Slashdot Mirror
FBI Probes Newly Discovered Hillary Clinton Emails and Reopens Investigation (telegraph.co.uk)
The FBI said Friday it is reviewing newly discovered emails related to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server to determine whether she properly handled classified emails. The reopening of the investigation comes after the FBI recently "learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the Clinton investigation," FBI director James Comey said. Comey added, however, that "FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant." It is also unclear "how long it will take us to complete this additional work." FBI's announcement today is "certain" to become an issue in the final two weeks of the presidential campaign, however. Donald Trump is naturally pleased hearing the news, at New Hampshire, Trump said the new probe offered the FBI the chance to correct a "grave miscarriage of justice." He added, "We must not let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office." Supporters responded with chants of "Lock her up!" Trump added that the email investigation is "bigger than Watergate."
"how ling it will take us to complete this additional work."
Who is this Ling and why is there a Chinese agent working on this?!
Dammit, the emale went missing again.
Sorry, I'll see myself out now.
However, they do plan to take 5 years to analyze the data, then decide that despite being complete flagrant violations of Federal law, the information leaked is no longer a national security issue, so they will not recommend any charges.
1. They did not say that they are reopening the investigation. The memo itself makes that clear.
2. The emails are related to the server, but not from Clinton
Pete Williams is reporting that the emails have A) nothing to do with Wikileaks, and B) were not withheld by Clinton.
Beyond that, we know very, very little right now. Actually it's rather bizarre that Comey would throw a bombshell like this 11 days before the election. But let's see where it goes.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Actually, Comey should drop out of the investigation, and someone else at the FBI should take over from him. He is either stupid, or compromised, or both.
And Trump is in no position to drive this or any other thing. Only people who can is the Obama administration. Yeah, WikiLeaks has been exposing all this, but they already have the standard template response of Putin pulling their strings, so why are they so worried?
Likewise, you can't stand the thought of someone becoming president with hair that bad! But it still doesn't justify you being a Clinton shill.
I wonder if the FBI, in their 'unrelated investigation' found evidence of 'intent'?
Correction: the FBI is not reopening the case, they're assessing some emails that they found in a different investigation to see if they are relevant. If they are relevant to Clinton, and if they contain classified information, then it's possible in the future that they might reopen the case. But that's not what the FBI said - that's all speculation by politicians looking for a "hook" to keep attacking Clinton.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
I am not a Trump supporter, but I do not want the FBI and the AG to drop this investigation. It's clear that Hillary is guilty of breaking multiple laws, but because her party has power in the executive branch, she's not being held accountable to the degree that anyone else in the country would be.
My solution for the whole thing is to not put up Trump signs, but to put up "Hillary for Prison 2016" signs. She'll make a terrible president. Trump will make a terrible president. What I'm secretly hoping for is that McMullin figures out how to sneak in, people take Kotlikoff seriously as a write-in candidate, or that something terrible happens to Trump/Clinton when they win and the VP has to take over.
I don't think 99.9% of Trump supporters have a problem with a female president. They have a problem with THIS female as president. If she supported their positions on things and wasn't horrible corruption incarnate, they would be more than happy to vote for her.
whiny asshats that don't like Hillary because she's a woman
No. I would've supported a President Jill Stein. I believe she'd be a better choice than Donald Trump.
I cannot support Hillary because she is corrupt. The depth of her corruption is breathtaking and her blatant disregard for the rule of law is a danger to the republic.
I hope that this time round they made damn sure that Comey or anyone else that has shared business interests with the Clintons can't have anything to do with the new investigation.
Uh, no. If she were to drop out now, the ballots couldn't be undone, but Tim Kaine, as the surviving member of the ticket, would become president if the Dems win. Nobody would have to be written in. Similarly, had Trump dropped out or anything happened to him, Pence would become the president in the event of a GOP win
This is a point also made in 1998 during the impeachment hearings on Bill Clinton. Dems were at the time fighting tooth and nail to save him, but had they gone along w/ the GOP and impeached Clinton, Algore would have become president, and he would have had the liberty to hire someone more to his liking than Joe Lieberman.
As the loser of a fixed race, are you sure he still feels that way?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The depth of Republicans spending three decades trying to convince Americans that she's corrupt is what's breathtaking. How many bloody investigations have they held into her? Now, how many times has she been convicted?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Had Sanders been the candidate, he would have been running 15 points ahead of Trump right now
Apparently, there is suppose to be another dump sometime next week which according to wiki (doubt if I believe it) should "get Hillary arrested". Now, as much as I think the Clinton's are crooks, and should be in jail, I doubt it will happen. Interesting though, the Clinton's have transferred over 2 million dollars from their accounts in the USA, to Dubai. Are they planning some sort of escape in the near future, to a country that will not extradite them to the USA? Why transfer all of your assets to another country? She has to know, if she loses, Trump, even though I still have it in the back of my mind he only got into this election to help Hillary, by taking all of the spotlight off of other candidates, may of had a "come to Jesus meeting" and got his mind right with God...I hope so! This is about the screwiest election I've seen in my 57 years of life.
If by fixed race you mean more people voting for the other person, then...well, who gives a fuck what he thinks after this is over.
I predict a day or two before the election the FBI will say everything is just peachy.
That might just push some fence sitters over to Hillary.
It sucks, but saddle up for 8 years of Hillary - it's going to be bad.
