Republicans Are Reportedly Using a Self-Destructing Message App To Avoid Leaks (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Trump administration members and other Republicans are using the encrypted, self-destructing messaging app Confide to keep conversations private in the wake of hacks and leaks, according to Jonathan Swan and David McCabe at Axios. Axios writes that "numerous senior GOP operatives and several members of the Trump administration" have downloaded Confide, which automatically wipes messages after they're read. One operative told Axios that the app "provides some cover" for people in the party. He ties it to last year's hack of the Democratic National Committee, which led to huge and damaging information dumps of DNC emails leading up to the 2016 election. But besides outright hacks, the source also said he liked the fact that Confide makes it difficult to screenshot messages, because only a few words are shown at a time. That suggests that it's useful not just for reducing paper trails, but for stopping insiders from preserving individual messages -- especially given the steady flow of leaks that have come out since Trump took office. As Axios notes, official White House business is subject to preservation rules, although we don't know much about who's allegedly using Confide and what they're doing with it, so it's not clear whether this might run afoul of those laws. It's also difficult to say how much this is a specifically Republican phenomenon, and how much is a general move toward encryption.

Comments

Don't care anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

it's Republicans doing it so it's OK.

Re:Don't care anymore

[Faluzeer]

it's Republicans doing it so it's OK.

Whilst I believe you are being facetious, your post outlines the problems with partisan political supporters (of all sides), they consider something to be wrong only if it is done by those they don't support.

Re:Don't care anymore

[buss_error]

your post outlines the problems with partisan political supporters (of all sides)

I'm fairly partizan on my politics, but that doesn't stop me from chewing the arses off of my side even more than I chew tails of the other side. In fact, I'm usually much harsher on those of my side exactly because they are on my side. I expect and demand better behavior from them. I'm disappointed much of them time, but still.

Re:Don't care anymore

[coastwalker]

Whether it is right or wrong all criminal organisations adopt a policy of destroying records. That way there is no incriminating evidence left lying around. Trump certainly knows how to behave like a gangster.

Re:Don't care anymore

[TrumpShaker]

Too bad not everyone is like you.

Re:Don't care anymore

[Wootery]

It would be possible to combat this: write the article in such a way that it witholds which side is doing it, and reveal that only at the end (by which time you'll have solidly decided whether you approve or disapprove).

Re:Don't care anymore

[HornWumpus]

Right...name one?

'Liberals' are acting like brownshirt fascists sense the election. I see no criticism from their 'side', just excuse making.

Your sides willingness to accept blatant criminality from Hillary along with cover from Obama's executive branch, makes you a big fat liar. You should wait a year or so before making such outrageous claims, people's memory is bad, but not that bad.

Re:Don't care anymore

[buss_error]

Right...name one?

Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) criticizing Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.).

Or
Kerry's terrible speech were criticized by a number of Democratic lawmakers, including incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY., as well as Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Ben Cardin D-Md., Chris Coons, D-Del., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Chris Murphy, D-Conn., House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Reps. Rep. Eliot Engel, D-NY. and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.

Or
Democrats in New Jersey's Monmouth County have taken issue with a press release made by gubernatorial candidate Assemblyman John Wisniewskiâ(TM)s campaign last week.

do you need more? There are lots more.

'Liberals' are acting like brownshirt fascists sense the election. I see no criticism from their 'side', just excuse making.
I am so tired of Conservatives that do not know what a facisit is or what a communist is, or what a socialist is. Hint: Those are not words you use just because you don't like what someone has to say. Words have power. Words wound. The blatant proof if that is Edi Amin DaDa. Hitler. Stalin. Ceausescu

Your sides willingness to accept blatant criminality from Hillary along with cover from Obama's executive branch, makes you a big fat liar.
Hmm. I don't recall President Obama being investigated for any crimes. I do happen to have lost count of the more than 13 congressional investigations of Secretary and First Lady Clinton. Can't seem to recall any actual convictions, though I do recall the last Bengahzi investigation cost 12.7 million dollars. I don't remember what each of the previous other 12 investigations cost, but I'm sure it wasn't significant. I do recall that there has never, not one, been a conviction. Even in a hyper partisan Republican investigation.

You should wait a year or so before making such outrageous claims,
As my grandmother used to say, "If a shirt is dirty, it's dirty." In other words, if something isn't right, waiting a year or more to criticize it is hardly going to make it any less wrong.

people's memory is bad, but not that bad.

No, some refuse to live on planet consensus reality. For example, President Trump's repeated claims that Mr. Obama was not eligible to be president, repeated claims that his inauguration had the biggest crowds ever, and that there were more than five million fraudulent votes cast in the 2016 election.
Look, I'm happy that you are happy that you "got your guy". I get the fact that if any Democratic party member suggests even the most brilliant idea ever articulated by a human being that Republicans will instantly denounce it as a fraud, a scam, and a crime. I get that. I also get the reverse of that is true. What I'm saying is that it has come to the pass that the US can no longer afford this partisan folly. If we do not stop it, the US will not be the best place in the world to live. And President Trump is going to make that fall happen. It may not be complete, but it started two decades ago, and it's speeding up.

Time to put the adult pants on and get the foolish petty politics out.

Re:Don't care anymore

[Shane_Optima]

Whether it is right or wrong all criminal organisations adopt a policy of destroying records. That way there is no incriminating evidence left lying around. Trump certainly knows how to behave like a gangster.

Yeah, Hillary would never do anything like that.

Re:Don't care anymore

[ebvwfbw]

I'm so tired of liberals that don't know what a fascist is. They're on the left, not the right. I get a real kick out of asking a liberal if a communist likes a socialist. They have no clue and often think they're buddies. In fact, they should want to kill each other if they really know what each other is. The left side is just nuts because they've lied about it too much over the past 30 years. Lied to the point people think fascist/Nazi's are on the right. Never mind it's the Nationals SOCIALIST party. A party platform that isn't a whole lot different than the Democratic party of today.

I see you have examples, however people wouldn't realize that those are really nothing criticisms to the point you and me are probably the only ones that even know about them.

DTS, The alligators don't like it when you drain the swamp.

Re:Don't care anymore

[wallsg]

it's Republicans doing it so it's OK.

I'm running into the opposite. A liberal friend of mine is now complaining about things he defended before.

Re:Don't care anymore

[bhiestand]

DTS, The alligators don't like it when you drain the swamp.

Trump is the swamp. More importantly, Trump never liked that term. His cabinet appointments indicate his primary concern is building a wall around the swamp and filling it with sewage. If he cared about draining the swamp, he would start with his own conflicts of interest and he would stop taking money from foreign governments in violation of the emoluments clause. If the GOP cared, they would be attacking him for this instead of lying for him.

I'm so tired of liberals that don't know what a fascist is. They're on the left, not the right...Never mind it's the Nationals SOCIALIST party.

That's because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. If you were capable of thinking about politics with nuance instead of "socialist is in the name so it must be left derp derp" broad strokes, you would understand that the National Socialist party had a platform of both extreme left and right policies, but most of their leftist campaign promises were empty. Most did not actually care about helping the working man. The primary focus was on nationalism. If you care to understand the term, I suggest you start on wikipedia.

A party platform that isn't a whole lot different than the Democratic party of today.

This is one of the scariest lies in modern times. First, you are playing the "I am rubber you are glue" game, hoping to completely neutralize the term and its meaning. The party of the neo-nazis is now calling extremely moderate left-wingers nazis constantly in an effort to numb everyone to the effects of being called a nazi.

Hitler may have been a vegetarian animal rights supporter, but he did not believe in the rights of homosexuals or minorities (strong features of Democratic policies), equal rights for all, ease of voting, etc. Only one major party in the US has the support of prominent neo-Nazis and KKK leaders: Trump's GOP.

The truly sad part is that your blind partisanship is leading you to support a man who spouts a populist message to gain support, but openly wants to subvert the judiciary and media, get rid of non-white non-Christian Americans, and control the world with his tiny little hands. He is even starting out with an unstable alliance with Russia for fuck's sake.

Re:Don't care anymore

[buss_error]

They're on the left, not the right. I get a real kick out of asking a liberal if a communist likes a socialist. They have no clue and often think they're buddies.
If your point is that there are stupid or uneducated democrats, I will certainly not attempt to refute you+. If you are implying that there are no Republicans like that, I will refute you. That others fail to understand a point of political classification isn't the issue although I personally find it frustrating. The issue is failing to educate ones self after being told repeatedly "I don't think that word means what you think it means" and rejecting policy based on who articulates it, which party they belong to, and ignoring what the ultimate goal is.

In fact, they should want to kill each other if they really know what each other is.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that Republicans do not like Equal opportunity*, do not like homosexuals, do not like abortion. In fact, there have been murders of abortion clinic employees and most of the clinics resemble a prison stockade to attempt to protect their employees and clients. In fact, there have been mass murders of homosexuals solely because of their preferred sex partners. There have been riots over Equal Opportunity* and college admissions. The persons committing those crimes self identified as Republican Right. Many had KKK materiel found in their possession, and recall that President Trump accepted an endorsement of David Duke. I find it amazing the correlation that can be drawn by looking at a persons friends and their enemies. I look at Mr. Trumps friends, and I find them to be repulsive. I look a Mr. Trump's enemies, and I find I agree with much of their stated thoughts.

The left side is just nuts because they've lied about it too much over the past 30 years. Lied to the point people think fascist/Nazi's are on the right.
This is known as kitchen sinking the dead cat. It's a good rhetorical device to divert a discussion; a tactic long enshrined on both sides of the political isle and about the fourth worst intellectual dishonest circumstance in my list of dishonesty. However, while it is emotionally charged and highly provocative, there are no facts stated. So therefore cannot be refuted or corroborated. IT is factually null and void of discernible meaning. I will therefore leave this dead cat in your kitchen sink to deal with yourself.

Never mind it's the Nationals SOCIALIST party. A party platform that isn't a whole lot different than the Democratic party of today.
Well, I think one platform that the socialists had that the Democrats seem to be lacking are mass graves and concentration/reeducation centers. That seems to be the first consideration missing, and there are others. Recall that just because someone else you don't like agrees with something you say is not necessarily an indication it's a bad idea. I will grant it may cause concern and a third look, but a good idea is a good idea. Or, "even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day."

DTS, The alligators don't like it when you drain the swamp.
Draining the swamp is good. I like that. What I don't like is refilling the swamp with basilisks, dragons, and manicores. Look at cabinet appointments. Steve Bannon? Really? A known white supremacists, incredibly outspoken bigot, and proponent of a police state? And kicking the Joint Chiefs out of National Security Briefings? These ideas and positions are hardly consistent with freedom. And that's just one pick. Almost without exception, the picks Mr. Trump has proposed and the Republican Majority are tripping over themselves to approve are all political retreads from policies long ago tried and found to be failures. About the only good thing that can be said for repeating your mistakes is that you know exactly when to flinch. I find that to be a small comfort.

