Slashdot Mirror
FBI: Review of New Emails Doesn't Change Conclusion on Clinton (cnn.com)
FBI director James Comey told Congress Sunday that the new scrutiny of emails related to Hillary Clinton has turned up nothing that would cause the bureau to recommend charges against her. The conclusion comes nine days after rocking the presidential race with word that a new trove of emails had been discovered. "During that process, we have reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of State," Comey wrote. "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton." From a report on CNN:"We were always confident nothing would cause the July decision to be revisited. Now Director Comey has confirmed it," tweeted Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. Comey's last-minute announcement gives Clinton an opportunity for an I-told-you-so moment -- but it's unlikely to undo the political damage of his initial announcement. Trump and his allies have seized on that announcement, using it claim Clinton is likely to face criminal charges. "If she were to win, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis," Trump claimed Saturday night in Reno, Nevada. "In that situation we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt." The political benefit for Trump has been that Republicans who'd been skeptical of their party's nominee have largely followed vice presidential nominee Mike Pence's calls to "come home" to the party -- finding Trump less objectionable than Clinton.
That's pretty damn impressive.
You mean like Trump's foundation illegally paid Trump's legal bills, his personal bills and was used as he and his daughter's personal piggy bank?
Perhaps Trump should explain why the New York State Attorney General ordered his foundation to cease operations in New York because of its illegal activities.
Not to mention the "donation" the foundation gave to the Florida State Attorney General's campaign, also illegal, which oddly made the state's investigation of Trump's fraudulent University mysteriously go away.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Something I don't get: vetting content sent TO her should not be her job. There should be professional scrubbers doing that kind of work. I've worked in many orgs, and executives aren't expected to be doing that kind of "grunt" work. It goes to cubicle peons, like me.
Also, her home server is not necessarily more or less safer than the regular office email. In fact, the regular S.D. email server was hacked. (There is a separate message system for classified content, but it's not technically "email". It's a diff animal.) The home-vs-office dichotomy seems moot, at least as far as handling classified info*. Putting it on the wrong office box versus the wrong personal box seems the same sin to me.
* She didn't get "official" approval to use a home server, and also didn't follow the proper rules for archiving. But that's diff than the classified info issue.
Table-ized A.I.
You know, the one who printed out all those classified e-mails for Hillary and others to read. Is she exhonerated as well? I mean, we already know that Weiner is cleared, even though he had a laptop full of classified e-mails from Hillary and his wife...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Rock it on Tuesday, Hill! Slashdot is with You!
You are clearly reading a different slashdot than I am, in order to come to that conclusion. Slashdot has leaned hard-right for years (often under the pretend claim of "libertarianism"). More slashdot users will vote for Trump than Hillary, and quite likely more will abstain from voting altogether (due to Trump being not conservative enough) than will vote for her as well.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Everyone told me Comey was irresponsible and wasn't worth listening to last week. Why should we care what he says now?
No. Clinton directed her maid to print unclassified emails that were retroactively classified years later.
But that doesn't get yer juices flowing like yet another conspiracy, so carry on!
Trump that Bitch!
Lock Her Up!
Hillary for Prison!
The GOP will ensure that no matter the composition of the house and senate after this week, nothing will be allowed to progress under President Clinton. No supreme court vacancies will be filled, and no bills that have the least bit of "liberalism" in them will ever make it to the white house. There is a growing number of elected GOP politicians promising to start impeachment on her ASAP as well.
It appears we would have been better off electing a Ficus Tree instead, it would have operated on a much smaller budget.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Health issues could also arise with her again. Perhaps Kaine would be a better President anyway.
No matter who wins on Tuesday, we will all lose.
Our Presidential selection really doesn't select the best people. It selects power hungry miscreants.
Also she had her uncleared maid picking up secure faxes from the SCIF in her residence. Ain't no excuses for that one.
Even though Google is attempting to censor searching for Clinton's scandals they are still visible. Mostly based on this, but I added some missed.
Monica Lewinsky: Led to only the second president in American history to be impeached. Hillary is not "pro-woman" as her and pundits will attempt to claim.
Benghazi: Four Americans killed, an entire system of weak diplomatic security uncloaked, and the credibility of a president and his secretary of state damaged.
Asia fundraising scandal: More than four dozen convicted in a scandal that made the Lincoln bedroom, White House donor coffees and Buddhist monks infamous.
