governing entity that couldn't possibly coexist. Hillary's fault that matters to me is that she avoids any attempt to provide a narrative for her actions. I don't believe her strategy is the best way forward and she absolutely fails to account for her tactics.
So I'm not here to defend Clinton by any means, but holy crap have you been binging on the Trump kool-aid?
Okian Warrior admitted to making "provocative" posts a few months ago. IOW, he's been trolling for the summer.
I can verify that. Completely true.
As for comparing him to George Bush, that's such a low bar that it says nothing about his intelligence.
And yet several people you know not only got Dubya elected.... but RE-elected. I don't think Trump could name a single foreign leader he hasn't been prepped for by his team and/or shared coke and prostitutes with yet he isn't held to near as high a standard as Johnson supposedly needs to be. Trump's rants were downright incomprehensible and RETARDED during the debate and it hasn't hurt him any.
I seriously doubt Johnson is genuinely incapable of naming a few foreign leaders. Respectable right-leaning ones in this day and age are a pretty short list and often aren't very noteworthy as they don't make the news very often. He also needed to be careful of naming one someone might think offensive and use against him. That can actually be a pretty loaded question. For example, I respect Gorbachev but to do so on live TV would get me branded as a commie pinko even though Gorbachev tried his best to reform the USSR into something resembling a more open system even if Glasnost/perestroika backfired. If he said the wrong name, it could have backfired and he'd get no chance for rebuttal or explanation. Basically passing on that question was a VERY smart thing to do.
That's also a question I've rarely heard asked to someone running for president.
I honestly believe this is one of the most insightful things I've ever read about this election. I was ready to vote based on VP choice thinking either Clinton would stroke out or get killed by crazy Clinton haters leaving us with Kaine and Trump would either die of what ever health issues he's hiding or get killed by crazy Trump haters leaving us with Pence.
Because it's a troll if you take it out of context (meaning in regard to the topic instead of /.'s system), otherwise his response is insightful. After decades, it's safe to say that anonymous speech (ACs) havent been helpful here. My biggest gripe is that is sucks up mod points (which could be doled out based on the number of non-ac posts) that would otherwise help build a community. Instead, I believe it has thinned it.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
that way if Trump wins there is no evidence left to prosecute. The mounting list of crimes is just astounding.
Clinton has dedicated her life to evil. Trump, on the other hand, is nearly amoral. Clinton is bitter and hateful, and will advance the regime of political repression that Obama started. Trump is very bad on free speech and property rights. Clinton is guilty of treason and murder, Trump is nowhere near that range of destruction.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The limits of Presidential powers ensure that a President can actually do very little harm.
Great. Now, tell us about the limits on the powers of a Supreme Court justice.
Or, more likely, a coalition of two or three of them.
Didn't read the article, did you? The laptops' data relating to the investigation is not to be destroyed. For security reasons, however, OTHER data is to be destroyed, rather than leaving it lying around 'in custody' for an indefinite period of time. There is no grounds for a search of 'everything' on those drives, and no search warrant covering the incidental information that would be erased. So, the Justice department doesn't care (and, absent this kind of agreement, could be careless in handling the hardware). The 'erase-afterward' agreement is sensible.
"What's Aleppo indeed..."
My wife is from Aleppo (where she was born and raised). ... and when *I* heard the question I had no idea what the interview was asking. How he pronounced it wasn't the same as I've heard it the past 20 years...
Not that it excuses Johnson...
Hillary uses the slimy dishonesty of a trial lawyer, as befits her training. That she thinks is not a good thing, because her goal is death and destruction,
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The lower level aides got immunity. That's no excuse for destroying the evidence they provided, in fact that's contrary to the purpose of immunity.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Well, I don't see Trump attempting to launch a second airline or steak company or university, so it's not like he's repeating his mistakes. Whereas, Clinton only acknowledges "mistakes" that are mistakes in the public eye, but continues the evasive behavior that were the hallmarks of the embassy and server mistakes. Her evasiveness is the most egregious mistake I think she continues to make.
There are no "tax-evading" skills here. When you have a capital loss, Form 1040 Schedule D allows you to carry it forward and use it against future capital gains. It's very common standard procedure, which nearly everyone who's had net stock market losses in a year has used. Not only are you permitted to do this, it would be dishonest and probably illegal to do otherwise, because you'd be perjuring yourself on an income tax form.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Threatening rape victims.