===
+Example of stupid Democrats: KIII TV (Corpus Christi, Tx) picture of President Obama supporters with signs quoting MLK, with "D

Re:Don't care anymore

[ebvwfbw]

Had trouble posting. Turned out to be a problem almost at the end of this response. Darn Slashdot.

If your point is that there are stupid or uneducated democrats, I will certainly not attempt to refute you+. If you are implying that there are no Republicans like that, I will refute you. That others fail to understand a point of political classification isn't the issue although I personally find it frustrating. The issue is failing to educate ones self after being told repeatedly "I don't think that word means what you think it means" and rejecting policy based on who articulates it, which party they belong to, and ignoring what the ultimate goal is.

Of course you won't refute me about democrats, that's a fools errand. Hey, too easy. Those protesting it's clear they haven't a clue. Talk to them any length of time and they realize they're an idiot and want to get out of there.

We both agree that people are just rejecting anything the other says without even a thought, if I may be as so bold to put some words in your mouth. The left murdered social discourse and discussion by calling anyone that disagreed with them a bunch of names. The Republicans just took it.

I think the confusion ... thoughts.

Lot going on here. Ever hear of a false flag? That was the KKK bullshit. The KKK is on the left and was a major tool of the Democratic party for over a hundred years. They even had a grand dragon in the Senate - Senator Byrd - not a word about that. Hillary even kissed him. Trump never accepted Duke's endorsement. For a Republican, find any tangential or even make up crap to connect them. Romney and that overturned rock, etc. So the KKK isn't on the right, it's a left thing, clearly. They keep black people as a group on the democratic plantation.

The homosexual thing - It isn't as if they hate them, they just don't want to embrace it. I think they're looking for an OK sign that they'll never get.

The abortion thing - those blowing things up are not Republicans any more than every woman is a feminist. Otherwise there would be no abortion clinics. The one thing that I really didn't like was Trumps popping off about abortion during the debate. We need that safe harbor for women. Too much misery already in the world.

The left side is just nuts because they've lied about it too much over the past 30 years. Lied to the point people think fascist/Nazi's are on the right.

This is known as kitchen sinking the dead cat. It's a good rhetorical device to divert a discussion; a tactic long enshrined on both sides of the political isle and about the fourth worst intellectual dishonest circumstance in my list of dishonesty. However, while it is emotionally charged and highly provocative, there are no facts stated. So therefore cannot be refuted or corroborated. IT is factually null and void of discernible meaning. I will therefore leave this dead cat in your kitchen sink to deal with yourself.

Ok... IMHO you wasted space here.

Well, I think one platform that the socialists had that the Democrats seem to be lacking are mass graves ... a day."

Oh boy. So in history the only thing you focused on when they talked about Nazis in even grade school was the killing of the Jews? Why do so many people seem to totally sleep through what it was all about. Free education, Free health care, dumbing down the schools, indoctrination... and so on and so on and so on? What's being taught at our schools? Indoctrination. Don't believe me? I dare you to go to any college. Protect your crotch as the female professors will probably try to cut it off of you because you're obviously a rapist, or soon will be. "diversity", feminist, classes though other classes like english, physics, etc.

DTS, The alligators don't like it when you drain the swamp.

Draining the swamp is good. I like that.

Re:Don't care anymore

[ebvwfbw]

DTS, The alligators don't like it when you drain the swamp.

Trump is the swamp. More importantly, Trump never liked that term. His cabinet appointments indicate his primary concern is building a wall around the swamp and filling it with sewage. If he cared about draining the swamp, he would start with his own conflicts of interest and he would stop taking money from foreign governments in violation of the emoluments clause. If the GOP cared, they would be attacking him for this instead of lying for him.

So you have shown me very clearly that you have no clue what you're talking about. He can't be the swamp because he was never in Washington nor Government. He is one of us, the people. The governed. The conflict of interest is just more mud slinging. There is none, he handed them all off. The lawyers are all satisfied, at least Obama's were when this came up at Justice. It's fake news. Sorry you were mislead.

I'm so tired of liberals that don't know what a fascist is. They're on the left, not the right...Never mind it's the Nationals SOCIALIST party.

That's because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. If you were capable of thinking about politics with nuance instead of "socialist is in the name so it must be left derp derp" broad strokes, you would understand that the National Socialist party had a platform of both extreme left and right policies, but most of their leftist campaign promises were empty. Most did not actually care about helping the working man. The primary focus was on nationalism. If you care to understand the term, I suggest you start on wikipedia.

Did you bother to take a look at your own reference? If you did you'd realize I know exactly - "what the fuck" I'm talking about.

A party platform that isn't a whole lot different than the Democratic party of today.

This is one of the scariest lies in modern times. First, you are playing the "I am rubber you are glue" game, hoping to completely neutralize the term and its meaning. The party of the neo-nazis is now calling extremely moderate left-wingers nazis constantly in an effort to numb everyone to the effects of being called a nazi.

Hitler may have been a vegetarian animal rights supporter, but he did not believe in the rights of homosexuals or minorities (strong features of Democratic policies), equal rights for all, ease of voting, etc. Only one major party in the US has the support of prominent neo-Nazis and KKK leaders: Trump's GOP.

The truly sad part is that your blind partisanship is leading you to support a man who spouts a populist message to gain support, but openly wants to subvert the judiciary and media, get rid of non-white non-Christian Americans, and control the world with his tiny little hands. He is even starting out with an unstable alliance with Russia for fuck's sake.

I don't have enough time to clear up all your problems. You're missing a few volumes of information. Let's start with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That's their platform. Bet you've never read it before. Start at number 9. The first 8 was feel good BS because of them getting their ass kicked in the first world war - to oversimplify things.
Look familiar? Translate into American - class warfare, free education, free health care, corporations are evil, no religion, the central government handles everything (no state rights)... you know, the democratic party mantra.

I can't get over how many people when you mention it's almost a duplication of the Nazi party's platform they think about killing people. They seem to totally overlook everything else though I'm sure the teachers s

Isn't this illegal?

[rsilvergun]

Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems? Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?

Welp, they're in charge so I guess they get to make the rules, but did they even bother to change the laws first?

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[quantaman]

Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems? Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?

Welp, they're in charge so I guess they get to make the rules, but did they even bother to change the laws first?

Trump and the GOP are hypocrites?

That's unpossible!

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Carewolf]

Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems? Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?

Welp, they're in charge so I guess they get to make the rules, but did they even bother to change the laws first?

Yes, it is. And what Hillary was accused of by the Republicans.

But.. Hillary's emails.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Gr8Apes]

Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems? Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?

Welp, they're in charge so I guess they get to make the rules, but did they even bother to change the laws first?

Trump and the GOP are hypocrites?

That's unpossible!

Inconceivable!

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[kiviQr]

Business as usual it is OK if we do it....

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[desdinova 216]

you keep using that word...

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[interkin3tic]

The summary points out we don't know who is communicating with who using this. So the system might be working as intended.

Also probably one of those "It's not illegal when the president does it," type things, especially when his party is in power, is spineless, and his voters really wouldn't mind if he murdered someone on national TV.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

People might care if the media didn't complain about Trump 24/7. The important stuff gets buried under "Trump cares about Apprentice ratings" and "Trump doesn't like SNL".

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems?

Yes, if it is Government business. If is GOP/politcal party business, then no.

Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?

Yes, because she did Government communications over non-Governmental systems.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[DogDude]

That was a long time ago. Nobody remember back that far.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[AHuxley]

No gov every wants to be caught out like Iran Contra .
The idea that delete all does not get to all the magnetic backup tapes and the FBI still gets some data was well understood over the decades.
So political parties use methods like a political back channel. Or some internal political party work is not the really the US gov legal effort.
The other effort is to say the Freedom of Information Act is limited and what was the emerging National Archive and Records Administration can only look at a real gov agency.

Other fun methods are often seen in use by US gov workers. Congress wants oversight and a gov agency that congress has oversight over removes all staff names in pages of paperwork for "privacy" reasons.
Congress than has to go back and demand the full documents so they can investigate things like funds been wasted, misconduct and security lapses, the further promotion of staff that expected their repeated violation of rules to stay hidden..
So both US gov internal legal teams and political parties try to avoid any and all record keeping. Redaction later don't hold. If crimes are been committed by gov staff, mil contractors, political parties, privacy or national security won't help hide crimes.
Redacting paperwork for "privacy" to block further investigation and then having the effort exposed by Congress and having to give the full documents shows the quality of legal advice at many lower levels of the US gov...

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The original tweet was on his own account, but then Trump retweeted it using the @POTUS account.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[oobayly]

The @POTUS account retweeted his Nordstrom tweet, so yes. Plus Kellanne Conway was busy telling people to "Go buy Ivanka's stuff."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/0...

http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was right before she passed out from being a weakly fail leader, and just after she snuck into Bengazi, rallied juhadis against America and broke the necks and drank the blood of heroicsly American private security contractors while destroying the video tapes proving trump was always, ALWAYS against the war. Because raisins.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Daemonik]

They are! They've been conducting government business over a private RNC mail server.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they are. Records must be kept for presidential libraries.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[Opportunist]

Oh for fuck's sake! No, she's not, Satan has WAY more fashion sense!

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[Opportunist]

No, they're probably exchanging cookie recipes...

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[ShanghaiBill]

Actually they are. Records must be kept for presidential libraries.

Baloney. The Presidential Libraries acts of 1978 and 1986 allow government records to be transferred to Presidential Libraries, but they do not require presidential communications to use only government channels, or even to be recorded at all. That would require a constitutional amendment.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Required Snark]

You unwittingly gave him a new goal. The next time you think of something like this, please don't post it online.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[mrchaotica]

On a related note, the White House FOIA page is currently unavailable. So much for requesting transcripts of all Trump Administration business done over Confide (just for shits and giggles since there's no chance they'd, you know, comply with the law or anything).

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[mrchaotica]

Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?

Hillary lost for several reasons (such as support for the TPP at the expense of the middle class), not just the emails. The DNC screwed themselves by picking her as the candidate; Bernie would have won.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[MightyMartian]

I think we live in an age where those breaking the rules no longer even pretend that they should. I was reading a Conservative Catholic forum a few minutes ago where they're demanding the Ninth Circuit Court justices be impeached for the audacity of challenging edicts from on high. I'm beginning to see the kinds of people that empowered the Bolsheviks, Brown Shirts, Khmer Rouge and all the other dictatorships out there, people who believe any challenge to the leader's authority is effectively a high crime.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[TheGratefulNet]

hey republicans: if you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide??