Hillary’s private emails: Hundreds of national secrets already leaked through private email and the specter of a criminal probe looming large.
Whitewater: A large S&L failed and several people went to prison.
Travelgate: The firing of the career travel office was the very first crony capitalism scandal of the Clinton era.
Humagate: An aide’s sweetheart job arrangement.
Pardongate: The first time donations were ever connected as possible motives for presidential pardons.
Foundation favors: Revealing evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play back door to the State Department, and an open checkbook for foreigners to curry favor.
Mysterious files: The disappearance and re-discovery of Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records.
Filegate: The Clinton use of FBI files to dig for dirt on their enemies.
Hubble trouble: The resignation and imprisonment of Hillary law partner Web Hubbell.
The Waco tragedy: One of the most lethal exercises of police power in American history.
The Clinton’s Swedish slush fund: $26 million collected overseas with little accountability and lots of questions about whether contributors got a pass on Iran sanctions.
Troopergate: From the good old days, did Arkansas state troopers facilitate Bill Clinton’s philandering?
Gennifer Flowers: The tale that catapulted a supermarket tabloid into the big time.
Bill’s Golden Tongue: His and her speech fees shocked the American public.
Boeing Bucks: Boeing contributed big-time to Bill; Hillary helped the company obtain a profitable Russian contract.
Larry Lawrence: How did a fat cat donor get buried in Arlington National Cemetery without war experience?
The cattle futures: Hillary as commodity trader extraordinaire.
Chinagate: Nuclear secrets go to China on her husband’s watch.
Watergate: Committee chairman stated that if he had the power to fire her he would have. “She was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
Juanita Broaddrick: Another woman attacked and threatened by Hillary who brought rape allegations against Bill Clinton.
Paula Jones: Yet another woman attacked and threatened by Hillary who brought rape allegations against Bill Clinton.
Nope, it's not the "woman" thing people have problems with. We have problems with an extremely long list of scandals and concern for self interests and self preservation. Politicians are supposed to be there for the people, and the Clinton's have left a legacy of doing the exact opposite. Their vast fortune gathered while she held public office and encyclopedic list of legal troubles should tell you all you need to know.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
No. Clinton directed her maid to print unclassified emails that were retroactively classified years later.
Removing the classified markings from a classified document doesn't make it unclassified.
Classified information is classified regardless of whether it is marked or not.
Hillary had protective markings removed from some documents - see above.
Your claim is basically rubbish.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
How is that different than what the Clintons do with their foundation, and more particularly what Doug Band complained about Chelsea Clinton doing?
The difference is in one case these are proven facts, in the other allegations made in an email, by a person who is trying to defend himself from improprieties.
Did anybody really think she wouldn't beat the rap? Clinton should undoubtedly be prosecuted, but that all depends on the DOJ doing its job, an agency which is thoroughly corrupt and run by a Clinton ally.
This is only the email case, not the other four active investigations, so there is a glimmer of hope that Clinton might be brought to justice. But if she is running the executive branch? None whatsoever.
Unfortunately, the Washington insiders have managed to maintain control of their system, even after things were looking up for a short while.
Well this is after 30 years of investigation for perceived slights by anti-American interests to supporting those who don't like to work, namely all the Republican congressmen. There is no protection of America or defense of American interests by those scum who prefer to not work while taking pay checks for gossiping.
Of course nothing changes. Comey's conclusions in July still stand: Clinton repeated many lies during her remarks to the public and before congress. She destroyed evidence under subpoena. She casually handled classified information on a home computer and passed it around to non-cleared staff. She failed to turn over thousands of work-related emails despite lying and saying that she and/or her lawyers had read every single one of them to err on the side of over-providing ... and on and on.
... and she got to have her immunity-deal-getting staff WITH her in that drive-by interview which was conducted not under oath and no recordings allowed. During which, she pretended to be so dumb, uninformed, and forgetful that she managed to avoid answering pretty much any question that would have demonstrated her obvious guilt. Guilt for doing things that would see any one of her State Department underlings out of a job and possible out of liberty from jail.