Accessory before and after the fact to murder
Treason
That merely scratches the surface of Clinton's evil. Trump has been a net benefit to the world, and probably will be a net benefit as President.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Johnson is a fool who will be repeatedly suckered by the same trick. He lives in a fantasyland, and his brain damage is too great for him ever to escape.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Option A) Candidate vows to blow up 50 American cities with nukes.
Option B) Candidate vows to blow up 75 American cities with nukes.
Option A is clearly the only rational choice right?
As opposed to CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNBC, Bloomberg, et alii, where whole-cloth lies are stated as facts.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Sadly Johnson is a dufus and can't even name one living president he likes. And earlier he didn't even know what Aleppo was.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
there are ways to reform the system, but voting for someone who is sure to lose is not one of the best ways. you risk effectively favoring the candidate you dislike the most.
What is a "best" way? Voting for the slightly lesser of two evils is definitely not it. And any reform of the voting system will require overthrow of one or both of the major parties IMHO because they'll otherwise block any such effort.
Excellent observation! The Nixon administration had to sponsor burglars to get data from the Democratic offices in the Watergate building; a corrupt congressional committee could claim access to similarly important data in these laptops under the guise of 'investigation'.
The Fox news treatment suggests that this deal dims that prospect, and the Republican-dominated congressional committee publicly bemoans their lost opportunity. Actually, while the letter from Bob Goodlatte (no other committee members signed it) does include some slanted questions, it is merely a formal request for information. The committee has NOT subpoenaed anything in the computers, and knows no cause ever to do so, and The Honorable Bob Goodlatte has not suggested otherwise.
Sadly Johnson is a dufus and can't even name one living president he likes. And earlier he didn't even know what Aleppo was.
Had he been asked which US president he admired, you probably would have gotten a decent response. As far as Aleppo, honest screw-up, I can point to much worse from both elected presidents and candidates both now and years ago. He certainly knew who Assad was though. I could care less if he got a C in geography.
I'll take a likeable dufus with integrity who fosters non-partisan cooperation and strives to do the right thing over a tyrant any day. To consider Trump a serious candidate and discount a well-liked multiterm politician with actual experience is pretty silly.
Either way, actual progress for a third party and elevating their status can be nothing but a good thing. We have to start somewhere. We'll continue to get increasingly polarizing "scary" douche and turd sandwich candidates from the current mainstream parties whether it's now, 4 years from now, 8 years from now or 20 years from now.
If anything, even if he loses, Johnson has achieved more than just about any recent 3rd party candidate in history. You are screwed no matter who gets elected. Voting with the herd is a wasted vote. Voting against the other tyrant is not how it's supposed to work here. You're supposed to vote FOR a candidate.
Internalize theoretical qualification scenario, deflect on manufactured attack, ad hominem without making a point to just disagree with vitrol. Classic troll.
Of course it was.
In reality, no-one is truly qualified or "experienced" enough to be president. Once you are, your term limit is up and everyone thinks your an asshole unless you get assassinated and/or successfully get a moon shot funded. Johnson/Weld are the ticket with actual experience governing and running a state. Both were re-elected and both were able to gain cooperation on both sides of the isle in a non-partisan manner. IMHO, that makes them far more qualified to be promoted to the national stage than the other leading morons famous for "pivoting" and/or deflecting blame when the shit hits the fan and things don't work out.
It's not like these guys are dumbasses straight out of college, we are talking about experienced multi-term politicians here with a good track record. I can forgive the fact he probably got a C in world geography and had one bong hit too many that morning in high school. At least he doesn't have a huge track record of negative foreign policy failures like Clinton. Or zero governing experience and lots of daddy's money.
but with any sense, disc images would have been made...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
It's not their job: Congress can't stop initial war nor The Button, only stop its funding. But who pays for Armageddon is moot.
Table-ized A.I.
I would say non-zero but very remote. There's still no reason to exclude them from the debates. If anything, Johnson in the last debate would have made for a meaningful discussion instead of the shitshow that was advertised like a wrestling match.
The Republican Party is clearly dying. Johnson himself is not really what I'd call a hardcore Libertarian. He's more like a Republican without the Christian Nationalist ideology, warmongering, disdain for minority groups and immigrants, authoritarianism and drug war baggage. He's basically what a modern Republican should be.