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[MightyMartian]

When was Hillary Clinton POTUS so she could do these terrible things from her high position of power that you speak of.

Seriously, you're left defending Trump by creating an imaginary Hillary Clinton presidency to point to. But it doesn't work like that. Trump claimed to be draining the swamp, but I guess what he really meant is that he was going to make a new swamp, twice is smelly and with him right at the moment.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[msauve]

Citation needed.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[MightyMartian]

Well, McCain, at the sunset of his political career, clearly is in a "I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks" kind of mood, and while McConnell remains somewhat deferential, he doesn't seem at all thrilled with the Administration either. Mind you, that really was the intent of the Senate, that Senators' longer terms and one-third per election was meant as a partial insulator of the sort of electoral winds that preoccupy the House and the White House.

Still, you're right. The GOP leadership have become a sort of modern group of von Papens, staring on impotently in disbelief as the new leader shocks and awes everyone. The chief difference is of course the historical leader I speak of actually seemed to have some notion of what he's doing, whereas Trump literally does seem to be stumbling around blindly. That shocks me because we've all been told countless times what brilliant people the likes of Bannon and Conway are, and yet, as so often is revealed, those that are skillful at achieving power are often astonishingly bad at its application.

My prediction is that Conway, Bannon and Spicer are not long for this world. Not only are there rumors floating around that the Kushners are in a tug of war with Bannon, but even without that, Bannon's use of his newfound influence to push through Executive Orders is making Trump look foolish and unprepared, and as we know, nothing is ever Donald Trump's fault, so we know when Trump looks foolish, he looks for fall guys. Just look at Paul Manafort's take.

If I believed Trump wasn't an idiot, I'd almost wonder if letting Bannon and Conway fuck up so badly was part of a plan that would end in a Trumpesque version of the Night of the Long Knives.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[msauve]

"But.. Hillary's emails."

HRC didn't get in trouble for using a private email system. She got in trouble for letting classified information leak onto it, being disingenuous about it, and deleting information which was under subpoena.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Cmdln Daco]

Gore Vidal used to tell a joke about the Reagan Library:
That it had burned down, and the real tragedy was that Ronald hadn't completed coloring the second of the two books in it.

I'm pretty sure that the Presidential Libraries are set up and somewhat controlled by the ex-president. The Clinton Foundation started out as an adjunct of the Clinton Presidential Library. Naturally, Willie figured out a way to milk it.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[Cmdln Daco]

In a bunch of Hillary supporters' wet underpants. (before they woke up)

(we should set up a 'Burma Shave' type meme, except the last sign reads: 'President Trump!' )

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[Cmdln Daco]

It's a good thing the US Government is keeping up their subscription payment for the @POTUS twitter account, the same as the rest of us do for our twitter accounts.

Otherwise the guy in this story would probably be sweating bullets over twitter not being the smashingly successful profitable company that it is.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[currently_awake]

In the private language of Big Business Moguls, "The Swamp" is their name for government interference in their ability to make money.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Xabraxas]

I'm not sure why you think that would require a constitutional amendment.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[I'm New Around Here]

The glass ceiling fell on her?

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[I'm New Around Here]

Nordstrom has one you can buy for two-fifty. It's true, I saw it on snopes.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[Xabraxas]

One is a non-profit helping people around the world. The other is a for profit helping the President's daughter. How are you blind to this difference?

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[Xabraxas]

At least Satan would more competent than the fool currently occupying the White House.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this? ... but did they even bother to change the laws first?

Ironically, yes. It was technically legal to host a private email server when Hillary did it (maybe violating rules that Obama put in place, maybe violating laws regarding classified information). It was made illegal after her, so they did bother to change the laws...

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[NatasRevol]

It's at least unpresidented.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[PopeRatzo]

Baloney. The Presidential Libraries acts of 1978 and 1986 allow government records to be transferred to Presidential Libraries, but they do not require presidential communications to use only government channels, or even to be recorded at all.

Bill, that's just not true.

"The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. 2201–2207, is an Act of Congress of the United States governing the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents created or received after January 20, 1981, and mandating the preservation of all presidential records. The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records."

Further, courts since Nixon have upheld this provision of the law. Presidential records must be preserved. As Sean Spicer would say, "period".

Now, presidents have issued executive orders attempting to countermand this provision (Reagan, Bush I and Bush II), in an effort to circumvent it and to keep their evil-doing secret for as long as possible, but as recently as 2007, the courts have said, "Nah, fuck that". If you want to keep something from the public, you better classify it. That's how we got to the point where so much of what our government says and does is classified. The recent discussion of Trump's horribly botched raid in Yemen is an example of this. We know the target was missed, we know 30 civilians died (including an 8 year-old girl), we know that a Special Services soldier died and an aircraft was lost, but when asked why the administration was calling the raid a great success, the answer was, "It's classified".

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[mujadaddy]

He already claimed that; something something, broad daylight in Times Square, something second amendment something.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dszd0g]

She didn't delete any e-mails. That's a Trump alternative fact. I already posted once in this thread about it:

https://slashdot.org/comments....

There is zero evidence that Hillary broke any laws. None of the "classified information" in the e-mails was marked "classified" which is the big difference between those that are prosecuted and those that aren't. For unmarked information, you would have to prove that she was intentionally trying to leak classified information for it to be criminal. Should she have been more careful? Yes. Did she break the law? No.

Kellyanne Conway on the other hand broke the law on national television. President Pedophile is defending her for it. You don't see Republicans making a big deal about her breaking the law or any of the laws that President Pedophile has broken and been sued for. The media barely covered that he settled the fraud case against him. The media barely covered that he regularly hits on 10-13 year old girls and even discussed wanting to sleep with teenage girls on the Howard Stern show or that he liked to walk in on teenage girls changing and bragged about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

I have very little respect for people who vote for a pedophile for president.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

These are records that have been created, the fact that they're subsequently illegally destroying them does not make the records any less created. If they don't want to created public records, then they shouldn't create public records.

Deleting things after the fact is what got Nixon run out of office. Considering the shady shenanigans that we've seen out of the GOP the last few years, I can only imagine how bad the stuff is that they don't want the public to see. Stealing a SCOTUS nomination was pretty low.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[ian_billyboy_morris]

I don't think he was suggesting it was official Church policy was he?

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dbIII]

As an aside North and Poindexter spending DAYS deleting emails one by one (yes there was a quicker way but they did not ask or look up the manual) would have worked with the normal backup cycle but the deletion was noticed and some tapes were put aside just in case. It took quite a few months between the deletion and the legal request for the tapes.
So there you go people - IT folks can make a difference to expose things like North giving classified anti-tank missiles to Hezbolla less than a year after Hezbolla killed over a hundred US Marines. That, and many other things, was in the email exchanges between North and Poindexter. I wonder if either of those two have ever dared go near Israel since? It really shows the discipline of Marines that both North and Poindexter are still alive.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dbIII]

Bernie was an outsider not a lifelong member of the party. The Democrats (the party not the people who vote democrat - annoying how I have to spell everything out) would see any win by him as a loss.
This is not a dig at the above poster (it probably doesn't apply to them), but typically Americans are so politically naive that they even think "Atlas Shrugged" is some brilliant thing instead of a pathetic call for the implementation of Russian feudalism in a place that already has something hundreds of times better. Parties are about factions and not ideals. The people running the Democratic party didn't give a shit about what Bernie's policies were and whether he would win or not, what mattered is that he wasn't already in the club.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[Hognoxious]

When was Hillary Clinton POTUS so she could do these terrible things from her high position of power that you speak of.

She doesn't need to be POTUS to do those things because she's a whooosh. I mean witch.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Hognoxious]

Is that one of Trump's ex wives?

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Errr the record is created by this app, that the app then deletes/destroys it is the problem.

You can't burn a letter then say 'The fire destroyed it not me'.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dszd0g]

Again, you and the article make it sound like something was actually deleted. First of all, even in the article it says the tech wasn't asked to delete anything by Clinton, so even if he did it wouldn't be her crime. That said, from the actual FBI report it doesn't sound like he did anything wrong. The report just documents every time e-mail was deleted in the audit logs including temporary and duplicate copies of data.

The quotes in the article are reworded and rearranged from the actual FBI report. I don't know why they don't match exactly. It is also combining different parts of the report to create a different impression. The actual text referenced about the archive deletion is on page 25 of part 3 of the FBI report and other parts of the quotes are from page 103. The actual FBI report just says "However, [] believed he had an "oh shit" moment and removed the HRC Archive mailbox. He also changed the mailbox retention policy from 30 days to 1 day, and cleaned the mailbox database because MILLS previously requested in late 2014 or early 2015 he change the retention policy for CLINTON and ABEDIN's existing and outgoing email to 60 days. He removed the HRC Archive mailbox manually because all content in the mailbox was older than 60 days." Although if you read the surrounding text you learn that the HRC Archive mailbox was a duplicate copy of old e-mails and they were retained elsewhere. I really don't have an explanation what the tech was doing other than trying to make it seem like the server was configured the way it had supposed to be (maybe to cover himself not having configured it the way he had been asked?). He didn't actually destroy anything that wasn't available elsewhere from what I can tell. The FBI report says the duplicate archive was deleted between March 25, 2015 and March 31, 2015 and the preservation order from the FBI was July 31, 2015 so it occurred before the FBI order. I don't see reference to the House Benghazi Committee preservation order in that section of the FBI report. Even if it was under the House Committee retention, it doesn't look malicious. The FBI report notes quite a number of temporary e-mail files that were deleted and that during a retention order even temporary files should be preserved, but that no data was actually lost when the temporary files were deleted. This indicates more of ignorance on the part of the tech than criminal activity.

In part 4 of the report page 4, it seems like the conclusion reached was that Bleachbit was used to destroy temporary "vehicle" .pst files, "but the e-mail content still existed."

As far as breaking the law, if you read up on 18USC1924 "Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material" you will find that even though the way the law is written for a layman doesn't sound like intent matters (although the word intent is used), existing case law like the supreme court case Gorin v. United States have established that intent is required to prosecute. The supreme court ruled that “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States” is required. Negligent handling of classified information is generally prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act and Clinton was not in the military.

https://warontherocks.com/2016...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04...

