Slashdot Mirror


FBI Launches Internal Investigation Into Its Own Twitter Account (thinkprogress.org)

An anonymous reader shares a report on ThinkProgress: The FBI has launched an internal investigation into one of its own Twitter accounts. The account at issue, @FBIRecordsVault, had been dormant for more than a year. Then on October 30 at 4 a.m., the account released a flood of documents, including one describing Donald Trump's father Fred Trump as a "philanthropist." But it wasn't until two days later, when the account tweeted documents regarding President Clinton's controversial pardon of Marc Rich that the account began to attract significant attention. The account has not been active since that tweet. ThinkProgress has learned that the FBI's Inspection Division will undertake an investigation of the account. Candice Will, Assistant Director for the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, said she was referring the matter to the FBI's Inspection Division for an "investigation." Upon completion of the investigation, the Office of Professional Responsibility will be referred back to the Office of Professional Responsibility for "adjudication."

140 comments

  1. What is there to investigate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Whoever controlled that account acted in a blatantly partisan manner and needs to be fired. Its pretty simple. I am sure there is a job waiting for them at Breitbart or Fox News, so I don't feel bad in calling for their immediate termination.

    1. Re:What is there to investigate? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      no send them down to Spooky Mulder office.

    2. Re:What is there to investigate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, the computer script controlling the account is clearly partisan.

      I thought they already explained this: the Twitter account automatically tweets when a certain number of FOIA requests have been reached for a set of documents. I'm guessing that a bunch of FOIA requests from early in the election season finally went through, so you're getting tweets just now that are all related to Clinton. Nothing "partisan" or "evil" about it: just a script reading a bunch of finished FOIA requests that were probably started a year ago during the leadup to the Democratic primaries.

    3. Re:What is there to investigate? by durrr · · Score: 1

      "blatantly partisan manner"

      It's only allowed to be blatantly partisan if you're Comey?

    4. Re:What is there to investigate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      The FBI has been boiling over since the Comey cop-out in July. They're starting to talk to the media as well. Elites protecting elites is pissing people off.

    5. Re:What is there to investigate? by sh00z · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought they already explained this: the Twitter account automatically tweets when a certain number of FOIA requests have been reached for a set of documents. I'm guessing that a bunch of FOIA requests from early in the election season finally went through, so you're getting tweets just now that are all related to Clinton.

      Who is the "they" that explained it this way? It's trivially easy to disprove. Just look at the Fred Trump document. it appears to be a 1991 release of data in response to a 1966 FOIA request, containing information covering the years 1962-1988. The only thing new is "adding" the document to this WWW-based "vault." I'm sure similar metadata could be retrieved form the Clinton documents. This is just a blatant Hatch Act violation.

    6. Re:What is there to investigate? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      In a better article I read the other day, it was explained that this account is supposed to tweet things automatically in response to requests for records, but it had not been working for about a year due to some sort of system malfunction. This issue was cleared up with a recent software upgrade, so the tweets began appearing again.

    7. Re:What is there to investigate? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Nothing "partisan" or "evil" about it: just a script reading a bunch of finished FOIA requests that were probably started a year ago during the leadup to the Democratic primaries.

      So maybe the Twitter account bot is not partisan. What about the processing of the FOIA requests? There is a possibility that the FOIA process has been used for partisan purposes.

      In fact, the simple fact that the Twitter process is being investigated while the FOIA process is not suggests very strongly that there is partisan shenanigans going on in the FBI.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re:What is there to investigate? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      The software was set to not spit out requests for some records and others that where to blacked out just crashed the system.

    9. Re:What is there to investigate? by sh00z · · Score: 1

      Reading my own comment, I realized that these releases could still be blamed on ignorance. If an FBI archivist was trying to make his or her own personal voting decision, pulling up the FOIA records from whichever hard-to-access database they live in, and then (in ignorance of the fact that a script would post the info to Twitter) copying them over to this easy-to-access web archive, there might be an excuse. I guess.

    10. Re:What is there to investigate? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      or, early when the system was broken and people were looking into his father trying to find dirt this got queued up but never sent until the update fixed it?

      funny how so many people want to use hanlons razor in regard to hillary but not the fbi. double standards much?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    11. Re:What is there to investigate? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      well the fact that the FBI didnt recommend charges to begin with show a clear partisain BS slant at the DOJ

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    12. Re:What is there to investigate? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Who the f--- asked for FOIA documents on whether Trump's dad was a "philanthropist"? I'm sorry, but this explanation makes virtually no sense - and presumably doesn't to do the FBI either otherwise they wouldn't be investigating it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:What is there to investigate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In 1966 a FOIA request was approved for releasing documents that would not exist in full until 1988. Are you sure about that? FOIA requests are only for existing, not future documents.

      1966 was the passing year of FOIA. The requested date was probably not set, so it defaulted to the earliest date.

    14. Re:What is there to investigate? by networkBoy · · Score: 2

      And then noticed what was happening, so stopped putting them on the web archive and said nothing hoping that it goes away.

      Kinda does explain the insta-stop

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    15. Re:What is there to investigate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever controlled that account acted in a blatantly partisan manner

      Serious question. How so? What made it partisan?

    16. Re:What is there to investigate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at the Fred Trump document. it appears to be a 1991 release of data in response to a 1966 FOIA request, containing information covering the years 1962-1988.

      Cool, I didn't know you could request future data that doesn't exist yet! Although waiting 25 years seems excessive

    17. Re:What is there to investigate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they already explained this: the Twitter account automatically tweets when a certain number of FOIA requests have been reached for a set of documents. I'm guessing that a bunch of FOIA requests from early in the election season finally went through, so you're getting tweets just now that are all related to Clinton.