While I like the true Libertarian ideals, I can accept that many find such a world scary and I'll happily take a Republican without the aspects that make most Republicans assholes. If the slight watering down of Libertarian ideals causes the party to gain more acceptance and eventually replace the Republicans, it would benefit us all.
Even though the Clintons are complete crooks and disgusting people, Trump is even worse. We need to stop this witchhunt. President Chelsea Clinton will get to the bottom of it when she is elected.
How is Trump worse? How many people died from his mistakes?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I honestly doubt Trump gives a shit about slashdot, so you'd have to explain better how it's relevant in any context. Furthermore, some AC posts are pretty good, and sometimes there are good reasons for regular users to post as AC. I recall one time a self confessed pedophile posted as AC to explain that even though he was attracted to children, he had never attempted to have sex with one, which if you ask me is a sane thing to do because it doesn't matter whether or not one abuses children, if they confess to even thinking about that then their life is pretty much over, and for no good reason.
Hell, I've posted as AC myself to make some decidedly un-PC jokes that I just don't want associated with my regular identity here. And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Sure, some twats get offended, but that's their problem, especially the times when those posts get modded +5 funny.
Sorry, but this is completely false, as it does not match the GP's preconceived idea about what has happened.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Watch the documentary Clinton Cash and then describe which one of the nominees is more ethical.
I don't think the deal ever went through.
Looks like it went through: "Mr. Combetta is one of at least two people who were given immunity by the Justice Department as part of the investigation." The NYT usually gets their facts right.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I admire the try, but that story turned political immediately with systemd arguments.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
For me, it's a protest vote because if he actually had a chance of winning, I wouldn't vote for him. The other two candidates both at least know enough about the world to name a current leader of a foreign country, unlike Gary Johnson.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
How could you possibly elect someone so uninformed about geopolitics?
At least Trump has some sort of good relationships or reputation with a few world leaders and is read up about current events, plus he is a good negotiator and has a solid understanding of economics.
So much hate against a guy who simply has run a business like every other businessman in the world (relatively successfully too) and (claims) to want to change the system.
They should be excluded from the final ballot because sometimes third party candidates actually suck enough votes away that democracy fails to even pick the candidate the majority of voters want, if they were not distracted by irrelevant choices. The method to do this is commonly known as a "runoff" election or ranked voting or a dozen other possible fixes.
It's still zero. For 240 years, a third party has never won and never will win for the next million years as long as the rules for elections remain the same.
If a 3rd party has never won, then Hillary is a member of the Federalist party, right? And trump is a member of the Anti-Federalists? right?
Stop pretending like you know something when you know that you don't. Its not possible for you to not know that you are ignorant on this matter, therefore you are lying. You are lying. Why are you lying?
"His name was James Damore."
*cough*yellowcake*cough*
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
While this is theoretically true, in practice the american political system is currently such that all elections are decided between 2 parties.
(Source: wiki article on Duverger's law
There are ways of setting up the system so that it favors multiple parties, but this requires large-scale reform towards some variant of proportional representation. And herein lies the core of the issue: since the existing parties both clearly benefit from the status quo which essentially makes it impossible for them to lose power, there's de facto no change they will be interested in reforming the political system or funding for that matter.
As far as I can see (as a non-American) the only change the people have to change the system would be getting it done through local levels (ie. through for example article 5 convention).
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Battle of the shills. Game on!
Requiem for the American Dream
...not laptops. Old hardware can still put into useful service.
Add to that, Clinton is a Washington insider, Trump is not. They're both going to try to do bad things, but the establishment hates Trump and will try to stop him. Clinton might actually succeed.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Sorry, no. Personal enrichment is NOT a "necessary evil." There are plenty of politicians that don't exit their office with 9-digit bank accounts.
She might be the most corrupt politician since Nixon, and that's really saying something.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratically elected government.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Yes, the source matters. But the content matters more.
If the story is factual, it is deeply troubling.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Why destroy evidence?
Because there is a greater than zero chance of a political shift in the Department of Justice come January. Should that happen, they wouldn't want to have the ability to actually indict and prosecute, would they?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
s/This election/All presidential elections/
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Ahh, the old "they did it too, so it's ok when my tribe does it" justification.