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dwillden]

It depends, is it actually the administration? or is it the RNC or Trump Campaign? Both are private organizations not required to retain/release such info, and legally required to not use government IT resources. If the Administration then yes and as a staunch Republican I'll readily agree that this is a problem that needs to be fixed to bring them in compliance. But if the RNC, or Trump Campaign then no it's not a concern, they are free to secure and destroy their communications.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[dwillden]

And Presidents don't plan raids and other tactical operations. At most they get advised that a raid is planned and ready to be executed on their approval, but the planning is all much lower. Any failures in the planning are at the tactical unit level and maybe as high as JSOC but not above that.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dszd0g]

Also for the House Benghazi Committee preservation order to apply instead of the FBI preservation order, I believe that .pst file would have had to contain Benghazi e-mails and there is no indication that it did. The CNN article you linked makes that assumption, but I don't know what evidence they base that on.

For example, this article states that the preservation order was only for Benghazi e-mails:

http://www.washingtonexaminer....

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it!!

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[squiggleslash]

I'm sure a self-proclaimed socialist would have won an election where almost every voter had been told, taught, and lectured upon, for more than a century that socialism was a dirty word... (and don't forget, yeah, she was obviously the DNC's choice, but ordinary Democrats generally preferred her. If you can't get the left of American center voters to support a so-called socialist

I think it's reasonable to suggest the emails were a tipping point. She was 6-10 points ahead of Trump in the polls just before Comey made his infamous intervention in the election.

But so were a lot of other tipping points. The emails were a part of a ridiculous 25 year smear campaign against the Clintons, and other smears, from the constant accusations of murder to the Benghazi nonsense, and factor in context-free dump of Podesta emails and you had a lot of things that, had any one of them not happened, might have lead to a slim Clinton victory.

Bernie may not have had that baggage, but I really don't think your racist uncle was going to vote for him.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dwillden]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 (paragraphs e and f) Marked or unmarked is irrelevant. As is intent. She signed a SF 312 Non-Disclosure agreement that outlined quite clearly her obligation to protect the classified information she was entrusted with due to her position. Your claims of alternate facts are the only thing Alternate. Everyone granted a security clearance signs the same NDR form and faces the same penalties for failure to comply. And as per 18 793 (f) intent does not matter, negligence is still a crime.

Others have addressed your falsehoods about deleting the emails.

Now that we have a new AG, I expect charges to come soon. Though the super citizen protections she seems to enjoy might still prevent them.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dszd0g]

They didn't keep finding more missing e-mails. They took a long time to go through the e-mails they already had. They kept finding e-mails in what they already had that were relevant to the investigation. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

When they got a hold of the Wiener/Abedin e-mails the reason they were able to go through them so quickly is that they already had all the Clinton e-mails, they just had to go through the ones that were about Clinton that weren't addressed to her.

As I stated, she deleted her personal e-mails before handing them over to the FBI. They said that wasn't sufficient so she handed over a copy with all the current data (both personal and business) along with physical and cloud backups. There were numerous news articles about "14,900" or "15,000" missing e-mails that the "FBI found" when Clinton handed over the full copy of personal and business data, but it turned out only a dozen of those e-mails were actually business, the rest were personal. The FBI didn't really "find" them when they were handed to them and they weren't really "missing" when personal e-mails were intentionally left out of the initial copy sent to the FBI.

The whole issue with "deleted" e-mails was based on the news media not understanding the concept of data being stored in multiple locations and misunderstanding the FBI report investigation into the deletion of every temporary file in the audit logs. It's pretty clear some of the right wing media was trying to be deliberately misleading and some mainstream media fed into it too probably for the clicks.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dszd0g]

Boy do you have your facts mixed up.

Bleachbit according to the FBI report was used to delete temporary .pst files that were used as "vehicles" to move files between mail servers and the administrative server and also to delete a duplicate copy of an old e-mail archive. It was also used to delete one copy of the data sent to a law office after the e-mails had been sorted.

The post on Reddit wasn't about purging correspondence it was about how to search and replace Clinton's e-mail address with a placeholder so that her e-mail address wouldn't become public record. The IT company (PRN?) apparently didn't trust the FBI redaction not to miss one. It wasn't anything malicious like the news articles implied.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[PopeRatzo]

Just stop the crap over President Trump's "botched" raid in Yemen. Please tell me that you are smart enough to realize that raid was planned during Obama's tenure, not Trump's. Yes he approved it but the military started planning under Obama.

It is being reported that the way the military sold Trump on doing this botched raid is by saying "Obama wouldn't do it". So, it was a matter of Cheeto Benito wanting to look tough in his first days in office and ended up getting people killed.

If it had happened under Obama, the House would be holding Benghazi-style hearings.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dszd0g]

I didn't have any falsehoods about deleting e-mails. It's all based on the media intentionally or misunderstanding IT. The FBI report is pretty clear that they had access to all e-mails. The deletions were temporary and duplicate copies. I go into detail in some of my other posts.

Clinton may have violated her non-disclosure agreement, but the worst penalty in the NDA she signed was that she could be to be terminated from the job or losing access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI); neither of which she had anyways by the time the FBI investigated.

As I stated in another post, intent does matter for 18 793 (f) according to the supreme court in Gorin v. United States. You can't just read a law as a layman and interpret it. You have to look at precedent too. The supreme court ruled that prosecution requires "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." Comey was correct that she could not be prosecuted because there was no intent.

https://supreme.justia.com/cas...

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[GLMDesigns]

Stealing? Really. Both sides are playing tit-for-tat now.

Remember Bork? Thomas?

How about Harry Reid and the filibuster for the lower courts.(That's cheating.)

This, right or wrong, good or bad, is the way the game is being played now. Stop pretending that this is a stolen nomination.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Cro Magnon]

... but she was a fundamentally unelectable candidate, and everyone knew it.

Considering the fact that she won more than 50% of the vote, I think it's a stretch to call her "unelectable." She just had the wrong 50%.

Hilary was definitely unelectable. But, since Trump was also unelectable, it was the classic unstoppable force vs immovable object. Someone had to get in.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Xyrus]

You're just noticing this now? The neo-fascist movement has been gaining ground for at least the past decade, with countries like Russia helping it along in an effort to destabilize western democracies. Over the past few years it's gotten really bad as FUD has pushed populism to new heights. And now, we get a front row seat.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[thomn8r]

Cheeto Benito

I'm stealing that.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[T.E.D.]

That shocks me because we've all been told countless times what brilliant people the likes of Bannon and Conway are, and yet,

Few things are more of a dead giveaway to a problem than someone repeating an argument they weren't even really being challenged on.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure why you think that would require a constitutional amendment.

Probably because he believes that the Office of the President has freedom of speech protected by the first amendment and freedom from self-incrimination protected by the 5th amendment. While the person of the President certainly enjoys those freedoms, the Office of the President is a completely different thing, and many people have difficulty distinguishing between the Office and the person.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Dishevel]

They are.
Do we have any evidence that they are conducting official government business with this app?

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[MightyMartian]

http://forums.catholic.com/ and in particular http://forums.catholic.com/for...

The Church's official, or at least semi-official position on refugees, is not one universally shared by the membership. Conservative Catholics are starting to look a lot like they're Evangelical counterparts.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[EndlessNameless]

Yes it is. The law requires records to be be preserved. They do not require records to be created.

This is incorrect.

Whether a particular document or message is a record is determined by its content and purpose.

Records are like copyright---it's born that way. A document or message is a record regardless of whether anyone has officially identified and cataloged it.

Creating a record on a volatile medium such as Confide is almost certainly illegal.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[TharMonk]

My personal favorite that I heard was "Creamsicle Hitler".

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Just amazing the reach of Putin. First, he manages to get the DNC & Hillary Clinton to write thousands of self-incriminating (and on Hillary's side, remarkably foul-mouthed - or is it foul-keyboarded?) emails. Then he suborns the DNC to steal the nomination from Sanders and give it to Clinton, to give Trump an easier opponent. Next he induces a DNC staffer named Seth Rich to steal the compromising emails and give them to Wikileaks, which dutifully publishes them, showing the DNC to be corrupt and Hillary to be venal. Then he manages to get Rich to set himself up for a mugging in which he is shot twice in the head but nothing is stolen. Then he manipulates the Director of the FBI to announce just before the election that many, many thousands of emails potentially involving Hillary have been found and need to be examined. And finally, he finesses the US intelligence community into believing he hacked those DNC computers to influence the election, thereby concealing - and taking off the discussion table - any examination of the DNC's & Hillary's wrongdoing.

I heard that they found the cell-phone-smashing sledge hammer in Putin's basement!

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Grishnakh]

And this shows why the Republican party is superior: Trump wasn't a GOP insider either, and yet he was able to clinch their nomination, even though the party really didn't want him. The GOP is obviously an inherently more democratic institution than the DNC.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Grishnakh]

I'm sure a self-proclaimed socialist would have won an election where almost every voter had been told, taught, and lectured upon, for more than a century that socialism was a dirty word... (and don't forget, yeah, she was obviously the DNC's choice, but ordinary Democrats generally preferred her. If you can't get the left of American center voters to support a so-called socialist

Here's another great example of a Democrat voter who refuses to believe the obvious. Hillary was unelectable; she was the least popular candidate in history (since they started tracking that). Proof: she LOST. Trump was the 2nd most unpopular candidate in history. Bernie was filling arenas with rabid fans. And yet somehow you think Bernie wouldn't have had a chance, and that we should have stuck with Hillary? I can't say for sure that Bernie would have won (we'd need a time machine for that experiment), but given the polling numbers, Bernie would have easily won: he polled higher than either Hillary or Trump when the general population was polled instead of just looking at the party faithful.

For some odd reason, the Democrat party faithful always forget about this part: all they care about is the Democratic Party and the votes of people within that party.

The emails were a part of a ridiculous 25 year smear campaign against the Clintons

Whine whine whine. So you want to stick with a losing candidate and then push conspiracy theories when she loses, instead of backing a candidate that doesn't have 25 years of baggage and a terrible reputation?

It's no wonder the Democrats lost so badly and now we have a con-man as President and a bunch of agency heads who want to dismantle their agencies. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

Bernie may not have had that baggage, but I really don't think your racist uncle was going to vote for him.

The racist uncle wasn't going to vote for Hillary either; racists always vote GOP. People allergic to "socialism" always vote GOP too. No one would have been swayed to vote for Trump over Bernie; instead, likely millions of people would have bothered showing up to vote for him instead of sitting at home like they did. But here again, Democrat party faithful like you, just like religious zealots, absolutely refuse to believe that millions fewer voters showed up in 2016 than in Obama's election in 2008.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[RespekMyAthorati]

As I stated in another post, intent does matter for 18 793 (f) according to the supreme court in Gorin v. United States.

If you read your own reference, you would see that the supreme court upheld the convictions
of Gorin and Salich, and rejected their claims that a lack of intent was a mitigating factor.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[RespekMyAthorati]

rump wasn't a GOP insider either, and yet he was able to clinch their nomination, even though the party really didn't want him. The GOP is obviously an inherently more stupid institution than the DNC..