Yes, vote for the vaxxer-apologist who wants a moratorium on pesticides and whose primary economic policy initiative - ordering the Fed use quantitative easing to forgive student debt - is based on a complete misunderstanding of the relationship between the government and the Fed, and what quantitative easing even is.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Story where Terry McAuliffe (a long time Clinton friend) gave the lead FBI investigator's wife $500,000 for a campaign run in 2015 during the investigation. If you know Terry McAuliffe, you know dealing with him is basically the same as dealing with the Clintons.
I think you need to exclude anyone who took bribes from the Clintons as well.
Just hit the alt+right key
love is just extroverted narcissism
think the favorite female president of the Trump supporters would be Katrina Pearson or Judge Jeanene Pirro
Condoleezza Rice.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
How many of the emails have you actually read, and which ones specifically are you basing that on?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
That's a cynically lazy attitude. Corrupt people need to be held accountable, or the situation will only get worse.
And even if all politicians are corrupt, they still vary by degrees of corruption. Remove the worst offenders and the average corruption of the whole goes down.
Just checked, as of 2pm central time, These news sites have it FRONT PAGE. cnn.com washingtonpost Nytimes msmbc Cbsnews abcnews nbcnews huffingtonpost wallstreet journal dailyKOS dailycaller Foxnews drudge report democraticunderground So, it's not like this isn't being reported on, unlike some past events. Also, not that it holds much weight, but, wiki also said next weeks dump will "get Hillary arrested". Doubtful, but seeing her do a perp walk would just tickle my innards. She & Bill have transferred almost 2 million dollars from accounts in the USA, to Dubai. Now why do that? Planning on fleeing the country on November the 9th if you lose?
Stalin wasn't ever convicted of crimes against humanity either. Was he a good leader?
The first investigation found that she was grossly negligent and irresponsible in her handling of classified material - what they didn't find was 'intent'.
Will the recently arrested NSA "leaker" be let off like her? After all the FBI seems to be saying that so far there was no intent to distribute the classified materials he had at home. So he too is merely guilty of have classified material on a personal computer without permission.
I've been hearing this naive and silly response a lot lately. Libs with agendas forget that it took that long to finally nail Al Capone. Hillary is the new Al Capone. Just because multiple investigations don't result in her direct prosecution doesn't mean she isn't guilty. In fact, in a number of investigations she was found guilty, there was just no real penalty (i.e. White House Travel Staff). Point in fact, Comey said she did violate laws related to handling classified material but that no prosecutor would attempt to prosecute the case so they recommended that the DOJ NOT press charges. But lying Hillary and others like yourself, run around saying that the FBI found her not guilty. False. They said she was guilty but that they thought it wasn't worth while. Meanwhile Bill Clinton is running interference with the DOJ on an airplane and the chief FBI investigator's wife is getting $800,000 in campaign donations from Hillary's "friends". It's no wonder Comey said it wasn't worth investigating. This is classic mafia-style tactics; racketeering. So remember, Al Capone murdered by the dozens for years but was never convicted of murder but he was never convicted of it. That doesn't mean he wasn't a murderer and likewise the lack of a conviction to date for Hillary doesn't mean she's not thoroughly corrupt.
(looks at new MacBook Pro keyboard and scratches head)
So it was the Republicans who set up Clinton Foundation and traded favors and money like candy?
MSNBC reaction to the latest Wikileaks Clinton Foundation leak. (for those not familiar with American news outlets; MSNBC is a left-leaning organization and normally a cheerleader for Democrats)
Now, how many times has she been convicted?
Lack of conviction can mean two things. 1) person is innocent, or 2) person is guilty but the accusers couldn't come up with enough evidence and/or the person is very good at dodging the legal system (perhaps because they're a trained lawyer)
It's pretty fucking clear by now that Clinton belongs in category 2)
Oh a criminal trial for something like this would take far longer than to be completed before January, there'd be appeals and all that, it'd be drug out for years.
Right, just like the GOP rigs it's internal game and always has; they just screwed up this time because none of the clowns the put up could yell as long or loud or bloviate as wildly at the Trumpster.
If you think the GOP is blameless at this game, go look into what happened in 1976 between Reagan and Ford. Political Brass knuckles is what happened: horse trading, double-crossing, and every power game you can think of and the Reagan (then the outsider) clique almost took the party away from the professionals. "Physical altercations on the convention floor" is a quote from an attendee.
Politics is a vicious, deadly struggle for money and power, and don't you forget it.
According to the investigation, only three emails on server had any classified marking on them. None contained classified headers, only (c) markings. The investigation determined that given HRC's lack of expertise in these regards, it's likely that she did not know what that symbol meant; classified documents are usually given to top officials with classified headers. She was however faulted for not treating sensitive information as classified regardless of whether or not it was marked as such, as is government policy.
Now, there was a lot more classified information on the server. At the time it was sent, 113 emails contained classified information, although as mentioned the overwhelming majority hadn't been marked when it was sent to her. During the investigation, investigators looked over all information and retroactively classified 2093 emails as containing information that should be classified. Of those 2093, HRC authored 104. But those were not classified at the time.
A separate report revealed that Powell had in his tenure received two classified emails in his private mail, and staffers of Condoleeza Rice received ten.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
That would be pretty much par for the course with the Clintons. Bill pardoned like 5 (IIRC) members of the Whitewater scandal that were convicted of various crimes. That was just a witch hunt though that resulted in 40 convictions including multiple charges of conspiracy. Just a partisan witch hunt though.