Never mind the distinction between private emails (your phrase) and emails improperly containing TOP SECRET FUCKING INFORMATION.
For the record, I'm good with prosecuting the whole lot, and letting them have some Republican versus Democrat tennis matches at a minimum security federal prison for the next 10 to 15 years.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I don't know what scares me more, the two candidates, or people like you that are so willingly blind to such obvious and documented corruption.
It's a lifetime of exposure to cultural and ideological propaganda combined with careful mass media/information and educational system manipulation and a culturally-encouraged individual intellectual laziness & apathy towards studying history or learning how to think critically. Many spend their entire lives operating almost exclusively from emotion and impulse and have little balance between logical, critical thought and emotional impulse when certain emotional keys are triggered. The spread of the same phenomenon may have also partly contributed to the increasing unemployment, incarceration, and recidivism numbers over the past few decades.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If it was classified, and on an unclassified computer, isn't the right thing to do to destroy the hard drive?
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
What happened is not normal (i.e. everyone gets to do this). Real estate developers have a special callout in the tax code (see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cf...) because they have paid off the Congress. The result is that qualified "real estate professionals" with certain other qualifications get to take 'net operating losses' that non professionals do not. NOL is not the same as capital loss.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
I hear you,
but the the first thing you want is a mainstream debate on IF, and HOW, the electoral system can be made better.
[Mainstream means: people get stuff about it on their facebook feed, see the topic on the opinion page of their favorite newspaper, hear about it on TV etc. This is currently not happening. ]
There are probably ways to make the electoral system better - and there are almost certainly ways to screw up royally.
Let's face it: With all the faults you may find, the current system has historically served the U.S. people well. Some reforms are probably a good idea, but we better come up with something really, really smart.
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
None of that means it was improper for Trump to take the write-off, or for the tax code to include it. If you have a business in a volatile market (pork bellies, solar panels, real estate, whatever) and lose $500k your first year but make $1M the next, should you have to pay taxes on $1M or just on the $500k net profit? (Example cribbed from Megan McArdle, who has more insightful observations on the topic.)
and CIA agreed to kill couple of witnesses as part of the plea bargain deal, no biggie.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
He doesn't seem to recognize his mistakes at all. After that unhinged Twitter rant against a former Miss Universe, the following morning he called up Fox news for a phone interview. The hosts carefully avoided talking about his lunacy, so he brought it up himself. The look on their faces is priceless.
If he is that bad at managing his own image and recognizing when to shut up, how is he going to do in international negotiations or when trying to get his own adopted party to agree to his nonsense?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well, Americans should care. Both parties need to crumble and we should look at the smaller parties for options. We're really picking between these two? No, there are others, and the complains I've heard against them are laughable compared to the major issues I've heard about Trump and Clinton.
If the pathetic candidates of the current two-party system were not enough of a justification for the American People to put forth some effort to establish a third party, I have no fucking idea what the hell it's gonna take in the future to do so.
We're pretty much doomed.
stop all of the conspiracy garbage since there's no more evidence.
Because the world just stopped with the "conspiracy garbage" when Lee Harvey Oswald was shot, right?
Needless to say, the act of physically destroying evidence tends to shine a light directly back on the issue at hand. The truth is being buried here, and that's hardly something hidden in conspiracy or leaving us theorizing as to why it's happening.
be as it may, one of the two is going to be president.
But I would prefer that the one who wins gets something like 35% (Johnson has a good showing) or 27% (Johnson and Stein have a good showing) of the popular vote so it becomes clear that the majority of people don't want what the major parties are selling.
Time to offend someone
You think you have a choice? That's cute. There is a reason Trump didn't bring up the emails during the debates, he's been throwing the election since day 1. He single handedly made the Republican Party unelectable. And it doesn't matter if he gets the vote, random straw polls put the amount of people voting for him at 75% yet CNN gives him a less than 30% chance of winning and official polls have them neck to neck. Trump has already cashed in, he laughs all the way to the bank while Clinton laughs all the way to the White House.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I disagree with you on this. Trump is egotistical. He's boorish and crude. He often speaks without thinking first. He's reactionary and short-tempered. Given the choice of candidates in the Republican primary, he'd be second last on my list (just ahead of Jeb). But he's not rock bottom like Hillary is. She's got 40 years of exploiting her and Bill's public office positions for personal gain. After seeing the details of the email scandal, it's clear as day that she should be behind bars for her actions. The Clinton Foundation should be shut down. It's nothing but a money laundering machine for the Clintons. How can anyone vote for Hillary knowing she was accepting money from foreign entities in order to make favorable decisions regarding business they had with the State Department? She sold out the US government for personal gain. She set up an email server in order to protect her communications from being seen. She's the biggest crook the US government has ever known, yet she's on the verge of becoming President?