      Who is the "they" that explained it this way? It's trivially easy to disprove. Just look at the Fred Trump document. it appears to be a 1991 release of data in response to a 1966 FOIA request, containing information covering the years 1962-1988.

      The only thing new is "adding" the document to this WWW-based "vault." I'm sure similar metadata could be retrieved form the Clinton documents. This is just a blatant Hatch Act violation.

      As you're quick to call out a potential Hatch Act violation, the larger crime here is the fucking chasm of time between 1966 and 1991 to respond to a FOIA request.

      That's so damn long you can't even excuse it with a "moving at the speed of government" punchline.

    18. Re:What is there to investigate? by mrclevesque · · Score: 0

      "well the fact that the FBI didnt recommend charges to begin with show a clear partisain BS slant at the DOJ"

      Partisan which way?

      Bush White House email controversy : 22 million emails deleted, those recovered not made public

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    19. Re:What is there to investigate? by Noted+Futurist · · Score: 1

      This year, the truth is partisan.

    20. Re:What is there to investigate? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Because it's not like those over at justice would have been screaming at the FBI to shut down the Twitter account or anything. Oh wait, that's probably what actually happened.

    21. Re:What is there to investigate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we're all cool with W now?

    22. Re:What is there to investigate? by kenh · · Score: 2

      ust look at the Fred Trump document. it appears to be a 1991 release of data in response to a 1966 FOIA request, containing information covering the years 1962-1988.

      You can't submit a FOIA request in advance of the records being created, and a 1966 FOIA request can't be responsible for records spanning 1962-1988.

      I'm certain there's a typo in there, just not sure which date you "fat-fingered".

      --
      Ken
    23. Re:What is there to investigate? by kenh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bush White House email controversy : 22 million emails deleted, those recovered not made public

      Wait, when you say "deleted" what you really mean is "stored on mis-filed backup tapes" - right?

      And when you say "not made public" you mean because they weren't asked to be released to the public, right? They were handed over to the requesting legal bodies, no crimes were found, and the issue dropped...

      Wikipedia is such a lousy source, why not turn to CNN?

      BTW, The "Bush Secret Server" was a public email server, did not carry classified information, and was used in an effort to COMPLY with federal regulations (The Hatch Act), not to subvert the FOIA act...

      --
      Ken
    24. Re:What is there to investigate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *squaaak* Hatch Act Hatch Act *sqwaaak* Polly want a cracker *squaaaak*

      Once again the Clintonistas parroting garbage from their masters (in this case, scumbag Reid, who should also be investigated) in order to subvert justice and get them off the hook for the heinous crimes they have committed. Wouldn't that be "aiding and abetting"?

    25. Re:What is there to investigate? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Do we know that? Colin Powell said he deleted all of his thousands of emails, with none recoverable. How do we know what's on something that no longer exists?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    26. Re:What is there to investigate? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Does the phrase "October Surprise" mean anything to you?

      For that matter, the FBI policy is not to comment upon investigations in progress unless compelled to by Congress...even court orders are often stonewalled...and sometimes Congress is lied to.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    27. Re:What is there to investigate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the phrase "October Surprise" mean anything to you?

      No, it doesn't. Should it?

      For that matter, the FBI policy is not to comment upon investigations in progress unless compelled to by Congress.

      Well if these documents comment on current investigations involving one party, but not on current investigations involving the other party, then you have a point. But the examples from TFS don't sound like they are about investigations in progress, and I'm not sifting through all the other documents to do OPs work for them.

      It feels like you think us on opposing sides to this, that I agree with the FBI's partisan approach here. But how can I possibly agree with their approach, when I don't even know who the fuck the FBI is supposed to be favoring with these actions!

    28. Re:What is there to investigate? by mrclevesque · · Score: 2

      Wait, when you say "deleted" what you really mean is "stored on mis-filed backup tapes" - right?

      No, at the time (2003) the Bush administration claimed they were 'deleted' and didn't have any backups, it took until 2009 and the Obama white house administration to 'find' them:

      "Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails."

      "researchers found a suspicious pattern in the White House email system blackouts, including periods when there were no emails available from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney."

      "In 2003, a whistleblower told the National Security Archive [a private watchdog group] that the George W. Bush White House was no longer saving its emails. The Archive...refiled their original lawsuit. The plaintiffs soon discovered that Bush aides had simply shut down the Clinton automatic email archive, and they identified the start date of the lost emails as January 1, 2003."

      "In court in May 2008, administration lawyers contended that the White House had lost three months’ worth of email backups from the initial days of the Iraq War. Bush aides thus evaded a court-ordered deadline to describe the contents of digital backup believed to contain emails deleted in 2003 between March—when the U.S. invaded Iraq—and September....Eventually, the Bush White House admitted it had lost 22 million emails, not 5 million. Then, in December 2009—well into Barack Obama’s administration—the White House said it found 22 million emails, dated between 2003 and 2005, that it claimed had been mislabeled."