In the leaked emails other Democrats were freaking out about Hillay's email. It is a huge problem and ignoring it is insane.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Stalin wasn't ever convicted of crimes against humanity either. Was he a good leader?
Only in comparison to Trump.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
But if we have a hung result, why would the GOP vote in McMullin as the president elect instead of Trump, who has been their democratically elected nominee?
Two fairly obvious reasons:
- The GOP establishment hates Trump. Sure, they're backing him now because they have to oppose the Democrats' nominee, but if they had another option they might take it.
- Trump's support among the people has slipped pretty dramatically since he won the nomination. I'd bet that if we got a do-over on the primaries, that he'd lose pretty convincingly. That could give the leadership the justification they need to switch to someone else.
It would probably still be a long shot, but I could see it happening. (Assuming for the moment that it was realistic that we could end up with neither major-party candidate getting a majority of the electoral vote.)
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
As someone posting to a nerd site, you should also point out Stein thinks Wifi may cause some sort of brain damage.
She's awful, though in fairness, who isn't in this election? The main thing going for Clinton that the others don't have is that 99% of the allegations constantly made against her are complete fiction, but frankly, that other 1% is pretty shitty.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Ok, I'll bite... which laws has she broken?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No, not new; I just haven't had all the idealism crushed out of me yet.
IF Clinton were successfully prosecuted and unable to serve then Kaine would be sworn in. More likely Obama will pardon her to prevent such chaos and enable her to serve.
Doesn't one need to be convicted before a pardon could be granted? Think the DOJ could get its conviction of HRC before Obama left office?
No. Nixon was neither convicted nor impeached when he was pardoned by Ford. Ford wanted to preempt any prosecution.
It may be a stupid-ass canard, but can it work? I imagine right now every congressman and senator with an R after their name is leaning hard on every unofficial FBI contact they have to investigate hard any tiny infraction, just because it makes Hillary look bad - and if they investigate hard enough and from enough angles, eventually something has to stick. No person is entirely law-abiding.
You're clearly a typical racist Democrat aren't you? Guess what? We dont' care what the color of a person's skin is. What matters is how evil they are, which is why Hillary is considered the anti-Christ.
I'm Never-Trump. I'm also fully supportive of the issue being fully investigated, and Clinton being treated exactly like every other person that holds a security clearance. Or are you saying that she should be treated differently because she's a woman? Or because she's rich? Or because she's white?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
While it's true that the GOP establishment wanted a different outcome, the difference was that Reince Priebus did not interfere in the process when it was a contest, except for a couple of occasions, like making all candidates sign the pledge, or asking them not to make the debate R-rated.
While Trump was right to an extent about the rigging in that there were some states where he got more votes than Cruz but ended up w/ less delegates, the process was still fair (even if the mechanism was weird). But the RNC did not interfere, even though the Congressional GOP tried to, by getting Nikki Haley to endorse Rubio and set up SC as a firewall against Trump, which didn't happen. Also, the support for Trump in the party was so overwhelming and crossed every faction of the party that even though the number of real candidates were down to 3 (and 2 after Rubio dropped out following his debacle in FL), it's not obvious that it would have worked either.
According to the investigation, only three emails on server had any classified marking on them.
She was bribing people to get things marked as unclassified. Look, I admire your ardent defense of the Clintons, but at this point it's like trying to defend the legitimacy of Bush's invasion of Iraq (you can't prove that the WMDs weren't shipped out to Syria!)
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There's some pretty damning stuff about the Clinton Foundation in those emails (the crime Hillary was hiding by the felonies she committed with the server). No one cares, of course, because we're all struggling under the weight of corruption fatigue. The smoking gun that Hillary took millions to support the likes of Qatar (the last bastion of mass slavery in the modern world, with ISIS-funding government - very evil fuckers) is just a big "meh".
We expect all the politicians to be corrupt. So Hillary is the most corrupt politician in US history? Exceeds expectations - let's promote her! Even the right has no fucks left to give at this point.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Trump's support has not slipped, it's grown. Difference is that during the primaries, people were looking at just the GOP electorate, and Trump's support levels among them, and there, he was always hovering about 30-40%. Just assuming that the GOP voters were 50% of the electorate, that would make his total support 15-20%. Today, it's somewhere around 40% of the total population.
Also, since Trump won, there are Congressmen and Senators who were happy to back him. Yeah, some of them panicked a few weeks ago when the hot mike videos came out, but once the election is over and it's just up to them, they'd support who their voters supported. So I don't see them electing McMullin either. In fact, considering that no major UT official has supported Trump, McMullin should be carrying his home state and Trump should be getting 0% there, but that's not happening: in fact, Trump is still the leader, albeit a plurality rather than a majority.
Actually, Comey should drop out of the investigation, and someone else at the FBI should take over from him. He is either stupid, or compromised, or both.
Wouldn't matter. Apparently everyone on the investigation *except* Comey wanted her indicted:
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved claiming that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
The 'unrelated investigation' is apparently the investigation into Huma Abadeen's (sp) estranged husband Anthony Weiner's Sexting Scandal...
Even the other Democratic candidate considers it a non-issue, and has said so since the very beginning of the primaries campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is nothing more than a stupid-ass canard that Trump and his alt-right goonsquad are clinging to in order to distract from the real issues and the fact that they have no answers and their entire campaign is built around racism, misogyny, and xenophobic isolationism.