Anymore than Hillary not taxing Apple and not closing the carried interest loop hole.
among green & libertarian. Green are just impractical wide eyed fools likely to cause the same sort of problems Chairmen Mao did with his great leap and Libertarians will just create a dystopian out of the power vacuum the Mega-corps rush in to fill when they tear down the gov't (ya know all those burdensome regulations got passed for a reason besides making libertarians mad, right?).
I wouldn't mind seeing a parliamentary system like Canada. But barring that I don't see any options. Keep in mind our system of constitutional gov't was designed to create stability for wealthy landowners so they working class wouldn't take their land and money away. The fundamentals (e.g. our constitution) are busted, but since you're taught to revere the constitution in grade school while you're mind is young and vulnerable you're pretty much stuck.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
see here
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...even if there actually is some wrongdoing at the bottom of this pile of press releases, Clinton is still the more ethical candidate in November.
A few thousand missing emails tend to cast a shadow over your ability to discern how ethical she actually is.
Trump has been a net benefit to the world
[Citation Needed]
The limits of Presidential powers ensure that a President can actually do very little harm...
As children of the future learn about American history over the last 8 years and wonder how things got that fucked up, I'll kindly refer them back to this little statement about our "harmless" leaders...
it always has been
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
So you are saying "The classical liberal can't name the former president of Mexico, so you should vote for the educated fascist instead?"
Thanks, but I'll rather vote for someone less competent who represents my views, than for a more competent person who is going to use their competency to make my life a living hell.
Clinton is unlikable, Trump is mentally incompetent and outright dangerous.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Didn't you mean Emperor Chelsea Clinton?
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
After Al Gore lost the 2000 election (and yes, he really did lose, The New York Times did an in-depth analysis after the election of votes cast, showing al Gore lost fair and square), Democrats ran around with their hair on fire, arguing that we MUST roll out, expensive, vulnerable, and frail electronic voting ASAP to avoid another 'uncertain' election outcome. Fast-forward 16 years, now Democrats are running around with their hair on fire, insisting that THE RUSSIANS are going to upset the coming election, and the only solution is for DHS to provide 'oversight' in all elections this November 'just in case' those pesky Russians try anything. The sitting party wants the ability to second-guess every state election, presumably with the ability to invalidate results they find 'suspect' - sounds great, doesn't it?
You skipped over the part where it's a crime, punishable by actual jail time, to put classified information on an unclassified computer...
"Mr. Pagliano told investigators, he approached Ms. Mills to relay State Department concerns that the private server might pose a "federal records retention issue." According to Mr. Pagliano, Ms. Mills told him not to worry about it, because other secretaries of state had used similar setups."
If that's the case, then she didn't understand or know the distinction between an outside service and a personal server. (It actually makes no difference from a legal standpoint, but I'm looking at the "lie" claim here.)
An AOL "technician" and a personal server technician perhaps would be no different to her. She didn't "see" either. I work with non-IT people all the time that wouldn't understand that distinction unless explicitly and carefully explained.
http://canadafreepress.com/art...
Table-ized A.I.
After Al Gore lost the 2000 election (and yes, he really did lose, The New York Times did an in-depth analysis after the election of votes cast, showing al Gore lost fair and square), Democrats ran around with their hair on fire, arguing that we MUST roll out, expensive, vulnerable, and frail electronic voting ASAP to avoid another 'uncertain' election outcome.
Fast-forward 16 years, now Democrats are running around with their hair on fire, insisting that THE RUSSIANS are going to upset the coming election, and the only solution is for DHS to provide 'oversight' in all elections this November 'just in case' those pesky Russians try anything.
The sitting party wants the ability to second-guess every state election, presumably with the ability to invalidate results they find 'suspect' - sounds great, doesn't it?
How does this relate with the opportunity, or not, to have a debate on the overall electoral system? No irony, just an open question.
The sitting party, either one, is sitting because it has been voted.