      They were handed over to the requesting legal bodies, no crimes were found, and the issue dropped

      Same as for Clinton except for the Bush administration there was:

      "clearer evidence here of deliberate stonewalling and lawbreaking than anything that even the fever swamps suggest about Hillary Clinton's emails"

      "So why is it that Clinton's emails have gotten coverage of such titanic proportions? Partly because Republicans have pushed the story hard. Partly because the rolling disclosure of Clinton's emails have rekindled interest on a regular basis. And partly because it fits into the well-known narrative of Hillary Clinton as evasive and duplicitous. In the LA Times today, Mark Barabak describes this syndrome perfectly: In the end, there's very little to gripe about in either of these recent Clinton stories. She made a dumb mistake using a private server and a single email account while she was Secretary of State, but in the end there's little evidence of any actual wrongdoing. Likewise, she was dumb to withhold news of her pneumonia. But obviously there's no wrongdoing here at all, just a misplaced sense of privacy that simply doesn't exist for presidential candidates"

      http://www.motherjones.com/kev...

    29. Re: What is there to investigate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why has Clinton's email server gotten so much attention? She's running for president. lock her up alongside bush as far as I'm concerned. Drain the swamp.

    30. Re: What is there to investigate? by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "Why has Clinton's email server gotten so much attention? She's running for president."

      Yes, the attention is partly because she's running for president.

      "lock her up alongside bush as far as I'm concerned"

      The point was she hasn't done anything that warrants accusations or criminal charges.

      "Drain the swamp"

      Trump does what he feels will make him richer. One of the main differences between him and other politicians is that he's willing to lie much more to get what he wants for himself, and he wants a lot, and the more he takes for himself the less others have, and those others who end up with less aren't going to be the rich.

    31. Re: What is there to investigate? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

      Considering that James Comey himself detailed exactly what crimes were committed, it is pretty amazing that you could still hold that opinion.

      She leaked classified information
      She encouraged others to remove classification markings
      She failed to report classified information leakage
      She broke the Official Records Act that supports FOIA

      Yeah, she didn't do anything wrong. Keep telling yourself it is all some kind of smear campaign.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    32. Re:What is there to investigate? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Very likely the request was something along the lines of:

      All records relating to Fred Trump and Donald Trump held by the FBI.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    33. Re: What is there to investigate? by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      From your Comey link:

      "Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."

      and his answer as to whether crimes where committed or not:

      "we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort."

      "we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information"

      "we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

      "we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."

    34. Re: What is there to investigate? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

      So, was classified information improperly stored? Yes.

      The laws around this do not require intent, so what does the intent matter in this case? It was gross negligence. As a classification authority, Clinton was required to be able to identify classified information when it is not marked, yet she wasn't even able to identify marked classified information.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? by fruviad · · Score: 2

    Sure...I trust the FBI to tell the truth about their own wrongdoings. (Oh wait...maybe not.)

    1. Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      If it's something done by a predecessor who left, retired, or died. Then I trust they would blame them if anything came out in the open.

  3. Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by melted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that what you call it, "controversial"? I'd sure hope that pardoning a convicted criminal at the last possible moment in exchange for a couple of million in "donations" is more than just "controversial". What does Bubba need to do in order for people to finally admit he has no moral compass? Publicly behead someone?

    1. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It doesn't really matter what happened 16 years ago. This is a federal agency tweeting out partisan tweets a week before the election. That is a violation of the Hatch Act. If they wanted to make a stink of it, the FBI could have released that information at any time over the past 18 months. But a week before the election is a violation of the Hatch Act.

      The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch (of which the FBI is part of) of the federal government from engaging in some forms of political activity.

    2. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In at least one story I read, pardoning Marc Rich had more to do with Israel than self-enrichment. Could be both...likely too ambiguous to use as the foundation for a partisan argument.

    3. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why it is:

      The department also has a policy of not taking unnecessary action close in time to Election Day that might influence an election’s outcome. These rules have been followed during Republican and Democratic administrations. They aren’t designed to help any particular individual or to serve any political interest.

      (Source)

    4. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hatch Act of 1939

      Brought to you by Orrin Hatch.

    5. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by msauve · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Hatch Act only applies to people. An automated Twitter feed is not a person.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It doesn't really matter what happened 16 years ago.

      typical

    7. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't matter that he sold pardons? You don't want us to know what kind of people we're voting for, because it might make us vote against corruption? Glad to know where you stand on this, CTR.

      It's an automatic Twitter feed. The Hatch Act is to outlaw people using their authority to influence an election, not to prevent the FBI from doing their job. The reason there's more activity now is that you no longer need to go clear to the top, or inform them, when releasing FOIA materials. And people are now submitting tons of FOIA requests that are going through because they're no longer being censored by the top brass who were covering these things up all this time. If they hadn't covered this crap up for so many decades, there would be nothing to out. If she hadn't lied to Congress and hidden her emails, there would be nothing to out.

      Besides, how could you prove any intent to sway the election? I mean, if this doesn't count as intent, just how would you prove that releasing FOIA materials as authorized by law was intentionally swaying an election? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ

      This is specifically authorized by law. Lying to Congress is against it.

    8. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch (of which the FBI is part of) of the federal government from engaging in some forms of political activity.

      Great! Let me know when they lock up former secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her pay-for-play Foggy Bottom/Clinton Foundation shenanigans.

    9. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't really matter what happened 16 years ago.

      A Presidential pardon driven by money, by the spouse of the current Democratic Presidential candidate doesn't matter? It absolutely does, even more than it matters what Trump did/didn't do with his taxes 21 years ago as a private citizen.

      If they're that corrupt, and WikiLeaks, as well as the pay-to-play pardon, have proven that they are, then it is highly relevant.

      The Hatch Act of 1939...

      Indeed, whoever is using an FBI twitter account was abusing it for political purposes and they should be reprimanded for it. It's actually pretty foolish that they used the account to do it given that a public tweet from an anonymous account, at the right people, would have gotten the same effect.