Real issue, such as Clinton supporters being bullies?
There's not a one among you who can rub two words together without insulting someone.
Delete the insults from any pro-Clinton position and you have nothing left!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Note, intent is not required for a violation of section (f), merely "extreme carelessness" aka "gross negligence".
Everyone, before you judge me, please think back to when you made a bad call, and had a joke go a little too far.
Trump says the election is rigged, but he is too nice to tell you who did it. If Clinton gets subpoenaed, though, it's going to come out anyway. I don't want everyone to go off half-cocked, so I have decided to come forward now.
I made a bet with my brother. It started out as innocent fun. I said, "I bet I can make the Republicans lose the presidential election, by tricking them into nominating the very worst loser they possibly can." He said, "oh yeah? I can make the Democrats lose the election. Same strategy, different tactics." At stake, a single six-pack of IPA. It was a joke! At the time, we didn't intend it to get out-of-hand. But then, you know, you see little ways you can get your little virtual avatar a step foward, and not thinking it would really result in any real-world consequences, you go ahead. Or you're confident that you've got it, and next thing you know, he's taking Bernie off the board! (That was amazing; I didn't know my brother was smart enough to figure out how to do that.) Next thing I know, we're having heated arguments. "Nuh uh! You'll never get yours nominated! People aren't that stupid. They don't want their party to lose." "Yeah, huh!" We have played so many war games and simulations and such, they're all just abstractions to us. It was so easy to forget this one was more real, than say, Clash of Clans.
Needless to say, once the nominations happened, we realized the horror of it all, and the bet was off! We aren't pushing the players around anymore. We have already split the cost of the sixpack and drank it together. It's over. Well, over except the election itself. But we're not pulling the strings anymore, and if my old account (running on autopilot, I guess) wins, I can't legitimately lord that over my brother, or vice-versa.
Look, people, I know it looks ugly, but it actually isn't really all that bad. You don't have to vote for our people. Just vote against them. There are plenty of people running for president, and at least one of them is probably actually pretty close to your own politics. (Even with good candidates, you wouldn't expect those two parties to have matched very many people anyway; peoples' opinions have way more diversity than that!) You'll do fine. Just curse us for our little prank and vote against our avatars. We will bear the shame. You need not.
And yes, I'm sorry! I won't do it again. Promise.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
A lot of Democrats seemed focused on Hillary's genitals (ick!). I doubt many would have cared about gender just not Hillary because she is corrupt and evil. There are a number of possibly good candidates that could have run besides Sanders including a number of women. The fix was in though, The DNC had cut a deal with the Clinton's to buy their support and avoid a split ticket for the relatively unknown Barack Obama in 08. The deal included her appointment to SOS, a position Hillary had no qualifications for and totally botched, except for the funneling of money for access part. If there was a "normal" nomination you would have had about 30 people at the start and the losers, kooks and real evil people including Hillary Clinton would have been vetted out.
Uh, no. If she were to drop out now, the ballots couldn't be undone, but Tim Kaine, as the surviving member of the ticket, would become president if the Dems win.
That's not how it works.
If the candidate cannot finish the race for some reason (death or infirmity is the supposed scenario), the party chooses a new candidate. That's Democratic party rules.
In this particular situation, and so close to the election they would *probably* select Tim Kaine, but the party is not obliged to choose him.
This is nothing more than a stupid-ass canard that Trump and his alt-right goonsquad are clinging to in order to distract from the real issues and the fact that they have no answers and their entire campaign is built around racism, misogyny, and xenophobic isolationism.
Well that's the problem, isn't it? Most enthusiastic Trump supporters obviously have their heads in the clouds but, with statements like that, obviously so do people like you.
misogyny
Every fence-sitter, Trump supporter and even many Hillary supporters I know realize that his campaign is not "built around" misogyny. That's fucking ridiculous and you know it. Don't mix up character criticism with policy criticism. In regards to policy, he's make some token anti-abortion remarks, very clumsily, because people were telling him that he had to work on his appeal to the base. That's it. In practice, everyone realizes he's most likely the least anti-abortion Republican we've seen in recent years.
racism
Blacks: He's supporting the cops 100% as a ploy more or less. Any right-thinking individual would prefer he take a more nuanced approach (but the mainstream BLM party line on this isn't any more nuanced; it's just biased in the other direction.) I don't think you can plausibly expand this to call it a racist platform. He's pro-police. He's never made it about race. And frankly, to combat police brutality (which is still a problem, obviously) you really should leave the race arguments at home. Whether it's true or not true, they bring very little to the table... they have nothing to do with effective solutions.
Latinos: I've very little patience for most of these arguments. First off, his criticism of the "Mexican" judge was dumb, not racist, but even his own party couldn't properly parse that one (he was arguing that the man was biased due to his own ethnic group. This is not a racist thing to allege unless you are saying that all Mexicans are biased against him, which given his other comments he very clearly was not saying.)
As far as the "rapes and murderers" thing, there is indeed a shitton of terrifying violence along the border of Mexico and some of it does spill over. Any reasonable person living in those states should be concerned about the deterioration over the past few years, even if the amount that's been spilling over has been fairly limited until now. Trump was of course sensationalist and dumb as usual in this area (and in particular, a physical wall would of course be irredeemably stupid), but if millions of people have managed to make it across the border then I would say that's a decent argument for better border control just about any way you look at it. (With the path to citizenship thing being a separate issue that we can all probably strongly disagree on.)