Am I missing your point entirely?
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
The US tried an incompetent fool before: George Bush. It didn't work out so well.
Personally, I am not voting for Clinton. Instead, I am going to write in Bernie Sanders.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It's easy for Trump to have "committed no crimes and has not abused his power of being a public official for his own gain" when he hasn't held public office.
OMG, I have a hangnail! Better amputate! At the neck!
Seriously, destroying the entire laptop? Why not just replace the drive?
I defy you to even state the US's objective in Syria to begin with. How are we to measure success for that particular military intervention? The real story about Aleppo is the foreign policy mess that Clinton bears much responsibility for. In fact, Johnson is an avid opponent of regime change. Did you even catch the fact that, in their rush to discredit Johnson, the New York Times misidentified Aleppo itself?
It's advantageous to Clinton for this stale "Aleppo" gaffe to remain in the news: She feels the threat of a candidate who won't be afraid to call her out on all of her BS with specific statistics and actual plans (e.g. her criminal justice reform proposal based on "investing in trust" rather that ending the unsuccessful "war on drugs").
This stupid gaffe is still in the news, and yet the Clinton email story has somehow slipped under the radar, even as more evidence of wrongdoing is exposed. I'm surprised that you didn't mention the "world leader" gaffe. That's not as juicy, though, because it's relatively easy to find the actual interview with the *actual* question that Johnson was asked: "Name one world leader *that you admire.*" So, the "unable to name a world leader" thing is pretty much moot.
I understand why ill-informed sheep would continue to perpetuate the "Gary is an idiot" meme, but wake up and look at the issues. The mainstream media are Clinton shills with a vested interest in discrediting Johnson as much as possible leading up to the election (and, skirting the real issues that Clinton won't ever resolve).
I do find some comfort in this election, though: The lack of credibility of mainstream media in the US is clearer than ever. And, I dare say, the fact that millenials-- who consume 0% of old media-- support Johnson speaks to the fact that a campaign's saavy use of new media to raise awareness and offer fuller, non-biased information can make a huge difference. No, you won't see that side of this election story in mainstream media. To me, this signals one more step on the path to the death of mainstream media, and the rise of social media as the source for real journalism.
In the future a GOP president will try to fire these corrupt turkeys, but then the media will tell us they are "politically motivated firings".
And can't disobey the media, right?
Just fyi: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html
Suddenly conservatives are "bothered" by influence peddling. What changed, you Citizens-United-ruling huggers?
Table-ized A.I.
> I honestly doubt Trump gives a shit about slashdot, so you'd have to explain better how it's relevant in any context.
Just because you don't understand the context, doesn't mean the debate doesn't exist. As is obvious from the content, it has nothing to do with Trump so that's a non sequitur or a disingenuous derail attempt. Quibbling about the type of trolling is not productive anyway. That's statistically, the use of AC on /. - At least between us, there's some accountability, unlike the ACs that pepper this thread.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
I don't know about Ken Hansen, but an obvious problem here is that we're moving the wrong way to get a public debate on better voting systems.
No presidential material, indeed was meant in the sense that it was contemptuous to think that he wasn't presidential material simply because he might be bad with names.
What's mind blowing is giving people immunity - and in the deal specifying that they can't testify before Congress - and then filing no charges but keeping the immunity deal intact.
It's not just unusual - it's simply not done. It violates every principle of the constitution and the purpose of immunity. You can't give someone immunity and dictate they have immunity from congressional oversight... And if you give someone immunity and then there is no crime, then they didn't commit a crime either, and the immunity is lifted.
It's not a "conspiracy theory" to understand why this was done. Obama was communicating with Hillary using a pseudonym, all communications made by the President are, by definition secret. If this was every publicly acknowledged in a court of law Hillary would be finished, and Obama's legacy would be destroyed, it would be hard for die hard Democrat ideologues to go against impeachment proceedings. It was done for the good of the country, which sometimes means we all get fucked... In the end the voters will decide in November.
The conspiracy is a willing media who isn't doing their job, but that's old news.
Murphy was an optimist
But that's the whole point, isn't it? People are sick and tired of career politicians. Like it or not eight years of Obama acting the same as Bush on so many levels got us an electorate that wants "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".
Murphy was an optimist
When Clinton was Secretary of State, she liked what the TPP was turning into. Years later, when she'd been out of the negotiation process, she didn't like what it had turned into.