He's not changing the fact that he said anyone else doing what she did would face serious consequences, and that different treatment applied to her. He's not changing the fact that the FBI spent more time interviewing Brad Pitt about his argument with his son on an airplane than they spent interviewing Hillary Clinton
Yup, nothing has changed since July. Same corruption and the lasting pressure from the Clinton political machine through Obama down to Loretta Lynch's office. No change at all.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I gave the source in the first paragraph, as well as the explanation. Would you care to discount that those scandals existed with facts? I was around through most of those scandals being the lead topics on every major station for months. The Government was basically shut down during the impeachment process while we listened to Bill try to provide new definition to the word "is". Yeah, the bias is strong with you.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yeah, they let her off easy with a years long investigation culminating in a public announcement two weeks before the most important moment in her career, turning a near certain win into a neck and neck race.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Did I at any point say she was found guilty? No, I did not. Did those scandals have impact on the USA? Yes they did. Is there enough reason to look at those and distrust the character of the person involved? Yes, there is. Is there any reason to look at the current financial status of the Clinton's and have distrust? Yes, there is.
Unfortunately for you I have actually studied most of these issues having quite a few years on most Slashdot posters. Most of that list have tremendous factual backing, but according to prosecutors lacked enough evidence to prosecute. I don't dismiss subjects because someone told me they were false, I actually read all relevant materials. The lack of prosecution does not remove facts. It's important to note that I didn't list what I consider hard to prove conspiracy that you could find on the Clinton's pretty easily. Such as the latest Podesta emails.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Pointing out her corruption and lying isn't "character assassination." Is it "weather assassination" when the meteorologist tells you it's raining?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I should have added a few facts to back my assertions. Whitewater led to 15 Felony convictions, so this is not merely speculation or allegation. Bill Clinton settled out of court with Paula Jones for 850,000.00, again not speculation or allegation. Chinagate ended with an award of 900,000 to Judicial Watch and people fleeing the country to avoid prosecution. Clinton later pardoned Marc Rich who is the person who fled prosecution. Again, not speculation or allegation.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The FBI didn't get the warrant to search the emails until Oct. 30. http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
Of course nothing changes. Comey's conclusions in July still stand: Clinton repeated many lies during her remarks to the public and before congress. She destroyed evidence under subpoena. She casually handled classified information on a home computer and passed it around to non-cleared staff. She failed to turn over thousands of work-related emails despite lying and saying that she and/or her lawyers had read every single one of them to err on the side of over-providing ... and on and on.
He's not changing the fact that he said anyone else doing what she did would face serious consequences, and that different treatment applied to her. He's not changing the fact that the FBI spent more time interviewing Brad Pitt about his argument with his son on an airplane than they spent interviewing Hillary Clinton ... and she got to have her immunity-deal-getting staff WITH her in that drive-by interview which was conducted not under oath and no recordings allowed. During which, she pretended to be so dumb, uninformed, and forgetful that she managed to avoid answering pretty much any question that would have demonstrated her obvious guilt. Guilt for doing things that would see any one of her State Department underlings out of a job and possible out of liberty from jail.
Yup, nothing has changed since July. Same corruption and the lasting pressure from the Clinton political machine through Obama down to Loretta Lynch's office. No change at all.
And yet no evidence of corruption... but hey, lets keep beating that dead horse... You can make a conspiracy theory about almost anything if you look hard enough. The point is that either Hillary is as good as Area 51 in hiding secrets and evidence or there just isn't anything there that actually breaks the law. I agree that she acted poorly in a couple of situations, the email server being one of them. You can argue that these broke ethical rules but that's not at the same level as corruption.
Kristian Saucier went to jail for much less than that: taking selfies in a restricted area. Didn't even send them to anyone.
I'm sympathetic to arguments that classified rules are too strict, but Hillary shouldn't get special treatment. Elites getting special treatment is how we get unfair rules in the first place.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Not sure why this got modded troll, it's all true.
What's worse? We had a "quid pro quo" offer in the FBI dumps to retroactively declassify one of the items.
The other fun part is when first confronted on that, they blamed Russia! For the FBI FOIA material. Seriously.
Hillary didn't know what a fax was. She thought it was a wax paper dispenser. She needed wax paper to make a gingerbread house for the neighbor kids. She's absolutely, 100 percent not guilty. You people should just stop investigating her.
The Bush administration lost 22 million emails because their entire crew was using private emails servers for administration business. How come nobody cared about that? oh, right, because at the time we were spending a trillion $ and thousands of lives searching for WMDs that didn't exist while outing CIA agents and letting people drown in New Orleans.