FTFY.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[RespekMyAthorati]

In the end, Clinton won only the true-blue states and nothing else (except Nevada, but that hardly counts).
Do you really think Bernie wouldn't have taken them as well?
So, at worst, Bernie would have done as well as Clinton.

On the other hand, he would have had a very good chance of taking a rust-belt state like Michigan or Illinois,
and that would have been enough to win.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Grishnakh]

That's hard to say. On one hand, yes, they are smarter (but in an evil way) about keeping outsiders out of their corrupt party. On the other hand, they're stupider because it was plainly obvious that Hillary was horribly unpopular and in serious danger of losing to Trump, which she did, and the whole way her campaign was conducted revealed deep, deep stupidity and tone-deafness about what the voters want and how to get voters to show up to vote (remember, the Dems court the under-30 vote, and that crowd is notorious for not showing up to vote if they're not enthusiastic about someone).

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[mrchaotica]

Bernie was an outsider not a lifelong member of the party.

Who gives a shit?

The Democrats (the party not the people who vote democrat - annoying how I have to spell everything out) would see any win by him as a loss.

More of a loss than electing FUCKING TRUMP?

Let me spell this out very clearly, since Democratic partisans are apparently utter morons: even though Sanders wasn't a loyal apparatchik of the DNC political machine, they would have still been a fuck-ton better off having Sanders sit there vetoing all the alt-right bullshit the Republican-supermajority Congress will be shoving through for the next four years, instead of having Trump sit there signing it into goddamn motherfucking LAW!

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dszd0g]

The supreme court did uphold the conviction as they found they had acted in bad faith and for the advantage of a foreign government. The supreme court established the guidelines on what was required and said that in the Gorin case those requirements were met.

Gorin claimed "the innocuous character of the evidence forbade a conclusion that petitioners had intent or reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation." The supreme court found that the "reports, in short, are a part of this nation's plan for armed defense." The supreme court ruled that they weren't innocuous and could be used to the advantage of the foreign nation (Russia) to which they were provided. Therefore, the second part of the condition I quoted above held and the intent argument was invalid.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[mrchaotica]

ordinary Democrats generally preferred her. If you can't get the left of American center voters to support a so-called socialist

That is an idiotic argument, and here's why: there is almost certainly not a single, solitary "ordinary Democrat" who would have voted for Trump over Sanders. On the other hand, there were many people for whom Clinton's out-of-touch elitist platform (e.g. support for the TPP) made her unacceptable. This includes, crucially, historically-Democratic union workers in exactly the few Midwestern states that handed Trump the victory. Sanders would have swung those people easily.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[Shane_Optima]

I don't know, "Mango Mussolini" is kinda catchy.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dbIII]

they would have still been a fuck-ton better off having Sanders sit there

Logically yes, but in terms of their political ambitions also very naive. They (as in party officials) are happier to have a Republican (or a Republican in name only) to blame than to have someone like Sanders that they neither control nor can blame.
What's best for the country comes a long way down the list.

So more like utter bastards than utter morons.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[ebvwfbw]

It's an application that runs on the government issued cell phone.

Hillary got into trouble for running her own mail server and conducting state department business on it. She violated the espionage act. Plain talk - she's a traitor and should be taken out and shot or put in Leavenworth for the rest of her short life. They make all this clear when you join an agency. Every one I've worked for in over 30 years, they take a lot of time to make sure you know.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[bhiestand]

And Presidents don't plan raids and other tactical operations. At most they get advised that a raid is planned and ready to be executed on their approval, but the planning is all much lower. Any failures in the planning are at the tactical unit level and maybe as high as JSOC but not above that.

Unfortunately (and sometimes fortunately), presidents do sometimes get involved at the tactical level.

Moreover, I agree with AC's "the buck stops over there" comment. Let's be honest, if Hillary was president during this raid the GOP would be holding hearings and accusing her of intentionally killing SEALs.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Kelsen]

Remember Bork? Thomas?

I remember them. They got confirmation hearings.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.

Re: Isn't this illegal?

[DeVilla]

All this "Cheeto" name calling is childish, worn out and frankly just lame. But I think I could get behind "Mango Mussolini", at least for a while.

I wonder

[TFlan91]

I wonder if they still want that backdoor to that encryption sitting there for someone to stumble on...

Re:I wonder

[AHuxley]

How well did the NSA staff educate staff in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK or even the now trusted EU teams about state of US crypto?
Would Germany have the ability given its funding changes?
"Germany to pour cash into mass surveillance" (08.09.2016)
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-t...
"particularly decrypting what the report calls "non-standardized telecommunications,""

Other nations still hire their crypto experts on merit so the institutional expertise in say Australia, the GCHQ is still good enough to work on what their national interests. Their staff will be directed to protect their nations mil projects, US mil exports, trade deals. 1950's thinking on working with the NSA will face reevaluation due to the national interest.
The EU and German staff are the real issue for US gov/party security. They have seen the insides of too many US brands and got generations of US experts to help them with any US device/service in use in Germany/EU/UK.
Could Western embassies in the USA be used as spy hubs to collect on the US as other nations experts alter decades of understandings and treaties with the NSA?
Who can the US trust to report any EU or 5 eye nations raw product collected direct from the US? Can the FBI, CIA, mil and NSA counter the EU and other friendly nations doing collect it all on US political and gov leaders?
The easy way to find out is to do a reverse look up of the collection product from the EU, Australia, NZ, the UK and see if they have collected from the same brands/crypto in the wild without NSA help. If found, many other nations have that skill they are collecting everything in the USA.

How good are all US gov/mil workers at stopping older generations of upgraded Tailored Access Operations (TAO) efforts on their own US networks from unexpected 5 eye nations hidden servers?
How many UK teams got placed in the USA in the 1950-90's? How many US gov/mil/political workers are still happy to work for the UK years later and what trusted US gov/mil position did they advance to years later?

Just not lie scheme and cheat ?

[Archfeld]

If you just can't be upright and legal and not message stuff you can't talk about or don't want to admit in public it seems like a 'decent' solution.
God forbid they just say what they mean and stand behind it like regular human beings.

Re:Just not lie scheme and cheat ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's excellent reasoning when applied to government though. They work for us, and virtually everything they do ought to be open to scrutiny with the exception of genuine national security reasons.

And no, national security shouldn't apply arbitrarily based upon what the government thinks is going to embarrass them, they should have to go to court and get a judge to sign off on the records needing to be protected.

Re:Just not lie scheme and cheat ?

[Archfeld]

No I was actually thinking it was decent solution to the problem of having everything you ever said even in jest held against you. I personally think that you have a right to an opinion, and the right to express it unless you are speaking for your employer or as a representative of someone else, say like a politician, then you should be held accountable. I am a firm believer in the right to privacy and the right to anonymous publication.
I have been accused of being not PC before but really don't give a rats ass what most people think of me beyond my immediate family and loved ones. You've a right to express your opinion, even if it just reinforces the idea that you are a moron.

Just use a Samsung Note 7

[ClickOnThis]

"This phone will self-destruct in 5 seconds. Good luck, Kellyanne."

Re:Just use a Samsung Note 7

[Tablizer]

Explains T's orange hair

Re:Just use a Samsung Note 7

[ClickOnThis]

Not to mention that Kellyanne's mission is ... impossible. [*badum-tish*]

Fry meme:

[subk]

Not sure if I should be proud of them for learning cracker rule #1 (cover your tracks).. Or if I should be scared because they learned rule #1.

Re:Fry meme:

[Opportunist]

They learned nothing, that's #1 in any crook's book.

So yes, I believe when Nixon says "I'm not a crook". Because he failed badly at this.

Re:Encryption is bad!!!!

[Daemonik]

Exactly. Trump raked Apple over the coals for their stance on encryption after all.

The app's name is ...

[CaptainDork]

... "Donald Trump." However, the guy's a pisser, so he leaks.

Hypocrites, criminals, and nihilists, oh no!

[xeno]

Hypocrites, criminals, and nihilists, oh noes! This is precisely what the electorate wanted, what they voted for, and now someone (anyone?) is surprised by it?

Hillary should be thrown in jail for the email server and Benghazi... but Trump's illegal hidden email and messaging servers? It's ok because yuge hackers and fake news.
Trump wiping his ass with the constitution as Bannon hands it to him sheet by sheet? No problem because Muslims and walls and Messicans! And a million uppity fat women in pussy hats!
Take a sledgehammer to American healthcare because they hate the black guy? No problem, because God helps the sick, and you know, Jesus loves tax cuts.

I weep for the nation. This is the childish petulant sonofabitch we deserve.

Re:Hypocrites, criminals, and nihilists, oh no!

[WheezyJoe]

Don't worry, Putin is way ahead of you.

Remember, he's former KGB. You know he's assembling gigabytes of blackmail for Trump and everybody close to him (looking at YOU, Kellyanne). We're talking murdered whore with Trump Jr.'s DNA all over her. Let me annex everything from Estonia to Greece, little Donald, and Uncle Putey will make this all go away.

Re:Hypocrites, criminals, and nihilists, oh no!

[tsotha]

Most of what you've written is nonsense, but it's true we could have done better than Trump.

Maybe the Democrats should have put up a candidate that was better than Trump.

Re:Hypocrites, criminals, and nihilists, oh no!

[Required Snark]

Wish I could mod you up. The truth remains even in the face of Trump and his delusional followers.

Re:Hypocrites, criminals, and nihilists, oh no!

[MightyMartian]

That's not a definition of a nihilist. A nihilist rejects the notion of morality as a binding social force entirely, or at least a social force that applies to them. I, for instance, don't believe in some absolute set of moral values. History itself pretty much falsifies that claim. But I do believe humans need rules, and that rules that attempt to guarantee as much liberty as possible while still allowing a functional social contract are preferable to the alternatives.

As to many Conservatives, well they, like many Progressives, will certainly invoke the sacred truths necessary to get their base to vote for them, but that's marketing, not ideology.

Re:Hypocrites, criminals, and nihilists, oh no!

[currently_awake]

No way would Putin want to annex Greece. I don't think Russia has enough money to fix their problems.

Re:Hypocrites, criminals, and nihilists, oh no!

[tsotha]

I don't care what the vote totals were. She wasn't a better candidate.

Re:Hypocrites, criminals, and nihilists, oh no!

[tsotha]

Of course it doesn't destroy my argument. Let me let you in on a little secret: The popoular vote totals don't matter. When you lose a game of chess, do you complain because you lost even though your opponent ended up with fewer pieces?

Re:That's becoming a meme

[phantomfive]

To probably most Trump voters, everything that you listed (Muslim ban, the wall, dismantling the EPA & Dept of Education, Jeff Sessions, silencing Elizabeth Warren) would be considered a positive thing.