      It has also been proven that the DoJ is in violation of the Hatch Act thanks to WikiLeaks making it clear that the lead Attorney working on the case for the DoJ used to represent Hillary's Chief of Staff and gave them a heads up on both court and committee proceedings! Nothing to see there though, I guess.

    10. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      It's apparently not that automatic if it's quiet for years, and then starts spitting out tweets oddly relevant to the election.

      Also, with regards to your first point, yeah, we do want to know what kind of people we're voting for. But Bill Clinton is someone we voted for (past tense), he's not running in this election. And Trump's father isn't running either.

      Do you really think "Trump's father is awesome!" (BTW, no, he was a racist shithead) "Clinton's husband was controversial!" (Uh, whatever) adds anything to the current political discourse?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama is an employee of the executive branch. Can we lock him up?

    12. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hence the investigation. Yes, I know it has been said that software was fixed and so things went through, but this begs the question, was info vetted to see what would go out? Or was a decision to fix it (dormant for more than a year) made suddenly in the last little bit? Also heard it said that it takes a critical mass of FOIA requests to process for this to tweet. So did someone suddenly authorize a bunch of FOIA requests to trigger the post?

      There are potential Hatch Act violations by humans that control the upstream process. So they are investigating what caused this sudden tweeting of information a week out from the election of information regarding both candidates. It's just got an odd flavor to it that I wouldn't mind having some looking into.

    13. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch (of which the FBI is part of) of the federal government from engaging in some forms of political activity.

      Official actions are not banned by the Hatch Act, as is obvious to anyone with half a brain. The FBI responding to FOIA requests, or investigating criminal activities, is performing the duties that it is legally bound to perform. Suppressing this because of the political connections would have been an illegal violation of the Hatch Act, in attempting to use one's political office to benefit a political candidate.
      According to your interpretation of the Hatch Act, a presidential candidate could murder his opponents in the middle of the street at high noon, and the FBI would be prohibited from investigating or commenting on the event. Even for Hillary's CTR team, that's a stupid claim.

      If you don't want the law involved in your candidate's campaign season, don't nominate a candidate that is under investigation by the law!

    14. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The Hatch Act is blatantly unconstitutional.

    15. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by msauve · · Score: 1
      How so? Taking government employment is a voluntary action (the Hatch Act doesn't cover military personnel), and people can voluntarily give up rights. Furthermore, the section of the Hatch Act at issue here only applies "on the job..."

      an employee may not...use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;

      Other than that, there are rules which prevent personal gain ("may not...receive political contributions") or run for partisan office. Anyone who doesn't accept that can simply quit.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    16. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      No, but the people who designed, approved, and set up the automated Twitter feed in the FBI's name are all people.

    17. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by msauve · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that the automated system has a subject bias, and announces some FOIA documents but not others based on political criteria?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    18. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      aking government employment is a voluntary action (the Hatch Act doesn't cover military personnel), and people can voluntarily give up rights.

      Some, not all.

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by an imaginary being with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    19. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by msauve · · Score: 1

      So, you think that influencing an election (which is a civil right) is somehow included in "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (which are natural rights)?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    20. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by msauve · · Score: 1

      Let me just add that "unalienable" implies an external force taking rights away, which doesn't apply when someone gives up rights voluntarily. Or do you think that an employer can't demand that you actually do work for them instead of exercising a right to "liberty?"

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    21. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      So, you think that influencing an election (which is a civil right) is somehow included in "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (which are natural rights)?

      My post was not about the election deba(te|cle), and only pointing out that not all rights are open for signing away - some are considered inalienable. Which ones those are is a different matter entirely.

    22. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by msauve · · Score: 1

      The right of liberty includes the right to give up rights, including liberty, willingly.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    23. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The right of liberty includes the right to give up rights, including liberty, willingly.

      What do you think inalienable means, exactly?

    24. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Let me just add that "unalienable" implies an external force taking rights away, which doesn't apply when someone gives up rights voluntarily. Or do you think that an employer can't demand that you actually do work for them instead of exercising a right to "liberty?"

      No, inalienable means that you cannot give up the right.
      You cannot sell yourself into slavery, for example. Your right to not be enslaved is inalienable.

      inalienable (adjective)
      Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.

      Oxford English Dictionary

    25. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by msauve · · Score: 1

      Something much more nuanced that what you do, apparently. As used, it is not the dictionary definition, as the founders accepted that liberty could be deprived with jail or indentured servitude, life by suicide or execution.

      Furthermore, the quote you gave was one of principled belief, not fact.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    26. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't know how it was designed. I can tell what it actually does. If it's making politically significant tweets near Election Day, it needs to be shut down until it can avoid doing that.

      People don't magically shed responsibility by having a machine carry out their decisions.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    27. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by msauve · · Score: 1

      Nope. If it's automated and following rules which aren't politically biased, then shutting it down just because there's a forthcoming election would introduce political bias into the system.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    28. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Some things are shut down because there's a forthcoming election. Government announcements concerning the candidates should be postponed, for example.