You couldn't care less about emails. You hate Hillary (and Obama) and that's it. No big surprise there--lots of assholes hate Hillary, it's one of the best things about her.
and I'm wondering what caused it. Maybe anti-immigration? The H1-Bs have got me running scared too. I flirted with Trump because he seemed more willing to reign in the abuses (even when somewhere in the back of my head I know we'll need immigrants if we don't want to share Japan's fate as our birth rate drops, queue /. joke here).
But then I read he took $900k from one of the biggest H1-B reliant outsourcing firms out there and basically gave up on that. I haven't heard him say much more than "Crooked Hilary" and something/something about emails in weeks. Meanwhile I've got friends that rely on Obamacare (one of which is a Type-1 diabetic who until the medicaid expansion was making frequent trips to the ER to get insulin because his insurance had been cut off).
I'm not expecting either candidate to to much to help me, but I've got concrete places where Trump will _hurt_ me. Yeah, I could vote 3rd party, but that could still drop the presidency in his pocket. And besides, Johnson is definitely not my friend and Jill Stein is an anti-vaxer...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Nice try, but some of the incoming stuff was classified under systems other than the State Department system (e.g. DoD), which Clinton would not be able to authorize.
Hillary did plenty wrong.
1) Used a private email server for classified government business.
2) lied about it.
3) destroyed evidence which was under subpoena aka obstruction of justice.
General Cartright is facing facing five years for similar security violations.
Emails are classified based on the information in them. The fact she didn't mark them appropriately is of tertiary importance - the presence of the information is the crime. The classification guides didn't change. They weren't marked, sometimes, until later, but sometimes they were marked. She didn't care.
She's getting off on this one in a place where many others were convicted. For instance, Petraeus didn't have classification marks in his personal journal, yet the contents were classified as all hell. The person he shared them with had a TS clearance, but had no need-to-know for the information. In this case, Clinton shared the information with someone with neither clearance nor need to know.
Understand what you are talking about before commenting.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
There's 2 forums that I read a lot, basically lurk on, and occasionally post. One is Slashdot, and the other is Fark.
I like Slashdot because sometimes some very smart techie people will post interesting insights into techie issues.
Fark, of course, is mostly known for snarky frat-boy humor.
But! I'm embarrassed to say that Slashdot users, whom I gave way too much credit for intelligence, are proving to be trolls, knuckle-draggers, and mouth-breathers of the very worst sort.
Whereas Fark seems to have some very intelligent and balanced conversations about some of the very same subjects, including politics.
Just goes to show, basement-dwellers might know how to hack, but you wouldn't want to hang out with any of them.
I've never been convicted of any crime. Therefore, by your logic, I'm a more powerful criminal than Al Capone?
I think that you believe that Hillary has not been convicted because she's bought all of the investigations. But among her opponents are very powerful Republican politicians. Not just one or two, but all of them. Some of her opponents are also billionaires. She and Bill are certainly not poor, but they cannot play in the same leagues as the Koch Bros and Sheldon Adelson (and supposedly Mr Trump). Maybe add the Russian intelligence agencies to that list of enemies. And her opponents have been coming after her for decades, and have so far proved that Bill gets blowjobs and Hillary is not competent at email security. Rather underwhelming.
Look, Hillary and Bill are powerful people, and they have some rich friends, but nobody is that invulnerable. Al Capone just had a few government agents who had to work within the rules against him; Hillary has half of the most powerful people in the USA (and many outside of the USA) gunning for her. If she was guilty, there would be proof. Instead, all we get is Wikileaks about, um, black magic or something equally moronic.
They only were "retroactively" classified because she hadn't bothered at the time. She was a classifying agent as SoS. If she didn't know she was supposed to do that she was either criminal, lazy, or stupid. Pick one or more for the correct answer.
No, not the whitewash of Clinton's mishandling of classified data. I accept what the head of the FBI told Congress (under oath), that Secretary Clinton is too stupid to understand what she was doing was illegal. OK, fine.
But there's at least 110 emails sent to her that contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. That's the whitewash. Each of those emails represents at least three federal crimes:
Removing the classified data from secure computers
Removing the fact that it's classified
Sending it through a non-secure channel.