Very, very few countries have or tolerate massive illegal immigration on the scale we've seen. It's not a ugly, racist American thing to want that situation to change, and if you're not concerned about violence in Northern Mexico you're either ignorant or apathetic. (Of course, where I differ from Trump on this issue is I would immediately scale back the war on drugs as much as possible, which will ultimately dry up the revenue streams that support the gangs.)
xenophobic isolationism
Muslims! Ok now, look motherfucker, you have two easy choices here:
Easy option #1: We stay out of peoples' business, keep to ourselves and don't go looking for trouble. That last bit means we certainly don't import any significant number of immigrants from places like Syria (I said "immigrants" because it is wrong to blanketly call them all "refugees", because we've seen a mountain of evidence that many of them are obviously economic migrants. Many of them aren't even from Syria.) Why? Because terrorist attacks are disruptive in every way imaginable (includ
I'm Never-Trump. I'm also fully supportive of the issue being fully investigated, and Clinton being treated exactly like every other person that holds a security clearance. Or are you saying that she should be treated differently because she's a woman? Or because she's rich? Or because she's white?
No, but I just really feel that this entire thing has pretty much been fully investigated already. Not to mention all the other times people have cried "wolf" and found nothing after it was fully investigated. This just feels like endless fishing in hopes of finding something rather than actual evidence of wrongdoing on a scale that matters. In fact, I feel this is all they have is a re-opening of the investigation, not any actual hopes of investigating anything. I really doubt they are going to find something, investigate it, write up their briefs, and put forth their case in the two weeks before the election. It seems like it is just one last chance at spreading FUD about somebody they don't like.
Not really. The same dirt that they're digging up on Trump now would have been dug up on Rubio - his absenteeism in the senate, his past loans, his usage of a party credit card... He may have explained that satisfactorily during the campaign, but they'd have been brought back to haunt him
Right, after all he was never convicted of murder, conspiracy to murder, illegal alcohol sales, prostitution, illegal gambling, bribery, intimidation, etc.
Clean as a Clinton!
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
How you can argue that it's been "completely investigated" when new batches of emails are magically discovered on nearly a weekly basis?
Not to mention the fact that Commey and the FBI laid out every facet to convict, but stated that they didnt prosecute because they didnt think they could make a case that she intended to commit a crime. Intent is not a factor for conviction. An act (or lack of action) is a crime, or its not. Intent is a potential factor in sentencing, not in gaining a conviction. The FBI already laid out that she is unequivocally guilty. That ship has sailed.
It's strongly believed now that Commey (and Lynch and Obama) are being heavily pressured by whistleblowers within the FBI that there every criteria was already met to prosecute, and were going to come forward with the damning details if the FBI didnt reopen the case and treat it with equal justice under the law.
And dont forget that the case was dropped the first time after Clinton's husband, a former US President, met in private with the sitting Secratary of Justice, Loretta Lynch. If there's evidence now that the conversation was not in fact specific to yoga, and their kid, then the scope of the investigation could (and should) increase to whether or not there was prosecutorial misconduct, obstruction of justice, and corruption within the Dept of Justice, ALL under Obama.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
No, because Bernie has a clue. Jill Stein, not so much.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
How can you say it's been fully investigated when so much evidence was destroyed? They are still finding evidence.
If the FBI didn't bother to bring charges the first time around with the evidence of mishandling classified information being as obvious as it can get, does anyone believe anything will come of a sequel ?
The only thing it would do is show the World a second time that the DOJ is either corrupt, incompetent or both.
That the rule of law is selectively applied depending on who you are, who your friends are and how big your bank account is.
At this point, there is no fucking way the establishment will allow all the work they've poured into their darling candidate to get undermined by any pesky laws designed for us lower class types.
This is the favored candidate. You will vote for her and you will like it. Everone else is a racist Russian sympathizer or a member of the HeMan-woman-haters-club.
Imagine the shit she'll get away with once she's in charge.
Crime doesn't pay my ass. . .
I don't understand it at all.
If Trump loses, the Republican party will have been dealt a terrible setback that will take years to recover from.
If Trump wins, the Republican party is over.
At this point, nobody should be pulling harder for Hillary than the Republican establishment.
There's some pretty damning stuff about the Clinton Foundation in those emails (the crime Hillary was hiding by the felonies she committed with the server). No one cares, of course, because we're all struggling under the weight of corruption fatigue.
What's the damning stuff? The hint that big donations lead to influence with the candidate? That's completely standard politics, if you want to be sure you can meet with a politician donate a pile of cash to them, the only difference here is the donations went to a charity rather than the candidate's campaign fund.
Hell, it's standard practice for President's to give Ambassadorships to big donors. Are you going to claim that the possibility that Clinton gave extra access to charity donors is really so much worse?
The smoking gun that Hillary took millions to support the likes of Qatar
By "took millions" you apparently mean accepted a donation to her charity.
And by "support", you mean arranged a meeting and/or Clinton Foundation event in Qatar, ie, exactly the thing that charities do. Oh yeah, and she did it while being a private citizen.
I stole this Sig
Now, how many times has she been convicted?
Do we apply a statistical correction for being Clinton, a power politician, and currently running for president? I'm going with 27. She's been convicted 27 times in normal people adjusted terms.