      Also, you're suggesting that the rules weren't politically biased, and therefore the system isn't. Automated processes, particularly involving complicated systems, don't always work the way one would expect from the programming. It's easier to examine what's happening and determine if there's bias that way.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    29. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Government announcements concerning the candidates should be postponed"

      You're arguing for a less informed electorate. You're part of the problem.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    30. Re:Is that what you call it, "controversial"? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you'll give me evidence that the bulk of voters consider new evidence dispassionately and on its merits, I might agree with you. Comey made a vague announcement that gave Trump a boost in the polls, despite the fact that what he was looking at had nothing useful for the Clinton investigation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. Electronic voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Perhaps its time to investigate:

    1. Electronic voting, all those open Wifi connections, and crap Windows 95 based terminals with exposed USB ports. Do you really want Putin to choose the next president?
    2. Encryption, NSA allowed zero day exploits to go unpatched, and there has been an undermining of encryption. This has made USA less secure and it needs to be fixed. Quit talking shit about Syrian terrorists blowing up babies and start considering all those REAL political, business and industrial secrets that have been exposed to nasty foreign powers and their puppet agents.
    3. Baltic states in particular have online voting and a large Russian population among which agents could be hidden. That's very very foolish. They need to look at the soldiers Russian planted in Ukraine to shit stir and realize their online voting is a liability, not an embrace of modern technology. It would be trivial to rig an election in Latvia the way its rigged in Russia.

    1. Re: Electronic voting by tysonedwards · · Score: 2

      If you're trying to rig an election at the voting booth, you're doing it wrong.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re: Electronic voting by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      +(mod up)

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Electronic voting by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 0

      Perhaps its time to investigate:

      1. Electronic voting, all those open Wifi connections, and crap Windows 95 based terminals with exposed USB ports. Do you really want Putin to choose the next president?

      He's been trying his hardest this election already to get his stooge in power.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:Electronic voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...NSA allowed zero day exploits to go unpatched...

      Methinks you misunderstand the concept of "zero-day".

    5. Re:Electronic voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...NSA allowed zero day exploits to go unpatched...

      Methinks you misunderstand the concept of "zero-day".

      maybe you do

    6. Re: Electronic voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay attention. The DNC has been rigging the entire process at every step of the way. From the primaries, to the media, to the voter lists (I see dead people), to the multiple-voters being bussed around, to the false flag events at Trump rallies that were used to blame on Bernie supports, to the voting machines that are run by corporations that are extremely cozy with the DNC.

      They are extremely desperate right now as there's a good chance of Trump winning and a good chance of Hillary and her cadre ending up in prison.

    7. Re:Electronic voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, can it, already. That tired old argument was put out to pasture the other day. The source of the leaks are the GOOD people that are still left within the American government. The ones who will refuse to allow the corrupt and evil acts to continue.

    8. Re:Electronic voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any proof whatsoever that Putin and Trump are best buddies besides what the Clinton campaign is claiming? Seems like you are just parroting her talking points.

  5. Somebody must stop those evil hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    from releasing real documents about the Clintons' criminal activities!

  6. This goddamned year by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I swear there's been a secret coup and The Onion has taken over the world.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:This goddamned year by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      You, sir, win the internet today. In that one statement one could argue that you deserve a +1 in a number of categories: insightful, funny, interesting. It's a strange simulation that we live in.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:This goddamned year by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Insightful

      2016 is the last thing The Onion would have wanted. Who wants to read a parody newspaper when the real newspapers have more outlandish content.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:This goddamned year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No; if that had happened this would all be a lot funnier.

    4. Re:This goddamned year by strikethree · · Score: 1

      2016 is the last thing The Onion would have wanted. Who wants to read a parody newspaper when the real newspapers have more outlandish content.

      We have been living in a "The Onion" reality since at least January 17, 2001.

      http://www.theonion.com/articl...

      Enjoy the fact that reality is so twisted that only an outrageous parody could predict it so accurately.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    5. Re:This goddamned year by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's been a frightening amount of time since I could go to snopes.com and tell the "news" from the "fact checks" without looking.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. This proves the Republicans hate us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want our next ruler to be rump which will destroy our lives. The FBI is crooked. That is why they investigated the already most investigated person in history. It was a waste of money since she's already been investigated, but Republicans love throwing money away.

  8. Really? This is all you got? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    including one describing Donald Trump's father Fred Trump as a "philanthropist."
     
    Let the hate run through you, young Jedi!
     
    MWahahaha~!

  9. FBI has become Barney Fife by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    Bumbling, uncooridnated, impulsive, and just plain stupid. All the qualities of Fife but without the charm.

    1. Re:FBI has become Barney Fife by balbeir · · Score: 1

      Looks more like John Miller's doing

    2. Re:FBI has become Barney Fife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've read about Palmer and the "Red Scares" (that's where, among other thing, J. E. Hoover got his start).

      I remember Hoover and his "black files"; nobody dared cross him, even presidents (not even Nixon!).

      I remember COINTELPRO; it actually touched my life (thankfully, not in a permanently damaging way, but it's no fun knowing you're under fed. gov't surveillance) and those of some close friends (some were not so lucky).

      I remember Reagan's minions having the FBI classify church-based groups protesting his Central American policy as "terrorist organizations": I saw the "black bag jobs" (yes, plural) at the CISPES office I volunteered for where the membership list kept getting stolen and the uncooperative local police declared themselves "stumped".

      Bush II and the spying didn't surprise me, either.

      I never, ever, thought it had stopped or would stop, certainly not as long as the Republican reactionaries are in control or the Democrats are/were too cowardly or outvoted to fight it.

      Did you?

    3. Re:FBI has become Barney Fife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... what do you mean "has become"?

  10. "Nothing to see here, I promise I didn't do it" by ausekilis · · Score: 1

    the Office of Professional Responsibility will be referred back to the Office of Professional Responsibility for "adjudication."

    After that, it's up for review by the Department of Redundancy Department.

    The whole point of distribution of power is to not have an office responsible for adjudicating itself.