That's a minimum of 330 serious crimes by the people who sent those emails. There is no investigation of those people, and there will be one. No one will ever go to prison for those crimes. I'm guessing that most of them were sent by Clinton appointees, insiders who would be very, very embarrassing to Clinton should they be prosecuted. But we'll never know, because the White House (and it can't come from anywhere else) has whitewashed the entire affair.
That's the coverup.
This changes nothing for most people (just like with the previous FBI 'bombshell').
That's because the vast majority of people pick a candidate early on and don't change their pick no matter what happens.
All this bullshit about the polls going back and forth is nonsense. The media ALWAYS try to portray it as a neck-and-neck horse race when it almost never is.
I mean, hello? Remember McCain-Obama and Romney-Obama? Each time the media played it up as a "virtual dead heat OMG!!1!", and each time it was a fucking landslide. It's the same this time around.
But I digress. Only the genuinely brain-damaged "undecided" voters would change their vote at this late stage, and frankly if you're still undecided at this point you're really too stupid to be entrusted with voting.
Whatever side you pick, how could anyone be moronic as not to see the difference between the two candidates or to not have made a choice months ago?
It's not like the candidates are similar or have even slightly overlapping views. Whatever choice you make, that choice should have been clear to you early on.
The "undecided" voters don't mean shit. They've never swayed an election and they never will. There just aren't enough of them to matter.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The first two of four counts in Porteous's impeachment involved patterns of behavior that started while he was a state judge, not a federal judge.
Or take the instance of William Belknap, who resigned as Secretary of War. He was impeached and tried by the Senate after his resignation.
Impeachment proceedings are the ultimate check by the legislature on the other branches, and are not limited by when the misconduct occurred. They answer the question of whether an individual has disqualified himself or herself for federal office (either their current office or that plus any future office), and do not have the same limits on jurisdiction that a federal court has.
If you receive a classified e-mail on an inappropriate system, this is called a spillage. In the event of a spillage, it is your responsibility to report this to your security manager. In this case, it would be someone at Hillary's State Department. That person would have confiscated all the devices the mail was received on, and identified the recipients. At that point, an evaluation would be made as to whether the recipients of the classified e-mail would be within USG control. If so, all of their devices would similarly be confiscated. If not, there might be a consultation with the authority in control of the classification guide(s) that made the e-mail classified. If it could be verified as not being under the guide and therefore arguably unclassified, it might end the tale there. But if the e-mail is in fact classified, all devices that have the e-mail on it will be wiped - either partially or wholly - of all evidence of the classified material. In addition, it might be necessary for the USG to take possession of the mass storage devices in question, as they would be assumed classified at the level of the material that passed over them. The technical guidance is that if, say, a "Secret" mail passed onto an unclassified system, the system's drive is now classified Secret and cannot pass out of the possession of the USG without destruction. At that point you'd get a new mass storage device with a new image on it, and your previous contents would be lost.
The documentation for these procedures is publicly available in Army Regulations AR 25-1 and 25.2, for the Army at least.
If you do not follow this procedure, you are guilty of a crime, which could reach up to espionage if intent can be determined.
Everyone who receives a clearance from the USG signs SF312. Hillary signed this too. She is in violation of its terms by her own admission and by the FBI's statements. She is guilty of more than one crime.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
The investigation began in 2012 when a waste station supervisor in Hampton, Connecticut, found Saucier’s cellphone with the submarine photos on top of a pile of demolition trash and showed it to his friend, who was a retired Navy chief and brought the phone to the NCIS, according to court documents.
So the photos were available to unauthorized people, and we have evidence of that. We don't have any evidence that it happened to Hillary's emails. There is quite a difference between speeding, and causing a traffic accident while speeding. And I know the example of General Petraeus, where we also have a quite different kettle of fish: Telling state secrets to someone not supposed to hear them for sexual favors.
All I take from the email affair so far is that some people really, really wish it to be big, and they are constantly diappointed when an official tells them: So far, it isn't, and the only conclusion they come to is that there has to be some large and widespread conspiracy going on. The other possible conclusion, that they err, and that the email affair so far isn't that big from a judical point of view just doesn't get to them.
Actually when it comes to email security her private server is not known to have ever been hacked, but the State Department email system did get hacked during the same time.