I think the Republican leadership might regard Trump as a manipulatable puppet. It is better to have an inept poser in the white house who will advance the positions the party advocates than a competent person who will actively fight against those positions. With any luck he'll just strut around, occasionally say something offensive, but mostly just carry out what is one of the main responsibilities of any modern president: Put on a big show and serve as a focal point for the public while congress and the network of commitees, subcommitees and appointees gets on with the task of actually running the country.
Not if ALL Hitlery voters moved to Stein. You'd then have a Dem-Green coalition up against Trump.
To get a Dem-Green coalition together you would probably need a Dem to lead the ticket maybe some one like Al Fraken, I can see it now
FrakenStien2016
But the Midwest wouldn't vote for that they would just get the torches and pitchforks out...
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Mittens had "binders of women" to ensure that, should he win, he would be sure to have a large list of qualified women to appoint and hire. He didn't say he HAD them, he said that women's groups had DELIVERED "binders full of women" to him.
"I had the chance to pull together a cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men... I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."
This is Romney being sure that he couldn't be accused of being sexist, being sure that the "war on women" thing wouldn't apply to him, by working with people on both sides to avoid even the APPEARANCE of sexism.
It became, of course, "proof" of his sexism, with predictable media slant.
The message was clear: any Republican, whether or not they are sexist, will be painted as sexist by the media, the painting will be fully effective.
ALL this accomplished was the removal of "is not a sexist" from the list of requirements for Republican presidential candidates- after all, you'll be considered a sexist just for having (R) by your name, no matter your history, intentions, or statements.
I wonder if that had any effect? Now that you've opened up the pool of Republican presidential candidates to sexists, what would be the end result of that? Hrm....
Afraid not, we have copies of a lot of damning stuff thanks to Podesta. And just for comedy, it's coming out that this new FBI investigation came about because they were investigating Democratic Rep. Anthony Wiener (the infamous sexter) who recently divorced Huma Abedin, one of Hillary's closest aids.
Source
Source
Source (n.b. this is from FBI, not Wikileaks).
The DKIM signatures also say the emails are unmodified and signed by hillaryclinton.com. Feel free to validate them yourselves.
Just for bonus points, here's Hillary talking about how they should've rigged the Palestinian elections.
Listen to Hillary talking about rigging those elections here.
This is a tiny sample from a huge list of damaging emails, too.
There's never been a better time to vote 3rd party.
On other facets you're flat our wrong. Here's a transcript of the exchange between Comey and Congressman Trey Gowdy during the Congressional hearing after the investigation was initially closed:
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent, three seperate times in this exchange alone.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State tha
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Here's the laws regarding classified material: U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 37 Section 798 and Section 793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 and U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 101 Section 2071 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
Each of those laws require the actions to be "with intent", "knowingly", "willfully", or by "gross negligence". And "gross negligence" is legally different than plain negligence in that it also requires intent. The reason the FBI closed the investigation and said "no reasonable prosecutor would take the case" is because they found no evidence of intent by Clinton.
At the end of the day people vote. It doesn't matter if the party machinery is neutral or not; she won fair and square. It's not like the party machinery could count the votes for her twice and Bernie once.
"crooked" Hillary Clinton "goofy" Elizabeth Warren, aka (in his mind) Pocahontas
Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, Crazy Bernie. So it's misogyny when he treats women equally, is it? This is the exact thing I'm talking about here. It's people like you who are sabotaging the momentum the left was bequeathed after Iraq. The alt-right is built first and foremost on a rejection of self-flagellation and inferiority complex politics (racism is secondary and not as universally subscribed, although it is alarmingly common.)
'Pocahontas' has nothing to do with misogyny that I can see, and I'd go further and say there's no good reason to suspect racism because Trump's entire point (lame as it is) is that Warren was "pretending" to be of a ethnicity that doesn't show any significant connection to in either her appearance or her cultural upbringing.
Declarations of intent and history of sexually assaulting women
He said that women LET HIM kiss them / "touch their pussies". Without commenting on the likely veracity of that statement or the obnoxious tone in which it was delivered, there was no hint that I could discern that Trump was saying the women were in any way unwilling. In fact, his entire macho thesis was that they were willing.
As for accusers, the women who've accused him of crimes may or may not be telling the truth. The women who accused your former governor may or may not have been telling the truth. The women who accused Bill Clinton may or may not have been telling the truth. "Not relevant!", you say? Not even when Hillary hints that Bill might be placed in a high position in her administration? It's not at all relevant that she's talking about allowing an accused rapist to fix our economy?
My own take on this is our police and more importantly our culture need to be tweaked so that woman fight back and speak up earlier, but beyond that I don't think that new lurid claims of shit that happened decades in the past should weigh heavily in our decision making process. If there's enough evidence, arrest the motherfucker! If not, oh well, that sucks (if he is indeed guilty), but the idea that everything comes to a screeching halt the minute a few new accusers come forward talking about shit that happened decades ago... it's just not sustainable. It's not a matter of supporting or not supporting the alleged victims; it's a matter of their claims for justice being orthogonal to someone's political significance.
What about the trade wars he wants to start and the treaties he wants to abrogate.
That's a decent starting point to another conversation, a conversation that you SHOULD be having instead of this scattershot mud-slinging that's doing more damage to the left than it is to the right.
I'm against Trump! And I want to see the left effectively fight him off without disillusioning any more young people about what it means to be on or of the left.