    1. Re:"Nothing to see here, I promise I didn't do it" by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      the Office of Professional Responsibility will be referred back to the Office of Professional Responsibility for "adjudication."

      After that, it's up for review by the Department of Redundancy Department.

      Infinite recursion. That's why they always look like they're going around chasing their tails.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  11. It's sarcasm and a trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the PDF attached to it, it alleges corruption from fake donors including Trumps father. It's a trap, pretending to be Pro Trump while actually revealing a bunch of embarrassing corruption information about his father allegedly bribing politicians to get construction contracts.

    "Bizman ply pols with donations", it claims they bribed officials of Mayor Koch's leadership to get building contracts for Trump Construction Co. "Cozy relationship... Leichters report comes at a time when prosecutors and other municple critics have blamed some of the cities corruptions scandals on the cozy relationship between those with money and those with political power....strong controls over donations need to be enacted to stop this corruption...."

    "philanthropist" is sarcasm.

    Somebodies having a laugh and you lot fell for it.

  12. A conversation by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    #jamescomey: I want to be the most powerful person in DC to wear a dress.
    #inspectorclouseau: You fooel! She wears a paintsuit.

    1. Re:A conversation by Zephyn · · Score: 3, Funny

      #jamescomey: I want to be the most powerful person in DC to wear a dress.

      Sorry, man. Hoover's been gone since '72.

    2. Re:A conversation by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      #jamescomey: I want to be the most powerful person in DC to wear a dress.

      Sorry, man. Hoover's been gone since '72.

      That's just what mainstream media WANT you to believe.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  13. In other news... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Funny

    FBI launches investigation into FBI investigation-launches. Investigators are investigating where to investigate investigators for the investigation. They're thinking Buffalo.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    1. Re:In other news... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      FBI launches investigation into FBI investigation-launches. Investigators are investigating where to investigate investigators for the investigation. They're thinking Buffalo.

      They'd be better served going to the source of nearly all criminal activity.

      Acme Inc.
      Walla-Walla WA 99362
      Wile E. Coyote, CEO

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  14. Meanwhile in news that actually fucking matters by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looks like the FBI has disclosed that not only was Clinton's email server almost certainly hacked, but the hacking got so blatant that even Clinton's own part-time staff who did the incompetent setup of a Microsoft Exchange server were able to figure out that something was going on and shut it down temporarily while she was still using it.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/g...

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Meanwhile in news that actually fucking matters by mi · · Score: 1

      But it was all Trump's fault, because he invited the Russians to hack it. (After it was already hacked.)

      Putin is the kind of guy, who would've never done anything so unwholesome without an invitation, of course.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Meanwhile in news that actually fucking matters by Tharkkun · · Score: 0

      Looks like the FBI has disclosed that not only was Clinton's email server almost certainly hacked, but the hacking got so blatant that even Clinton's own part-time staff who did the incompetent setup of a Microsoft Exchange server were able to figure out that something was going on and shut it down temporarily while she was still using it.

      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/g...

      Clinton's private email server was never hacked. The government servers and FBI data as a result of the investigation on her was compromised. Her own server was far more secure than the classified information they are attacking her for potentially leaking.

    3. Re:Meanwhile in news that actually fucking matters by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Actually, the FBI docs say they have evidence that Clinton's server was hacked, but this is easy to confuse because Podesta fell for a spear phishing email to his gmail account, which led to it being compromised. We do, in fact, have the exact phishing email in one of the most recent dumps. You can see a fake bit.ly reset link in it.

    4. Re:Meanwhile in news that actually fucking matters by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      But then wouldn't that make it Podesta's email that had been hacked, and not the server itself? There's a pretty big difference between owning a server and owning a single (or even multiple) email addresses which access the server via POP/IMAP.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:Meanwhile in news that actually fucking matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But then wouldn't that make it Podesta's email that had been hacked, and not the server itself?

      Podesta's email was phished from his gmail and given to wikileaks, which has released it in parcels over time.

      Evidence that Clinton's server was attacked was found by the FBI in a completely separate investigation and redacted portions of that were released some time ago.

      There is no relation whatsoever between the two, save insofar as the wikileaks dump contains emails where Podesta was communicating with HRC on her private email accounts.

  15. Hatch Act applies to all by mi · · Score: 0

    This is just a blatant Hatch Act violation.

    Senator Reid — a Slashdot veteran? Why are you calling yourself "sh00z"?

    While on the subject of Hatch Act, perhaps, you should look into John Podesta's BFF — who tipped her campaign before, and whose son joined the campaign openly — "investigating" Hillary Clinton?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Hatch Act applies to all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > you should look into John Podesta's BFF — "investigating" Hillary Clinton?

      Yeah, the guy that Trey Gowdy (who spent the last year presiding over the 9th hyperbolic benghazi 'investigation') just said "is not a decision maker, he is a messenger." Conspiracy!

      > who tipped her campaign before,

      Who 'tipped' her campaign to a publicly announced subcommittee hearing. Conspiracy!

      Jesus Hussein Christ! You gullible idiots keep finding conspiracy theory after conspiracy based on nothing more than your ignorance of the full story. How many times do you have to be utterly wrong before you start looking in the mirror and asking "what the fuck is wrong with me?"

      First clue should have been that your sources are two of the most notorious conspiracy mills in operation: zerohedge and thegatewaypundid (aka the stupidest man on the internet).

  16. Stopping crime is criminal? by cfalcon · · Score: 2

    Are we really at the point where trying to expose criminals is itself a crime? What the fuck is going on?