The only legit complaint about her email server is that is violated transparency guidelines. But note that, nobody else is reacting to it in a way that we get to read their emails; The Bush administration used the RNC email server, Colin Power used a private corporate email (which he really thinks is different than a self-hosted one, but only in that it isn't secure), Bill Clinton refused to use email as President, though he was apparently using it privately for non-work stuff. There are lots of Governors around the country who have an aide whose main job is reading and writing emails, and usually not because the Gov. doesn't know how. We don't have everybody else's email, so the actual transparency problem is hard to pin down.
Clearly she didn't follow President Obama's transparency directives any better than anybody else, but we don't have their emails either "for whatever reason." The reality is that almost everybody in politics agrees that if they think the public will read it later, they can't actually do work in that channel, because even if they don't do anything wrong it will feed lots of "gotcha" type nonsense that is all taken out of context.
I've been stopped by the cops over a hundred times, and I've never even paid a parking ticket. I have paid library fines, 50 cents already this year, but that is my only proven misdeed. I guess I'm a master criminal too! Or I just wear clothes the cops don't like, and they aren't any good at their job.
Funny, but Hillary actually sent out a department-wide memo to tell staff to not use personal e-mail because it was insecure. Somehow her personal e-mail was different though, right?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Something I don't get: vetting content sent TO her should not be her job. There should be professional scrubbers doing that kind of work. I've worked in many orgs, and executives aren't expected to be doing that kind of "grunt" work. It goes to cubicle peons, like me.
Also, her home server is not necessarily more or less safer than the regular office email. In fact, the regular S.D. email server was hacked. (There is a separate message system for classified content, but it's not technically "email". It's a diff animal.) The home-vs-office dichotomy seems moot, at least as far as handling classified info*. Putting it on the wrong office box versus the wrong personal box seems the same sin to me.
* She didn't get "official" approval to use a home server, and also didn't follow the proper rules for archiving. But that's diff than the classified info issue.
Except that those rules were not in place at the time that Clinton was Secretary of State. They were enacted after she left...
Doesn't matter. She can still be prosecuted for not turning over all of her State Department official correspondence and destroying it. Bill Clinton had to pardon former CIA Director Deutch because he kept government documents after he left the CIA. It is a real crime and is very often prosecuted. And you can't claim that she didn't know that she had the documents. Even if you did try to claim that, I do not believe the law does not require intent for that.
Hillary didn't destroy the email. Her email administrator was asked to delete personal email months before any subpoena. He was lazy and finally did it later. But there has been no evidence showing that he was ordered to do so after the subpoena by Hillary or anyone in her camp. He avoided prosecution by getting immunity and had the chance to implicate her and never did.
As for classified email, the vast majority were classified retroactively, except for the two or three that the FBI talked about with poor markings. It's one thing to knowingly keeping marked classified documents. Its a different thing to handle unclassified documents that later have their classifications changed.
I seem to recall Petraeus giving the information to his mistress, a journalist? While Hillary used the information (she kinda needed it for her job, after all) she did not give classified information to unauthorized folks. Kinda not the same thing at all.
Also, the Petraeus case involved in some other crap (stalking, harassing, lying to investigators, etc); I suspect that the mishandling classified information charge was a plea-bargain to avoid more stuff.
Interesting: while reading about that case, I see that the investigators knew they had a big case but did not announce anything for a few months because it was too close to the election of 2012. What a difference four years makes.
Years of lying about her stonewalling, hiding and destroying of government records, blatant mishandling of classified material, and raking in millions in family cash while in office and selling access - those are "minor scandals" to you? Please don't do anything dangerous this year, like voting.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Oh, and anything bad that Wikileaks dumps in the next two days is false!
This is something I like to ask self proclaimed conservatives. Hilary is the most conservative candidate out there by the actual definition of the word. She's going to do a fine job maintaining the status quo. A few tax cuts here, a few tax raises here, but nothing substantial. She's your classic nixonite pro-corporate politician. A little corrupt but nothing out of the ordinary.
Trump's the radical one here. Same with Johnson & Stein. You can be a radical regressive and support Trump. Maybe even Johnson (Stein's another kettle of fish entirely). But you can't vote Trump and really be conservative, can you?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The fact that the Clintons are always 1 foot away from going to jail after all these scandals going back decades proves that they're completely honest, upright people.