Yeah

[Ryanrule]

As if this company doesnt archive all messages. I would.

You BEGGED for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently it is perfectly legal, according to the DNC. I see no repercussions for Hillary and every time I pointed it out I was called a racist (not sure why).

So, it appears your yelling and screaming that Hillary did nothing wrong convinced the GOP that private email servers and deleting emails is perfectly ok. At least they are deleting them before being subpoenaed, where Hillary deleted them 3 days after she got the subpoena for them.

no, it's not illegal

[ooloorie]

Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems?

Government business, not party business.

Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?

Hillary "got a whole lot of crap" for a couple of things.

(1) She tried to circumvent public record keeping requirements by using a private E-mail server for government business.

(2) She received classified documents on her private E-mail server, shared the documents with unauthorized people, and was responsible for exposing those documents to hostile governments.

(3) She destroyed evidence.

(4) Hillary also used private E-mail for party business, which is legal. What got her in trouble there was that her security was poor, that her mail got leaked as a result, and that it contained lots of politically embarrassing and damaging information.

There is no evidence that Trump or the GOP are doing any of this. Furthermore, the only possible use of an app like Confide would be for purpose (1), but that is something government officials can already achieve simply by making a phone call or meeting in person.

Re:no, it's not illegal

[tsotha]

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-...

Re:no, it's not illegal

[tsotha]

NVM. That's from an FOIA request.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[BundesSheep]

It's funny how having different opinions on various topics now sounds so outrageous to a lot of people. Maybe it is, in this world of media bubbles.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[rtb61]

In this case something really, really stupid. Paper trails, or the new digital trails allow, blame shifting their number one purpose. I said, they said, in court, just means you are all fucked, digital trail in court means, just the instigator gets done. Next up of course, "I thought you meant", no record to go back to, when you a plotting and scheming and conspiring, means mistakes, fuck ups that bring down the whole scheme.

Then of course it becomes an instant flag for further scrutiny and so all messages are recorded, encrypted or not and the password obtained, through a whole range of means, from visual monitoring to replaced or doctored hardware.

I'm surprised ...

[PPH]

.... that Confide hasn't been served a cease and desist notice by Paramount Studios.

Re:I want you to conduct disruptive operations X,Y

[PPH]

Actual quote: "As always, should you or any of your IM force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions."

Re:That's becoming a meme

[arbiter1]

Only democrat's claim there was nothing actionable, but ask the people been jailed for mishandling classified information if they feel the same?

This note7 will Self Destruct in 5 seconds!

[Joe_Dragon]

This note7 will Self Destruct in 5 seconds!

Interesting, the DNC chose Signal

[Xenographic]

Meanwhile, the DNC is on Signal.

Speaking only for myself, yes, I'll be mad at them if they're trying to evade the Presidential Records Act or similar, whichever party is doing this. I won't, however, just make blind assumptions or blame either party for trying to be secure. That said, insider threats are the big threats and for that it doesn't matter how securely the messages are delivered to the mole.

Re:Interesting, the DNC chose Signal

[Anonymous Coward]

The DNC is in no way equivalent to the White House.

Re:Interesting, the DNC chose Signal

[Passman]

The DNC is in no way equivalent to the White House.

And the article is talking about the RNC, not the White House.

Re:Interesting, the DNC chose Signal

[Rhipf]

Admittedly I didn't read the article but from the summary:

Trump administration members and other Republicans

So if that is the case then yes they are talking about the White House.

Re:Interesting, the DNC chose Signal

[Xenographic]

The only thing that matters is whether they preserve the things they're legally obligated to. How they communicate for private or party business is up to them, as well. The bad thing would be if they claim they're sending 'yoga emails' but you find it's full of things like Top Secret pictures of North Korea as a certain someone had been known to do.

I'd hope that everyone would use secure messaging to actually transmit messages. It would be really dumb not to.

Re:Interesting, the DNC chose Signal

[greythax]

I agree. I mean, I am super liberal, and hate the current Idiot in cheif, and all the party line republicans that are goose stepping in his nominees, but should we really be complaining when they choose to make their systems MORE secure? That they may or may not be using them for corrupt purposes, should be a completely different topic of criticism.

If you're doing nothing wrong

[HalAtWork]

"If you're doing nothing wrong then you've got nothing to hide"... is that how the saying goes?

Errrrrrrr

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Quick question: Doesn't this violate the government regulations regarding destruction of records?

https://www.justice.gov/usam/c...
and:
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen...

After all, if Trump’s tweets are now presidential records (and, by law, they are), wouldn't these also be included under those rules?

"Federal records may not be destroyed-except in accordance with the procedures described in Chapter 33 of Title 44, United States Code. These procedures allow for records destruction only under the authority of a records disposition schedule approved by the Archivist of the United States. NARA issues a General Records Schedule (GRS) that gives record descriptions of records that are common to most Federal agencies and authorizes record disposals for temporary records."

Yes, yes, I know, "But Hillary Hillary Hillary....", right, I get it, but if her doing it was illegal (and I think it was), how can this be legal?

Re:Errrrrrrr

[donutz]

Probably worth examining, what counts as a public record? And what can be "off the record"?

https://www.archives.gov/recor...

Re:Errrrrrrr

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Probably worth examining, what counts as a public record? And what can be "off the record"?

https://www.archives.gov/recor...

They'll simply say everything is "confidential", but that doesn't exempt it from the Federal records laws.

If I had to guess, I'd say that any automatic or programmatic deletion of government communications (federal or state) breaks the law.

Sure

[ThatsNotPudding]

Government business, not party business.

There is no evidence that Trump or the GOP are doing any of this. Furthermore, the only possible use of an app like Confide would be for purpose (1), but that is something government officials can already achieve simply by making a phone call or meeting in person.

The day after his party killed the one federal agency tasked with ensuring voting machine security.

Monsters and the monsters that defend them.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[Ol Olsoc]

Only democrat's claim there was nothing actionable, but ask the people been jailed for mishandling classified information if they feel the same?

I see. Name the specific law and the statutes involved and the punishments as prescribed by law. Also, give us the citations of the names of the people who are in jail for mishandling classified information. Up to the challenge, You can even use alternate truths as long as you cite them.

Bathroom on Fire

[Cmdln Daco]

Wouldn't this self destructing email thingie have set her bathroom on fire? Or at least set the wiping cloth on fire?

Re:The hypocrisy, it burns

[Cmdln Daco]

You'll discover that this same app is available to download and install to any plain old citizen who chooses to do so.

It's in both the Apple and Google app stores.

Congress controls agencies, not the President

[raymorris]

I think what GP means is this:

Most government agencies, such as the FCC, FTC, and FBI, act on the authorization of *Congress*. Congress made a law creating the FCC, and granted the FCC certain powers. Congress can do that because the Constitution gives them that power. When Congress created the FCC, they also put limits on it. The a law, passed by Congress, that says "the FCC can regulate phone companies, and when they do, they must preserve their records according to a, b, and c. So these federal agencies created by Congress have to operate the way Congress specifies. Congress can create records retention rules for the agencies they create.

On the other hand, the Presidency was *not* created by Congress. The President gets his authority directly from the Constitution. The Constitution gives the President the power to control the military, to conduct international relations, etc - without asking Congress for permission. Because the Constitution gives the President certain powers, Congress has no authority to say "you can't do that unless you do it our way". The President can conduct his Constitutional authority in any way he sees fit. The Constitution says he's commander in chief of the military, so Congress has no authority to say that he must send all military orders using this system or that system.

Other Presidential powers *are* granted by Congress, and can therefore be regulated by Congress, so *in theory* they could regulate how he uses those powers, but the courts, the Congress, and the President traditionally are leery of interfering with *how* the other branch internally conducts their business. They argue about policy, the fight about what laws to make across the nation, but the vice-president (officially the president of the Senate) doesn't comment on the Senate rules of how they operate internally, and the President doesn't tell the courts how to publish rulings, and Congress doesn't tell the president which messaging system to use.

Picking a fight about that stuff internal to another branch is wasteful and counter-productive. If Congress decided to tell the President which messaging apps to use, he could turn around and have VP Pence, who is Constitutionally President of the Senate, start picking at the Senate's internal process. It's not worth it.

Re:Congress controls agencies, not the President

[Xabraxas]

The problem with that argument is that there are a ton of people in the White House who are NOT the President. None of this applies to them. It only applies to the President. Congress can certainly enact laws that govern what members of the White House staff can and cannot do.

Re:Congress controls agencies, not the President

[raymorris]

Here's a bit more information and history for you, but the summary is that this was decided during George Washington's administration:

https://slashdot.org/comments....

The Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to decide cases between parties, Congress the power to make laws on 16 listed topics, and the President the power to command the military and conduct foreign affairs.

May Congress make a law saying "SCOTUS may not hear any cases regarding the first amendment"? No, the powers of SCOTUS come directly from the Constitution (as clarified by Marbury v Madison) and Congress has no authority to interfere. May the president, by executive order, order that no funds be expended to pay Congressional staff? No, the president has no authority interfere with Congress in the exercise of their Constitutional duties. Similary, Congress has no authority to "regulate" the President's exercise of his Constitutional duties.

> Clearly the Constitution allows for Congress to regulate the Presidential office.

Please take 5 minutes to read *anything* the founders or SCOTUS wrote about separation of powers. No matter which SCOTUS decision you choose or which writing of the founders, you'll probably find the word "co-equal". There is hardly anything more clear than their intention to have three co-equal branches of government - none is beneath, or regulated by, any other. (Though SCOTUS arguably grabbed a piece of that in Marbury v Madison, claiming the right to decide if a law is Constitutional or not.)

> There is an impeachment process

Spend five minutes reading about that. When the President is accused of a *crime*, such as murder or burglary, they are exempted from the normal indictment process and impeachment *replaces* indictment. It's for *crimes*, it's not a mechanism for controlling White House procedures or policy. You may note no President has ever been removed by that process. Jackson and Clinton were impeached, neither was convicted. Clearly it's not a mechanism to generally "regulate" the President - if it were, it would be a terribly ineffective one, having *never* removed any President.

Clinton was impeached for perjury. He made a written admission that he committed the perjury and agreeing to pay a fine and lose his law license, yet *still* he wasn't convicted by the Senate.

Re:Congress controls agencies, not the President

[tburkhol]

So, you're saying that a President is perfectly within his rights to destroy, for example, audio tapes of telephone calls? I know some people who wish that had been true in 1974.