Bush Jr? Cheney? Warren G Harding? She mishandled some emails to keep her political strategies out of the hands of her enemies (who were very actively against her). Something even Colin Powel did, and suggested she do too. Bush Jr deleted 22 million emails related to his administration and not a peep. Face it, this is how the sausage is made. Cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
D.C. Republicans en masse aren't quite stupid enough to think Trump will be satisfied as a figurehead... based on his history he'll have his arm in the cookie jar elbow deep within the first week in office, and the stank of the resulting scandals from a Trump administration would be ruinous. Now would they have the guts to impeach him? Probably not, but if they did, then they'd be stuck with that cook Pence which would be its own flavor of awful for them,
The pro-trump (or anti-clinton-damn-the-consequences) factions, however, will staple legs on any story they see as beneficial, and there's not much the establishment can do to stop them.
Right now I'm just wondering if this disruption in the media cycle will be enough to unlatch the bomb bay on whatever anti-Trump oppo research was being saved for days before the election date.
Someone had to do it.
Claiming corruption is rampant will never excuse it you evil bastard.
> Republican leadership might regard Trump as a manipulatable puppet
This guy is campaigning on a platform that includes congressional term limits, has promised to appoint a special prosecutor, and is openly calling on everyone to be aware of voter fraud and even election fraud, which calls the entire democratic process into question (reminder: the only reason our government is considered legitimate is because of the democratic process). Meanwhile, almost all of his scandals and problems come from him doing whatever the fuck he wants to anyone he wants, at any time he wants.
If anyone thinks that Trump is their puppet, they are fucking deluded. I seriously doubt the RNC thinks that for one second.
If you're still a Hillary supporter, it has to be through willful ignorance.
Hands over ears
Eyes closed
Saying, lalalalalalalala
You don't feel the slightest discomfort in electing a person who
* ignores sunshine laws
* mishandles classified information
* fights congressional subpoenas
* lies to congress
* intentionally destroys evidence in an ongoing investigation
?
I confess it gives me pause, and I'm no fan of the Donald.
This whole thing would be long dead if she'd said "I had a private email server because of the technical limitations of my office. Here it is."
She didn't do that last year, that's why it's still a topic.
No one is talking about new emails in the context of emails newly created. We're talking about the emails that were subject to the Congressional subpoena that Hillary and the State Dept claim were handed over, but were not. They were emails created during the timeframe Hillary was Secretary of State and using her own personal email server. (A server that no longer exists because it was destroyed, along with all the mobile devices that Hillary was using ...) They are emails that thru hacks, leaks and whistleblowing are now coming to light, and which Hillary and Co either deleted or chose not to hand over. We know that there was a technician directed to remove header information from emails. We know taht there are hundreds if not thousands of emails that originated from or were sent to Podesta who is Hillary's campaign manager from the time in question, for the email account of HIllary's in question, that we only know about because Podesta got hacked and they became public. We STILL wouldnt have them from Hillary or State if not for Podesta's personal email being hacked.
If people continue to find new, relevent emails from that period, then there's a pattern of ongoing deception to hide emails from a legal Congressional investigation. That's called obstruction.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
(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.
There's no ambiguity here. If you are entrusted with the data, you are expected to treat it accordingly. If you unintentionally fail to do so, you are guilty of gross negligence. Another phrase for that was supplied by Comey in his initial briefing on the closing of the case and in multiple responses in the Congressional hearings. That phrase is "extremely careless". And as someone here attempted to defend Hillary pointed out, she received marked, classified data from an individual outside of federal government that holds no security clearance. That alone could qualify her for this statute because she was grossly negligent in not recognizing that, and in not reporting it immediately.
Intent is not a component to apply this statute for prosecution.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
One of the several laws that applies is 18 U.S. Code 793, section (f):
(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.
There's no ambiguity here. If you are entrusted with the data, you are expected to treat it accordingly. If you unintentionally fail to do so, you are guilty of gross negligence. Another phrase for that was supplied by Comey in his initial briefing on the closing of the case and in multiple responses in the Congressional hearings. That phrase is "extremely careless". And as someone here attempted to defend Hillary pointed out, she received marked, classified data from an individual outside of federal government that holds no security clearance. That alone could qualify her for this statute because she was grossly negligent in not recognizing that, and in not reporting it immediately.
Intent is not a component to apply this statute for prosecution.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
What the hell do I care? She supports single payer health care, increased taxes on the wealthy and is only as hawkish as she needs to be to win over her party's right wing (the Dems are a _lot_ more right wing than people think).
Again, I live in the real world and have to vote for viable candidates. You're not going to get to where Hilary is now without a lot of money and influence. You say she sells influence and ignore her buying it to. She's a politician. A progressive. A real one who gets shit done. Like I keep saying (because it's a great quote): this is how the sausage is made. Either Deal with it, or get the hell out of the way for those of us who can.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What's the damning stuff? The hint that big donations lead to influence with the candidate? That's completely standard politics, if you want to be sure you can meet with a politician donate a pile of cash to them, the only difference here is the donations went to a charity rather than the candidate's campaign fund.
This is exactly my point. We should be outraged at the corruption - buying influence for money? Never in our country! But instead you ask "What's the damning stuff?"
The answer, BTW, it that it's very illegal to sell influence to foreign powers. Could I get a rousing "meh" from the crowd?
Then where's the outrage over all the Chinese businessmen funnelling money to Republicans?
And the point isn't that buying influence is fine, it isn't.
The first point is that HRC is most definitely not "the most corrupt politician in US history", I'm not even sure she's more corrupt than an average presidential candidate, and she's certainly far less corrupt than Trump.