How many more scandals do you think they'll somehow narrowly escape consequences for during the next 4 years? I'm going to guess 17 new scandals -- one new scandal every few months.
RWNJ stands for Right Wing Nut Job, and is a left wing smear against anyone who questions the glorious leftist narrative.
Incidentally, due in large part to the growing ubiquity of leftist views in America, a sort of Left Wing Nut Job archetype has been taking shape. These are your basic "Trump is a Russian plant", "Biological sex is a myth", or "Hillary is the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy" type of people.
Really, the alt-right and progressives (AKA alt-left) are essentially the same sorts of people but with different ideological backgrounds. They both clamor for utopian fantasies, berate detractors with hateful insults and rhetoric, and generally wrap themselves up in worldviews that assume everyone on the other side is some combination of evil, stupid, or insane.
Both sides are incredibly toxic and are, in my opinion, regrettable side effects of the rise of internet culture and the ease with which it allows the creation of unassailable safe-space echo chambers where circlejerks and groupthink are the entire point.
Obama could simply pardon her, even before the trial. Ford did it for Nixon. It may cost her the election.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
"Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.
We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.
— Robert Farley"
Interestingly, the recent FOIA dumps had some new info on Vince Foster.
It seems that they found his suicide note, in which he basically took all blame on himself and said that Clinton did nothing wrong.
However, they appear to have somehow lost the gun with which he committed suicide. The documents did not explain how that could have happened.
How many more scandals do you think they'll somehow narrowly escape consequences for during the next 4 years? I'm going to guess 17 new scandals -- one new scandal every few months.
Let's try to guess what they'll be.
* Something related to voter fraud
* Documents revealing that she doesn't really carry hot sauce in her purse
* Murder
* Pant-suit gate
Oh, I get it. Don't bring facts and documented history into conversations and the Leftists will be happy. There is a sad reality with most people on the left. Do you know how many people on the left complain about Ann Coulter yet have never read a single book and can't discount a single fact she provides in her book? Answer is anecdotal, but 100% of the people on the Left I speak with have that exact affliction. None have read Marx, Friedman, Aristotle, Rand, Machiavelli, Adam Smith, the Federalist papers (yes, any of them), Quigley, and though they claim to have read Plato it tends to be just the fragments stuffed into an Intro to Philosophy class.
Contrarily people on the right tend to have studied, usually not all, but many of these works. They have to, so they can defend themselves from Leftist propaganda and Sophistry used against the masses.
But hey, grats on being an ignorant fool who can not tell fact from fiction. Or pretending as much.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the connection to ISIL???
The Clinton foundation accepted donations from Qatar and tried to hide it, and according to wikileaks, the government of Qatar is funding ISIL. Since it was in her leaked emails, she obviously knew about it.
http://mobile.reuters.com/arti...
From https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...:
we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
I even gave an example of someone being impeached after leaving their office.
No, you didn't. You're alliterate, or you'd know that you gave an example of somebody who was impeached while in office, in part for things he had done while in another office. The limitation isn't on when the thing was done, the limitation is on being in office when they impeach. That's why when Nixon resigned, they couldn't have impeached him anyways. Now, if he had resigned after they impeached him, but before the trial, then they could still finish the trial in order to prevent him from holding office again.
The details matter, and if you can't even understand the words, how are you going to argue about the finer points of it?
Copypasta is copypasta, not "facts."
Just run in circles shouting Ann Coulter, I'm sure you'll eventually find somebody who cares what she has to say. What is her job again, why do you presume she has some information about the topic?
I sure as fuck don't Ann Coulter, but you're a total dipshit if you think I haven't read all of Ayn Rand's books, or Adam Smith. Who the fuck told you that liberals don't read Aristotle? Is that code for complaining that they agreed with Plato more, or do you actually think that liberals don't read classics? You didn't know liberals read the Federalist Papers, wow. That's a whole new conspiracy angle; liberals aren't educated in civics! LMFAO
The way you regurgitate talking points you read over at Breitbart pretty much proves you didn't read Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It" because you'd be hanging your head in shame for regurgitating pap instead of thinking for yourself.
You blather on and on about what you presume other people have read, without noticing that any person of middling intelligence knows you don't have access to that information. You're just blathering. Furthermore, the content of the blathering is pretty daft; obviously there are lots and lots of liberals out there that are educated, since educated people are much more likely to be liberal than ignoramuses.