Re:Congress controls agencies, not the President

[Dishevel]

I really hope that you are not a US citizen. The level of ignorance you have regarding the simplest and most basic tenants of the United States Constitution would be worrying if you were.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[Imrik]

I don't care if anything was actionable in the emails. At least one email that was required to be retained for official records was deleted after being subpoenaed, that was illegal.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[dszd0g]

Still feeding the fake news and alternative facts I see. Sorry, you can't rewrite history. If you voted for President Pedophile, you voted for someone who lies and has no problem breaking the law, and if you did it because he made up a claim that his opponent broke the law all the worse. Kelly-Anne Conway just broke the law on Fox News last night by advertising for Ivanka Trump, but I don't see Republicans punishing her either. Most federal employees in the past get suspended or fired for what she did last night, but President Pedophile and Republican controlled congress are the only ones with the ability to punish her, and I don't see either doing anything. President Pedophile actually defended her after she broke the law.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ma...

https://www.bloomberg.com/poli...

The Clinton e-mails are one of the biggest lies Republicans, Breitbart, and Fox News told. Nothing was really deleted. Hillary first sent one copy of the hard drives to a law office and had them sort between all the personal stuff and professional stuff. They "deleted" the personal stuff off that copy of the data before handing it to the FBI. The FBI said that wasn't sufficient and issued a subpoena for all the data including the personal data. Then she handed a copy of all the data including the personal stuff. Once requested, the FBI got everything. The quote from the FBI was about "deleted" e-mails was that there were about a dozen business e-mails that hadn't been included with the first set of business e-mails handed over. There wasn't any crime, because nothing was actually deleted. The FBI also decided that the missing ("deleted") e-mails was not criminal because there was no evidence that it was done intentionally and there was nothing incriminating in them (incorrectly sorting 0.1% of the e-mails was probably accidental). It's not like we are talking about paper copies where there is only one copy of the papers and she shredded them. There were multiple copies of the data on different hard drives and backups.

Rice had her aides use personal e-mail accounts to send e-mails for her. Powell used a private e-mail account (believed to be AOL) for his secretary of state e-mails. Republicans only had a problem with Clinton doing the same thing Republicans had done. They also leave out that she requested a secure e-mail option from the NSA twice and was rejected; the NSA told her to send e-mails from her office computer when she spent most of her job traveling. She was just trying to do her job.

http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02...

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...

Re:That's becoming a meme

[mujadaddy]

Wait -- Trump is a pedophile?

Re:That's becoming a meme

[Sri Ramkrishna]

I'm going to save this message for when somebody mouths out about Hillary and her emails. Thanks man.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[dszd0g]

He flirts and hits on 10-15 year old girls regularly (often enough that there are multiple tapes of him doing it). He liked walked in on underage teenage girls naked changing and bragged about being the only man allowed to do it on the Howard Stern show. He had his staff try to encourage the underage teenage girls that were naked to flirt with him saying they were more likely to win the contests if they did. He talked about wanting to sleep with teenage girls on the Howard Stern show. In my opinion, that makes him a pedophile.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

http://www.politifact.com/wisc...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://people.com/politics/don...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mo...

http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/12/...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

Re: That's becoming a meme

[dszd0g]

You are on Slashdot. You should understand deleting one copy of data isn't actually deleting it when other copies exist. You are doing exactly what Trump, Fox News, and Brietbart did by using the term "deleted" when referring to one copy of the data to imply that data was lost. The first sentence was a misquote. I said "Nothing was really deleted" because other copies of the data existed; thus no crime. When handing over the business only data Hillary was very clear about what had been done and that she had a law office sort the data.

There is no cover-up or conspiracy here. Republicans managed to make one out of thin air. I do have to credit them with managing to convince so many Americans that a crime was committed when one wasn't.

The Democrats on the other side...

[ctrl-alt-canc]

...will take a safer approach, by self-destroying the whole party.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[dbIII]

The above poster should have waited a few years before calling him that. I think after Trump's dead we'll hear a bit of detail about the underage hooker parties he ran but it's too soon. One of his really close buddies who was at many of those parties did time for being a pedophile, but apart from that everything is hearsay.

Re: That's becoming a meme

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI your top source is banned at Wikipedia for making things up

Re: That's becoming a meme

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are on Slashdot. You should understand that "Nothing was deleted" will be taken as meaning *nothing* was deleted, not even the copies.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[Anonymous Coward]

To probably most Trump voters, everything that you listed (Muslim ban, the wall, dismantling the EPA & Dept of Education, Jeff Sessions, silencing Elizabeth Warren) would be considered a positive thing.

You're right that Trump voters consider these things to be positive, but only because most of what you wrote is false or misleading (either intentionally or not).

It's not a Muslim ban but a temporary ban on the people from 7 countries that are predominantly Muslim (out of 40 in the world), 5 of which we've bombed in the last decade.

The EPA isn't being dismantled but being reduced. Dismantle means it will cease to exist.

Jeff Sessions is NOT racist, he's even liked by Coretta Scott King (daughter of MLK) and has the support of many (most?) black politicians in Alabama and elsewhere. Elizabeth Warren was rightfully silenced because she was slandering someone without any evidence whatsoever. When you're shut up for talking out of your ass you don't get to be a martyr. Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:That's becoming a meme

[dwillden]

What was actionable: The 150+ Emails containing classified information that were on her unclassified private server. Each email constitutes a count of either failure to protect/negligent mishandling or intentional security compromise. Both charges are felonies, the first though has no requirement of Intent. Each count is worth 5 to 10 years in Prison and $10,000 or higher fine. How is that for actionable and quantifiable "what"?

Everybody entrusted with classified information is held to the same legal standards, many a lessor person has faced decades in Jail for such a crimes. She could get lucky and be charged with the negligent mishandling charges for all the emails she sent. (she is not liable for emails sent to her that might have contained such info, but then the FBI should be going after whoever sent those to her), but as Classified information, is stored on physically separate networks and machines, the act of transferring the data, especially the Top Secret info that was on some of the emails, is a deliberate act so she should face the slightly more severe deliberate security compromise charges.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[dwillden]

Comey lied when he said that. Mishandling classified information via negligence is still a felony that has no intent requirement. The act of being negligent with classified information is a felony crime.

Please cite the actual ties to Russia that you claim Trump has. He's complimented Putin a few times for being a real leader as opposed to Obama. But I've seen no evidence of any actual ties.

Since Washington's staff in 1796. Staff under Pres

[raymorris]

That's an interesting argument. It was resolved quite some time ago. The counter-argument is of course that because the President is empowered to fulfill his duties as he sees fit, one method he may use is to hire staff to assist him in his duties. The White House staff operates under the Constitutional authority of the President, as agents of the President. Their authority doesn't come from the Congress. Further, interfering with the White House staff *is* interfering with the President's conduct of his Constitutional duties. This is the reasoning the Supreme Court has mostly used - Congress may not generally interfere with the President's conduct of diplomacy*, and because the President conducts diplomacy by using his staff, interfering with staff *is* interfering with the President's powers.

Not only can Congress not specify a particular means of communication, they can not even *look* at internal White House memos if the President indicates that doing so would interfere with his Constitutional duties. This is called "executive privilege" and it was first invoked by George Washington. In 1796, Presiden Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents related to the negotiation of the Jay Treaty. Many, many Presidents since Washington have invoked executive privilege, and most of the time they've won.

A major turning point in executive privilege was Nixon. The Nixon administration refused to turn over documents related to Watergate, saying "executive privilege". The Supreme Court ruled that while a President may keep White House communications private, in a criminal investigation of that magnitude he had to give more explanation than just saying "executive privilege". Given the gravity of the situation and the legitimate interest in the papers, he would need to say "turning over the papers would interfere with my Constitutional powers because ...", SCOTUS said. While technically the court ruled against Nixon, they stressed that generally the White House *may* choose not to reveal their communications to Congress or the courts - in criminal cases of major public interest, they just need to state a *reason* they aren't turning over the communications.

For 25 years after Nixon no President lost an executive privilege claim. The Clinton administration claimed executive privilege a record fourteen times, and lost only once.

So yeah that is an interesting argument you've made. That argument has not been the successful argument throughput history.

* Aside from ratification of treaties by the Senate only.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[dwillden]

USC 18 793. Her crimes specifically fit sub paragraphs (e) or (f). If (e), it's often referred to as deliberate security compromise, if (f) it's failure to protect/mishandling of Classified Information. (f) is most likely to be charged as it requires no intent. You mishandle classified information, you have violated this law.

Both (e) and (f) carry a fine of up to $10,000 and a sentence of up to 10 years. She should face a count for each email sent from her account. For any emails containing classified information originating from someone else, that person faces the same charge and she could face another count of (f) for failure to report a violation.

The law is clear the penalties are clear and those punished for such crimes? Many, some much more egregious as hers due to being intentional attempts to spy. But here is a list of some so prosecuted for violating this law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Soviet_spies.2C_late_20th_century
If you continue from that point down to the 21st century you find Kenneth Wayne Ford, who never transmitted to an unauthorized person but simply retained classified information. I have a much more detailed list of individuals convicted at home but am at work currently.

Opinions are not facts

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

It's funny how having different opinions on various topics now sounds so outrageous to a lot of people. Maybe it is, in this world of media bubbles.

Different opinions is just fine. But behaving as if opinions have the same value as facts is silly. As long as this is being done by a small minority, there is no real problem. Now there is a government making decisions based on alternative facts. This is outrageous.

Ps compromise is common

[raymorris]

It is also common for the Congress and the White House to compromise on this issue. Congress says "we want to see these 14 documents". The White House responds "we'll give you these six." Congress accepts those six and doesn't pursue the other eight. Or, Congress asks for a specific document and the White House provides a heavily redacted copy. This allows both branches to avoid a major showdown, with neither side "losing".

Re:That's becoming a meme

[Gr8Apes]

What was actionable: The 150+ Emails containing classified information that were on her unclassified private server. Each email constitutes a count of either failure to protect/negligent mishandling or intentional security compromise. Both charges are felonies, the first though has no requirement of Intent. Each count is worth 5 to 10 years in Prison and $10,000 or higher fine. How is that for actionable and quantifiable "what"? Everybody entrusted with classified information is held to the same legal standards, many a lessor person has faced decades in Jail for such a crimes. She could get lucky and be charged with the negligent mishandling charges for all the emails she sent. (she is not liable for emails sent to her that might have contained such info, but then the FBI should be going after whoever sent those to her), but as Classified information, is stored on physically separate networks and machines, the act of transferring the data, especially the Top Secret info that was on some of the emails, is a deliberate act so she should face the slightly more severe deliberate security compromise charges.