The FBI did not recommend criminal prosecution for negligence with classified materials, because people who do that sort of thing are not criminally prosecuted. If you disagree, please give me the name of one person who was similarly negligent and faced serious criminal prosecution.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No other party produces Presidential candidates that could function in the job. The Democrats since 1972, and the Republicans up until now, have had to consider what their nominees would actually do if they were elected. If you don't have to worry about that, it's easy to find an ideologically acceptable and good-looking candidate.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I see that claim over and over. Make a list with actual proof. It'll be short, likely numbering 0.
Dude, the FBI found Top Secret satellite imagery on her private email server. The email server itself is also illegal, even without the classified stuff.
That's two.
Kristian Saucier
Nobody devotes their life to evil. There is no more a regime of political oppression in the US than there ever was. Clinton is not guilty of treason (there's a Constitutional definition for that), and there's no good evidence she ever murdered anyone.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In other words, the DNC favored who they thought would be the best candidate. Is there some sort of sinister subtext I'm supposed to be picking up on? (I'm not necessarily good with subtleties.) Political parties are not governments, and have no obligation to be neutral.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You skipped over the part where it's not a crime to possess classified information, and the part where negligence with classified material is not normally handled with criminal prosecution.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
They got immunity and protection against later embarrassment. In exchange, the FBI gets to search their laptops freely, and they no longer have the Fifth Amendment right to withhold testimony (if you can't be prosecuted for X, talking about X isn't actual self-incrimination).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The big difference between an "empty protest candidate" and a serious third party is whether they nominate a candidate capable of governing. The Libertarians can select a Presidential candidate without caring about what happens if he or she gets elected, and it shows. It's a lot easier to pick a good-looking and ideologically acceptable candidate if you don't have to worry about winning.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
To be honest, it reminds me of the fifty-seven US states or the Iraq-Pakistan border from eight years ago. Not particularly significant.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And this time both of those parties failed. Next candidate.
as if it were news?
Rounds and rounds of bluster about a conspiracy which even Trey Gowdy has no evidence to support, and we know how little HE needs to declare "victory over Hillary"
If one lives in a state that trump or Clinton is clearly going to win, one may as well vote for Johnson - assuming you don't care much for trump or Clinton.
Gary Johnson has 3 very good qualities that make him worthy of my vote:
1: He's not trump
2: He's not Clinton
3: He's not going to win
Maintain the stalemate between Sunni and Shia?
Without saying so.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just because you don't understand the context, doesn't mean the debate doesn't exist. As is obvious from the content, it has nothing to do with Trump
Are you high? Here, let me quote it for you:
Desperate Donald, there's no point...in submitting posts as an AC. We all recognize your style, roll our eyes at the bigoted and desperate moron, then we move along.
The ability/necessity to reap financial benefits does not begin at the 9 digit mark. Sure, not all are as successful, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening to various degrees. If it wasn't, that might be a news story.
There still can only be two. And it takes a shift over generations to replace one political party with another.
Most of the lousy things Bush did he did with the aid of Congress. I think Trump would probably have a hard time passing as much crap as Bush did.
We had a very destructive civil war once. On the "fucked up" scale we're still middling. I don't know what education will be like in your hypothetical future, but if it is anything like today's history curriculum, we won't even bother to mention this time period in any detail.
30 years from now, I feel we'll be struggling to figure out what we will teach humans to go off and do as a job or career. Fast food manager? To do what, "manage" a bunch of robots? Doctor? Nope, replaced by AI engine, with meds-by-drone. Uber driver? Yeah right. The way things are going, those jobs will be gone first. Teacher? Find a purpose for that position first. The list goes on and on and on, and nothing will stop the unadulterated greed that will drive us to this ultimate state of affairs.
And while we may have had periods of violence in our past, it pales in comparison to the destruction of our Rights and the fact that we're now known as the Incarcerated States of America when measured against the rest of the planet. Rather ironic when speaking about the Land of the Free.
Lynch resigned in 2001 to join the law firm of Hogan & Hartson. This is the same law firm that represented the company, MXLogic. MXLogic was the company Hillary first used to set up her private email server and account. Executives from this law firm have also donated to the Clintons.