I know you only paid a quarter for "Sophistry," but you should really ask for your money back.
Obama pardoning her would not pardon himself. Trump winning on Tuesday would be a big tell, because you will see the pardon lists starting then. There is a whole lot of mess involved in this, and I'm sure he's smart enough to weigh the options. Him pardoning Clinton would not end the investigations, and in fact it would probably accelerate them greatly. President Obama could look really really bad when things are all done. We know for a fact that he was emailing Clinton at her private server. Who knows what else shows up with him involved?
The charges and facts so far against Clinton make Watergate look tiny and the number of people allegedly involved dwarfs Nixon and a couple staffers.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You also used to pretend you were a civil engineer who knew all about skyscraper construction. That was a lie. After your posts about how the military must have killed all those US civilians on the planes on 9/11 I very much doubt that you would hold the military in such contempt if you really are an Army Vet.
Are you being honest this time?
YOu either discard both his statement or take both his statement to heart. Choosing and picking which one you want to hear, is partisan politic at its worst : it means you are paying attention to only what fit your worldview/echo chamber and discard what rocks your boat. Note that it works both way : those who wanted to ignore comey last week and take him seriously today (probably pro Hilary) are as guilty as those who wanted to take comey seriously last week and not seriously today (probably pro trump).
Anyway, if you are taking comey seriously all the way, or discarding him all the way , the same conclusion come : the email re-review is not relevant.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"I've been stopped by the cops over a hundred times".
Are you a really bad driver or just black?
Yes but that only means they should be in the cell next to hers. As the Boss she would have been expected to get off her fat ass, go down the hall and kick the shit out of who ever was sending her emails improperly. She didn't do that.
Basic State Dept email, if it is at all similar to our military email. You could send and receive confidential email all day long as long as you encrypted it before you sent it. I'm sure she had access to the higher level systems as well, but they are a pain in the ass to set up and have to be physically secured (locked doors, safes,etc) which probably didn't jive with her "I'm Hillary hear me roar attitude", which is why we have this mess in the first place.
My time in the Air Force this was hammered home over and over again to all levels. Her claiming she didn't know is very difficult to believe since training is required every year and mandatory briefings on security procedure every quarter with monthly updates and reminders as well. If she pencil whipped her training and briefing requirements that is entirely on her and her Boss (The President) no one else can be blamed for this. Over the course of my career I held everything from a secret (run of the mill security clearance all military get), secret SAR (special access request for my time working on the B2 Bomber, more than a Secret less than a Top Secret), and Top Secret (Russian crypto-linguist which I didn't stay in because I sucked at learning Russian but still ended up with the clearance anyway since they took so long to do.)
I watched dozens of officers and enlisted loose their jobs of much more benign violations of security protocols than the stunts she pulled.
Let's define terms to start off with.
CONFIDENTIAL – Will be applied to information in which the unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security.
SECRET – Will be applied to information in which the unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.
TOP SECRET – Will be applied to information in which the unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
Here are some examples to understand the different types of messages:
"Hey Joe call work, pack a bag, you are probably going TDY tomorrow" not a problem by any method.
"Hey Joe call work, pack a bag, we are sending you tonight TDY." Starting to edge into Confidential territory.
"Hey Joe call work, pack a bag, we are sending you tonight to Krap-ic-stan" (we don't normally go there for any reason.) This is definitely confidential and maybe even higher. You can't talk about this stuff outside on non-gov't un-encrypted systems.
"Hey Joe call work, pack your bag for a 6 month deployment to Krap-ic-stan. We are sending you and 30 other guys to an airfield to support 5 aircraft that are being sent there. This is most definitely Secret or higher now. You are not allowed to talk about this with anyone outside of work. You are not allowed to talk about this over unsecured networks. Email traffic has to be encrypted and only sent over the SIPR network (isolated secured network for Secret/Top Secret traffic) Anything higher level than that was way about my pay grade so if it exists I never saw it.
"Hey Joe call work, pack your bag for a 6 month deployment to Krap-ic-stan. We are sending you and 30 other guys to an airfield to support 5 aircraft. There are 200 other people being sent from the squadrons A, B, and C along with the Spec-Op guys who will be supporting the Army who will in turn will be supporting the rebels in Krap-ic-stan to take down their dictator." This is most definitely now Secret (we've been doing this