Last I looked at this, there was sensitive information on about 110 emails. Not classified, sensitive. There were 8 with what was considered "classified" information, at the time of the review. Nothing was said about who the source of those emails were, nor whether they were classified information at the time of sending. Note also that Clinton, as Sec of State, is someone with the authority to classify information. If she deemed it non-classified at the time of sending, it's non-classified at that time. So, unless you can convincingly prove that Clinton actually knowingly mishandled classified information, this is pretty much dead. Note that if you can prove this, you'd likely be in line for a high level DOJ spot, as quite a few rabidly partisan folks with law degrees and years of experience couldn't figure out a way to make that case.

In short, this is all about perception and a smear campaign. Where's the outrage about Powell's or Rice's use of private (non-governmental) email servers? Where's the review of those emails? Perhaps there isn't a criminal story in any of this.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[Gr8Apes]

Link for pretty in depth story on the email scandals.

Just a comment

[Dust038]

And yet this machine has been trying to tell us we don't need Encryption? Clearly the line it redrawn to the semi-public eye.

Mmmm

[nospam007]

"It's also difficult to say how much this is a specifically Republican phenomenon, and how much is a general move toward encryption."

Not specifically Republican phenomenon, all criminal organizations do it.

Re: That's becoming a meme

[TrumpShaker]

Whew...and a good thing too...Now we all know, positively, 100%, no doubt, that everything on Wikipedia is true.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[TrumpShaker]

To probably most Trump voters, everything that you listed (Muslim ban, the wall, dismantling the EPA & Dept of Education, Jeff Sessions, silencing Elizabeth Warren) would be considered a positive thing.

You're right that Trump voters consider these things to be positive, but only because most of what you wrote is false or misleading (either intentionally or not).

It's not a Muslim ban but a temporary ban on the people from 7 countries that are predominantly Muslim (out of 40 in the world), 5 of which we've bombed in the last decade.

...Elizabeth Warren was rightfully silenced because she was slandering someone without any evidence whatsoever. When you're shut up for talking out of your ass you don't get to be a martyr. Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I don't follow you, AC. So, Trump Voters think positively about false, misleading things? fake news, what? If they don't consider them positive, they are logically false? Why include that last bit about the ban: "5 of which we've bombed in the last decade"? Did Trump announce it like, "it's not a ban against all Muslims, just 7 countries that are predominantly Muslim (out of 40 in the world), 5 of which we've bombed"? Since you don't feel "positively" about it, you didn't mention Giuliani's statement that the Donald wanted to figure out a way to legally ban Muslims? As for Warren, I believe she was trying to present her evidence, but I could be wrong. What I do feel more strongly about, is that regardless of how much you profess to know, only Jeff Sessions knows if he is truly a racist or not. The rest of us, if we choose to try, can only determine that based upon observable behavior and action.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[Dishevel]

State Dept has policies in place.
Policies not followed.

We have laws about the handling of classified material.
These laws were not followed.

There are people who did prison time for propping a door open to a facility with classified material so they could take a leak without having to go through a bunch of shit. The secure handling of classified documents is a big fucking deal.

Yes, SCOTUS said in US v Nixon

[raymorris]

You might find the opinion in United States vs Nixon interesting. Essentially it said:

a) In general the president doesn't have to turn over his communications.
b) But the courts (and Congress) have a legitimate need to investigate serious crimes.
c) Therefore, to avoid a subpoena in a serious criminal case, the President must communicate some reason that releasing them would impair his exercise of his Constitutional powers.

Had Nixon, on those tapes, talked about Russia as well as whatever else, he could avoid disclosure, based on the court's reasoning.

And where were...

[whitroth]

...the leaks of the GOP emails and files, which hackers *surely* got?

Re:That's becoming a meme

[Grishnakh]

I'm stick of people lying about this. He was trying to hurt Clinton and still should be fired and never hired for any position of trust again, but even he recognized we can't prosecute clinton for something no one else has been prosecuted for ever.

Why are you lying?

http://www.navytimes.com/story...

Re: That's becoming a meme

[HornWumpus]

Now that's funny, coming from a Hillary supporter.

Re:That's becoming a meme

[dszd0g]

Yes, Republicans used their only African-American senator, Time Scott, to speak for Jeff Sessions. No big surprise that he is supporting his party.

Saying that Corretta Scott King was thanking Jeff Sessions for the Rosa Parks Library is rather misleading. She was just acknowledging his presence. There was no thank you in the speech to Jeff Sessions. He was just acknowledged as being there along with all the other notable people in attendance. She was given a list of names to read for the opening of the library; his name was on the list. If you actually watch the video she has to pause and force herself to even read the name and she does not look happy about it.

Jeff Sessions was not liked by Coretta Scott King, you can read her letter for yourself:

https://www.documentcloud.org/...

Sean Spicer said “I can only hope that if she was still with us today, that after getting to know him and to see his record and his commitment to voting and civil rights, that she would” regret her opposition. In some right wing news this is being used as a claim that if Coretta Scott King were alive today she would support Jeff Sessions; that is another alternative fact being put out by the right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Jeff Sessions has a 20% voting record on civil-rights according to the ACLU, which are some of the major issues it is now his job to protect. He has a 7% voting record for African-American issues according to the NAACP. Jeff Sessions has called the NAACP, the ACLU, and other civil rights groups "un-American."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Dom...

Jeff Sessions allegedly told a black attorney that the Ku Klux Klan was "OK until I found out they smoked pot." Sessions used to call a black assistant U.S. attorney that worked for him, Thomas Figures, "boy." When asked about the comment "Sessions apologized and said the remark was a joke." Personally, I don't accept the excuse every time a politician is caught making a racist statement that they were just making a joke and telling an African-American that you think the KKK is OK isn't very funny.

Jeff Sessions believes government services should only be available in English even though the US has no official language.

Jeff Sessions refused to support the removal of a racist judge who said black people "don't want to work" and that affirmative action is repugnant. Sessions said that the judge was "insensitive at worst."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

http://fortune.com/2016/11/19/...

Re:That's becoming a meme

[Ol Olsoc]

USC 18 793. Her crimes specifically fit sub paragraphs (e) or (f). If (e), it's often referred to as deliberate security compromise, if (f) it's failure to protect/mishandling of Classified Information. (f) is most likely to be charged as it requires no intent. You mishandle classified information, you have violated this law.

Both (e) and (f) carry a fine of up to $10,000 and a sentence of up to 10 years. She should face a count for each email sent from her account. For any emails containing classified information originating from someone else, that person faces the same charge and she could face another count of (f) for failure to report a violation.

Sure. However if the situation that you desire was to be implemented, we'd have a lot of people in prison - and many of them would not be people you hate. As well, I know that there is no way I would ever work on classified areas if my carreer and life could be destroyed by someone sending me classified mail on an open system. I've read the declassified FBI investigation into the Clinton server fiasco, https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-... and after wading through a lot of it, there were people around her who did the actual transgressions.

Any violation is a violation. Are you prepared to go to prison for 10 years for someone else making a mistake?

Or are you trying to claim that the FBI is simultaneously supporting and not supporting Clinton? They in fact are lying about their investigation and making a huge cover-up? This rises to the level of a security violation and letter of reprimand, and a debatable action of temporarily losing clearance for some amount of time.

The poiunt on my part is that the people yelling the loudest are not yelling because they know the law, but that they hate the lady. As I recall, a few years back, an agent working out of the white house was selling arms to Iran via a money laundering type scheme, when he was nearing caught he and his assistant went on a classified document destruction spree, and his lovely assistant concealed classified documents upon her person and left the building. It wasn't any people set up a email server and maield stuff back and forth, but some pretty egregious stuff, sending arms to an acknowledged enemy of the US, and deliberate destruction and theft of classified documents.

The results?

Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, was indicted on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice on June 16, 1992. Weinberger received a pardon from George H. W. Bush on December 24, 1992, before he was tried.

Robert C. McFarlane, National Security Adviser, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years of probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.

Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.

Alan D. Fiers, Chief of the CIA's Central American Task Force, convicted of withholding evidence and sentenced to one year probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.

Clair George, Chief of Covert Ops-CIA, convicted on two charges of perjury, but pardoned by President George H. W. Bush before sentencing.

Oliver North, member of the National Security Council convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity, obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents, but the ruling was overturned since he had been granted immunity.

Fawn Hall, Oliver North's secretary, was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for her testimony.

Jonathan Scott Royster, Liaison to Oliver North, was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for his testimony.

National Security Advisor John Poindexter was convicted of five count

Crying wolf

[Shane_Optima]

He flirts and hits on 10-15 year old girls regularly (often enough that there are multiple tapes of him doing it).

This may be entirely true. The problem is, after all of the lies and hyperbole and just plain talking about irrelevant bullshit, I've run out of fucks to give. I'm not running this down. Give us a link to the tape, give us a link to the authenticating source to show it's not an impersonator and give us your contact info so we can shame you if it turns out you're lying, like all of the people[1] who inserted the phrase "for consent" into Trump's last bombshell sex scandal tape.

People still don't realize just how much damage the left did to themselves over the past year, attacking senseless irrelevancies like an immune system trying to kill the Spanish flu. And it's only going to get worse, isn't it? Trump is the perfect troll, a natural troll who doesn't even realize he's doing it. All you assholes out there with your Mango Mussolinis, Cheeto Benitos, and Creamsicle Hitlers... here's another name for you, an old nickname that I promise you Trump is going to bring back:

Teflon Don.


1. Including Anderson Cooper at CNN, The Guardian, The New York Times, and countless others.

Fallacious

[Tenebrousedge]

Do you have any arguments other than tu quoque and ad hominem?

Re:Fallacious

[Shane_Optima]

Better question: is there anyone on the internet who can accuse someone of an ad hominem (or straw men, for that matter) correctly? I literally don't think I've ever seen it done. Most people use it to incorrectly imply that all overt insults are logical fallacies, but you've taken it a step further to apparently mean that all implicit character criticisms are logical fallacies. I really didn't think it was possible for that guideline to be mangled any more than it already has been, but you've managed it. Bravo.

Tu quoque doesn't apply if I expand my of the cuff comment to clarify that of course this behavior is highly undesirable from Trump and the Republicans and should be stopped if we can, but the problem should not be thought of as unique to them. In fact, the more partisan you make issues like these, the less progress you will make. Instead of "Trump behaves like a gangster", frame it in terms of insisting on paper trails and increased accountability for all politicians, everywhere.

Re:Fallacious

[Tenebrousedge]

I was making a general observation of your character, not that comment specifically. However, I do appreciate that your response was cogent and (given my provocation) respectful, and I am certainly willing to modify my opinions, although I believe we may differ more than agree politically. However, while I believe I could agree with you in your ideas about accountability, I find myself currently more concerned with other aspects of our political system. You seem like an ideal critic, so if you wouldn't mind giving me the benefit of your opinion on my ideas as developed here, I would be gratified.