    1. Re:Stopping crime is criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we really at a point where democratic principles and practices are to be abandoned? What the fuck is going on?

    2. Re:Stopping crime is criminal? by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 2

      Are we really at the point where trying to expose criminals is itself a crime? What the fuck is going on?

      In it's most simplistic form, the principle is: "You cannot break the law in order to enforce the law."

    3. Re:Stopping crime is criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, we threw that principle away years and years ago to stop naggers from getting high.

    4. Re:Stopping crime is criminal? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      The Hatch Act is a ban on using one's office for partisan gain. It doesn't require the FBI to shut down active criminal investigations just because the Democratic party happened to nominate someone under investigation.

      If anything, the FBI Director has been taking Hillary's side on this. They didn't charge her even after this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Why is Hillary different than Martha Stewart?

    5. Re:Stopping crime is criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is going on?

      Social justice happened. When justice stoped being blind and became social, some criminal activity got overlooked if they are committed by the right party; Feminist are not sexist, Black lives matter are not terrorist, Islam is a religion of peace, and Hillary is not corrupted.

      This is the future YOU have chosen. Enjoy misandry, race war, islamization and nuclear games with Russia.

    6. Re:Stopping crime is criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Martha Stewart, like Leona Helmsley, told the FBI to naff off a few times when the Feds came politely and said can we work this out. And, just as happened to Leona, after the FBI became annoyed at being so told, they then brought the hammer down.

      If the Feds have you nailed cold, dead, and buried when they come offering some kind of face-saving deal (especially of the "you're rich and white and we an get you off with a slap on the wrist here" type), TAKE THE GODDAMNED DEAL.

  17. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The department also has a policy of not taking unnecessary action close in time to Election Day that might influence an electionâ(TM)s outcome. These rules have been followed during Republican and Democratic administrations."

    So I guess it was "necessary" for the FBI to leak, four days before the election that George (H. W.) Bush was himself in-the-know on Iran-Contra?

    Clinton's campaign made great hay with this particular October Surprise. That was the election where Clinton displaced Bush, denying him a second term and giving us the FIRST Clinton Presidency.

    Ross Perot pulled down more than three times the difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton was 7% short of a popular-vote majority.

    Any bets on whether at least a third of Perot's votes, or at least enough of those (plus conservative voters who just didn't vote for president) to flip a few states and their electoral votes, were people who would have voted for Bush but were disgusted by this and voting for Perot as a protest?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      So I guess it was "necessary" for the FBI to leak, four days before the election that George (H. W.) Bush was himself in-the-know on Iran-Contra?

      That's some opinionated statements lacking facts on the current hillary email scandal.

      Of course Bush was in the know, he was director of the CIA before he was VP. There's no way he didn't know. But that and the DUI (if true, I know W had one) were completely irrelevant to Clinton winning the 92 election. You can lay the cause of the win directly at the feet of Perot with 19% of the popular vote.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  18. WaPo is a liberal lapdog by melted · · Score: 2

    WaPo is owned by Bezos, you won't find anything whatsoever that could jeopardize HRC's presidential run there.

    But on the substance of your accusation, Barack Obama is campaigning for Hillary on taxpayer dime. Is that not a violation of the Hatch Act? If not, explain.

    1. Re:WaPo is a liberal lapdog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not official action of the president. Giving a speech in favor is a bit different then airing or implicating potential dirty laundry dont ya think? He hasn't ordered an investigation into Trumps taxes and then released that info publicly has he, cause that would be a hatch violation.

    2. Re:WaPo is a liberal lapdog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving a speech in favor is a bit different then airing or implicating potential dirty laundry dont ya think?

      No.

    3. Re:WaPo is a liberal lapdog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at all. Obama has most definitely violated the Hatch Act in that he is campaigning in his official capacity as POTUS with the Presidential seal on his podium (and allowing her to campaign from his podium with said seal). This is a clear violation.

    4. Re:WaPo is a liberal lapdog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The President gets a lot of leeway - acting in his personal capacity. It's not like he can stop being president long enough to say "Person X would make a good president" then return to his duties, can he?

      No, the trick is that he can spend millions of taxpayer dollars transporting himself, news crews, and Clinton around on Air Force One, then have the DNC pay "standard airfare" to the government to cover it all. But it's all perfectly legal, as long as he has at least one 'official' event at each destination - like a 5 minute chat with the local mayor, or such.

      captcha - 'misuse'

  19. Employees of the executive branch? by melted · · Score: 1

    You mean like the POTUS who's currently campaigning for Clinton on taxpayer dime and time?

    1. Re:Employees of the executive branch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It always happens. Clinton stumped for Gore, Bush stumped for Romney. Get over it or ban it all together, this isnt a new phenomenon.

    2. Re:Employees of the executive branch? by melted · · Score: 1

      Neither is FBI unloading dirt on the presidential candidate. Bush the senior got pwned pretty bad back in the day: http://www.washingtonexaminer....

    3. Re:Employees of the executive branch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that was, because, you see, GHWB had kept saying he was "out of the loop" about Iran-Contra but the diaries he had stonewalled the FBI for had finally been pried loose, and, in those diaries, GHWB wrote, among other things, that he was one of the few people with all the details.

      So, ya see, they kinda had something there, unlike now.

      See the difference now?

      However, as we all know, IranContra and the tons of coke it dumped into American streets (so sayeth the IG of the DOJ) got all shoved under the rug.

      It's nice to be the king. Or know him closely.

      Twas ever thus.

  20. You rig it at the central server Also redundantly by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    If you're trying to rig an election at the voting booth, you're doing it wrong.