At the end of the day, how do we have Lynch, previously appointed by Bill Clinton and former employee of the law firm that is connected to Hillary's email scandal, in charge of the investigation into Hillarys email scandal, with the lead investigative agency led by a man who twice investigated the Clintons and both times found them not guilty of wrongdoing, also appointed by the current U.S. President, who appointed Lynch, who is Comey's boss?!? And Comey and Lynch have known each other for decades as well.
How was this investigation to have ever been legitimate????
But a deal is typically "you get X if you do Y". Whether Y happened is not clear. The IF clause may have been activated ("ran"), but that doesn't mean the conditions themselves were triggered.
Table-ized A.I.
I see what you're saying.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I can't see politico.com through the wall here, and typing that name into Wikipedia is futile. Could you tell me what you're trying to say? It would help if you cited a more reliable-appearing source.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I see.
You had a conclusion, then lied about facts to support it, and when shown that those facts were wrong, you are lying again.
Stop being a dishonest fuck. Its really simple not to be. Just dont open your fucking mouth when you know that you dont know.
"His name was James Damore."
In a normal election cycle, this is true. In this one, he's the star pupil.
Our choices:
1-Criminal politician who makes bad decisions.
2-Idiotic businessman with an ego problem.
3-But.. but... but... the planet! woman
4-Essentially honest guy who doesn't know enough.
I'm going for #4
Accessed it at home. It's about a sailor that took a picture in a "classified engine room", which is intentionally doing something against the law, as opposed to Clinton's negligence. The dividing line between felony prosecution and no prosecution appears to be whether the act is intentional or a result of negligence, and not what classified material is involved. Clinton had no intention of leaking classified material. Saucier's phone, with the classified picture, was found in a dump (the article didn't say whether it was military or civilian), which suggests no particular care in making sure the picture didn't get into the wrong hands, and that's what kicked off the investigation.
It may well be that taking pictures in classified areas is common aboard submarines, and is handled administratively (although you'd think being demoted one rank would be something of a deterrent), and if the case had started before there was any possible dissemination, and Saucier had fessed up, it seems likely that he'd have been demoted or something. The fact that he destroyed evidence can''t have helped him either.
So another case of criminal intent vs. negligence. Nothing new here.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What America desperately needs is to start throwing politicians in jail.
I am sure the legislators (lawyers), judges (lawyers), and prosecutors (lawyers) will get right on that.
Note that it was Bill Clinton who wanted that tax loophole for his rich, property-owning friends.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
The dividing line between felony prosecution and no prosecution appears to be whether the act is intentional or a result of negligence, and not what classified material is involved. Clinton had no intention of leaking classified material... So another case of criminal intent vs. negligence.
So you're saying that the difference is that Saucier intended to break the law, and Clinton was negligent? Interesting, because the actual law says that negligent conduct is sufficient for it to be a violation of the law. (Let's leave aside just how possible it is to negligently set up a series of six Exchange servers.)
Saucier's phone, with the classified picture, was found in a dump (the article didn't say whether it was military or civilian), which suggests no particular care in making sure the picture didn't get into the wrong hands, and that's what kicked off the investigation.
It may well be that taking pictures in classified areas is common aboard submarines, and is handled administratively (although you'd think being demoted one rank would be something of a deterrent), and if the case had started before there was any possible dissemination, and Saucier had fessed up, it seems likely that he'd have been demoted or something.
I'd double check the article. The investigation kicked off when Saucier turned himself in.
The fact that he [Saucier] destroyed evidence can't have helped him either.
Dude, you're replying to a Slashdot article titled "FBI Agreed To Destroy Laptops of Clinton Aides With Immunity Deal, Sources Say." It really hurts your efforts to correct the record when you show so little self awareness.
The transference of classified material to an unclassified system is a crime, possession of the classified material by someone not authorized to be in posession of it is also a crime. Hillary got a pass because he could not find evidence that Hillary 'intended' to vomit a crime. A sailor was convicted of possessing classified material on his phone because he took a selfie in a restricted area on a ship. Taking the picture wasn't a crime, but possessing the picture of the classified area in the background was. The sailor tried to argue that he had no 'intention' of breaking the law, but because he wasn't a presidential candidate of a major party, his defense was denied.
It is a crime - https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
I'll vote for option C that asks what a nuke is.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I'd vote for McAfee, he at least would be entertaining.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?