The second point is that if since it is a completely standard practice then why is it suddenly such an outrage? It would be like if you were going 15 over the speed limit and got thrown in jail for a year. Sure it's wrong, but that is clearly not a typical punishment.
As SecState, she concealed Qatar's monetary support for ISIS (not just Qatar, of course), according to the email dump.
Which is fine. The reality is that other countries have complex politics and motives of their own, and that sometimes causes them to do things like give some support to ISIS. The job of a SecState is to deal with that reality as best they can, concealing that support is sometimes the best strategy.
Quid for tat. As if anyone still cares.
Heck, even the Clinton Foundation event is right up there with throwing a "hooray for slavery" party while wearing the Confederate flag, but no one cares because those evil fuckers are over there, nothing to do with us.
Again, other countries are real places with lots of internal complications. There are good people, bad people, and people who are good or bad depending on the topic and circumstance.
They're not just a bunch of "evil fuckers" who must be avoided by the plague.
I stole this Sig
How about Kristian Saucier, was was sentenced to 1 year in prison for taking 6 photographs that were later classified "confidential" (the lowest possible classification besides FIUO), and the prosecution actually asked for 6 years sentence.
(http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-19/sailor-denied-clinton-deal-gets-1-year-in-prison-for-6-photos-of-sub)
He definitely knew he was in the wrong and there were even suspicions he was looking to sell the data.
How about Stephen Kim, who was sentance to 13 months in prison for sharing one classified report on North Korea with Fox News?
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
How about Thomas Drake, a former NSA employee who blew the whistle on waste and abuse INTERNALLY to his agency which was eventually upheld by a DoD IG, and then he was prosecuted and convicted of leaking classified data, although he didnt serve any time?
The aggressiveness with which the government goes after people who leak to the media is a worthwhile discussion. But it's a completely different discussion.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. While there might be cases where people get a slap on the wrist, there are plenty of cases in which people have their careers ruined and go to jail for far less than Clinton is suspected of.
Though none in your examples.
She mishandled the highest possible levels of classified data that our nation holds,
Along with a bunch of other people in the State Department.
she lied about
Possibly, also quite possible she didn't realize the data, that wasn't obviously marked classified, actually was classified.
she destoryed evidence, and she allowed action to be taken that made it nearly impossible to a complete investigation of.
When she asked for the emails to be deleted she allegedly didn't think they were evidence any more. And when the IT guy delayed carrying out the request until after the subpoena it sounds like he was just being a moron.
And then the FBI destroyed the relevant devices for her !
Maybe they didn't want to be told to conduct 7 more investigations.
I stole this Sig
110 classified emails on an unclassified system. Literally stated by the head of the FBI: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...
That's evidence, period. Whether or not that rises to a violation of 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) should be up to a jury.
Then you have not been paying attention for the last 60 years.
Every single election, the democrats trot out their army of race-baiters to gin up energy in their base. Every single election they allege "voter suppression" efforts are keeping minorities from the polls. Every election year any traffic accident or road construction in a minority neighborhood is touted as a Republican conspiracy to suppress the minority vote.
They just use different language. Instead of "rigged", use the words "voter suppression". Here's Huffpo from the 2012 cycle with a top ten list. Here's the Brennan Center from 2008. Here's the Daily Kos covering 2000-2006.
So no, there is no partisan ownership of "rigged election" or "voter fraud". Both parties are fully willing to use this sort of rhetoric to gin up their base. Both parties are perfectly willing to use whatever tool they can grab to gain an upper hand. If that means getting people all riled up about stolen elections, then so be it. If that means falsely accusing people of racism, well, this ain't softball, kid.
And no, talking about rigging elections isn't exclusively tinfoil hat conspiracy theory nuttery. Many serious historians will opine that the election of JFK over Nixon was due to a few fraudulent precincts. Here's a sample from the Wiki, just to appease those who like to ask for citations
So allegations of rigged elections and voter fraud go back as far as democracy, I'd suppose. And no, it isn't just people on the other team who claim such things.
Actually, for most crimes and for most of our history, intent, or mens rea has been a vital component of criminal convictions. Only regulatory infractions don't require mens rea, or at least that was the case until recently. Congress has been creating "strict liability" crimes for some time now. This has been a big issue with civil libertarian types. I think it started with things like statutory rape and kiddie porn... but it has spread pretty far afield.
The irony is that in this particular case... in the case of the law that Comey was citing, mens rea is not a factor. It specifically excludes intent in the statute. A fact that has been pointed out repeatedly by partisans and legal pedants.
Sanders said nothing of the sort. He complained about the DNC not giving him a fair shot in the Democratic Primaries, but he never accused Clinton of rigging the election.
The majority of states are in Republican hands. Republicans, literally, count most of the votes in this country. They've also been at the forefront of voter suppression efforts trying to ensure traditionally democratic groups - such as car less, urban voters - have roadblocks Republican voters have already cleared. The idea that Clinton has any undue influence over the election is laughable.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
between "take appropriate investigative steps" and reopening an investigation. The latter fires off all sorts of processes and allocates resources to a full scale effort. The former really just means "We're gonna go read some email".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Jill Stein is an amazing communist from hell even though she invests like an amazing capitalist who strongly believes in fossil fuels and war profiteering. AFAIC she or Sanders or anybody like that should never be in positions where they could actually influence politics, yet they are, which shows the insanity of modern society.
You can't handle the truth.