    (As Black Box voting points out) rigging it at the central server is more effective. But rigging the voting machines mean that it's harder to determine (in jurisdictions where this test is possible) by comparing the counts posted at the precincts to the totals posted centrally.

    Of course attack-in-depth gives a cheating organization more opportunities to make an election come out "correctly". For instance: Motor-Voter (mail-in registration), plus no-excuse-required absentee mail-in voting, plus inadequate or nonexistent checks for eligibility (or existence) of the purported voter, makes it trivial to generate as many extra votes as you want. (I recall the discovery that more than three thousand "voters" were voting from one address in Berkeley. ("We're just serving as a mail drop for homeless people." Really? Thousands of them?)

    There are lots of other ways to do this, too. Especially if you can get your organization's members who have achieved positions as judges to block any checking of of voter eligibility as "discriminatory voter intimidation".

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  21. Fred Trump was a philanthropist (but still a jerk) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He and his wife did donate substantial amounts of money, mostly to hospitals and medial research groups. He did do several jacka$$ things (like refusing to rent to black people) but unlike his son, he understood that philanthropy meant giving money to other people, not yourself.

  22. Clinton did nothing wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > It's apparently not that automatic if it's quiet for years, and then starts spitting out tweets oddly relevant to the election.

    The bot was broken and they finally fixed it.

    As for the docs, that's what people requested via FOIA and those are the docs they had. You don't think that lots of people would FOIA the candidates and people related to them? How does it feel to find out that reality is not magically biased in your favor? Do you really think that with the Clinton Foundation selling influence to everyone that you can separate Hillary and Bill? Heck, Chelsea is in on it too. Or should I call her "Diane Reynolds" using her alias?

    Also, funny thing about Vince Foster... turns out the gun he used to commit suicide went missing and his suicide note basically says Clinton did nothing wrong. Just how do you lose the gun from a suicide?

    1. Re:Clinton did nothing wrong! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Why would a bot be tweeting that Trump Sr is a nice guy?

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Clinton did nothing wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would a bot be tweeting that Trump Sr is a nice guy?

      Because even a bot won't tweet that about the current (70yo) Trump .

      Clinton - accused of using email.
      Trump - accused of over a dozen sexual assaults, peeping 15yo's pageant dressing rooms and, bizarrely, almost totally uncovered, his pedophilia rape trial: https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/witness-trump-also-raped-12-year-old-and-used-her-disappearance-to-threaten-another-victim/

    3. Re:Clinton did nothing wrong! by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Trump University, his whole birther movement, the Trump foundation self-dealing and his multiple failed businesses where he deducted the loss of other people's money. Then there's all the wild conspiracy theories he kept putting out, like about Ted Cruz's father.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    4. Re: Clinton did nothing wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also heard he raped Chelsea when she was still in the womb, stole all the gold from Ft Knox. How else did he make his money? He also sold the bomb to the Maltese and clogged up the kitchen sink. I'm sure there's a few other things that will come out on monday as well

    5. Re: Clinton did nothing wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also heard he raped Chelsea when she was still in the womb, stole all the gold from Ft Knox. How else did he make his money? He also sold the bomb to the Maltese and clogged up the kitchen sink. I'm sure there's a few other things that will come out on monday as well

      There's no proof of anything you just said. Unlike the GP and GGP, which mentioned ACTUAL things which have independently corroborated evidence. There's plenty more to dish on Trump - housing discrimination against "Nig^2ers" in the 1970's as prosecuted by the DOJ for one, but it's simplest to just focus on the things he said while on a TV show in his own words.

      Besides we all know Monday is the day to release fake emails that say Hilary is a lizard alien who will go to war with Russia while somehow being a puppet of Russia. Also how she is incompetent and unfocused, yet somehow architected a 30 year scheme to seize power and force us all into gay black marriage, weddings to be paid for by Saudi princes at ISIS's direction. Because reasons.

  23. To Paraphrase... by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    Behind all the fake tinsel we now find the real tinsel.

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  24. Who cares??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are FOIA requests, it will just be long winded tall tales from a slanted perspective that will reveal nothing useful and just be a distraction of one form or another. Ultimately, everyone here claims its a bot, so a big drama over nothing.

    Everyone looks for a conspiracy, spies under the bed, hackers deep in networks, when sometime things are just very simple. Perhaps its a lesson, don't overwork devs.

  25. Nice by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "one describing Donald Trump's father Fred Trump as a "philanthropist."

    Wow. Nobody mentioned that his granddad, after having fled the military service, opened a whorehouse in Klondike and meemaw was the Madam?

    At least that's documented by German newspapers.

  26. ThinkProgress.org by nwaack · · Score: 1

    Ahh yes, ThinkProgress.org...that bastion of non-partisan journalism. I'm surprised they didn't blame Scott Walker for the tweets.

  27. See, Directory Comey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was no need for you to destroy your reputation with the public by basically announcing a new investigation that had thus far gone nowhere. This stuff leaks from your organization anyway, but at least you could have said you were following protocol by not announcing you had no actual evidence yet (let alone no subpoena). You're a LAW & ORDER MAN, right? Well, you used to be.

    Good luck with that Apple thing, by the way.

  28. Re: Meanwhile in news that actually fucking matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're not keeping up with the news, Baier retracted that story the next day. Turned out the sources were Rudi Giuliani and James Kallstrom, not the FBI.

  29. FBI Coupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have not seen it, food for thought.

    The Hillary Clinton Takeover of the United States (Coupe and Counter Coupe):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kvWSz5LM