Slashdot Mirror
FBI Director Comey Confirms Investigation Into Trump Campaign (reuters.com)
FBI Director James Comey confirmed during testimony before Congress Monday that the FBI is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with a covert Russian campaign to interfere with the election. From a report on Reuters: Comey told a congressional hearing on Russian activities that the probe "includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. Because it is an open, ongoing investigation and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining," Comey said. Earlier, the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Republican Representative Devin Nunes, told the same hearing that the panel had seen no evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. Nunes also denied an unsubstantiated claim from Trump that there had been a wiretap on his Trump Tower in New York but said it was possible other surveillance was used against the Republican.
So the Guy who cleared Clinton of all charges even after she had classified material on a home computer is now feeding the rumor mill again.
The globalists are so afraid of Trump they are pushing any agenda to remove him before he can repeal Nafta and H1b visa laws.
Comney needs to get fired.
He could probably repeal them a little quicker if he played a little less golf or spend less time getting into twitter feuds with celebrities.
claimed Hillary didn't violate any laws
Incorrect. He said she did break the law, but he didn't recommend prosecuting her for it.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
meals on wheels is state funded, not federally funded. as such he cant cut it.
can we stop spreading bogus claims???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
He was the Republicans' bestest friend when he was after Clinton. Now all of sudden, the shoe is on the other foot, and he's the bad guy.
It's hilarious thought... no evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump, and confirmation that the FBI is investigating links between Trump's campaign and Russia.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
claimed Hillary didn't violate any laws
Incorrect. He said she did break the law, but he didn't recommend prosecuting her for it.
Wrong, they said they didn't find any evidence of criminal activities, and recommended closing the investigation.
This is the same guy that a week before the election said they found new evidence, but wait, not they hadn't. And never told anyone they were investigating Trump.
What the FBI says they're investigating is Russian attempts to interfere with the election. This includes investigating whether or not anyone associated with the Trump campaign did or did not have any involvement with such Russian efforts. And Comey has repeatedly gone to great lengths to point out that he can't talk about which individual people are or aren't reviewed as part of that investigation into Russia's actions. At no point have they said what the OP's headline implies - that they're "investigating the Trump campaign."
The hearing, on the other hand, HAS spent a lot more time examining the circumstances under which someone working on the Obama administration's watch committed the serious federal felony of publicly disclosing the details of surveillance that swept up the conversations of a US citizen - identification of which should have remained "masked," and which could only have been unmasked by high-level officials within the Obama administration. The FBI says they are vigorously pursuing who committed that felony.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There is evidence from NSA documents the entire Trump family was under surveillance. Just because Trvor Noah and Rachel Maddow didnt bother to tell you that doesnt mean it didnt happen.
Wrong, they said they didn't find any evidence of criminal activities, and recommended closing the investigation.
Wrong. He said they didn't find any intent to commit criminal activities, which was previously not a requirement for prosecuting mishandling of classified materials.
Wrong, they said they didn't find any evidence of criminal activities, and recommended closing the investigation.
No, he said she violated the law surrounding the handling of classified materials, but that the punishment for the manner in which she did so would be administrative, like getting fired or having your security clearance revoked. Since she was no longer employed by the government, firing her isn't really an option.
But he absolutely did not say she did nothing wrong. He said she did do something wrong, just not wrong enough to go to jail. If the cop catches you jaywalking and lets you off with a warning instead of a ticket, that doesn't mean you didn't do anything against the law. You did do something against the law: jaywalking. The cop is just choosing not to punish you for the illegal thing you did. Comey and Lynch chose not to pursue punishment against Hillary for the illegal thing she did.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
you have evidence current plays golf more often than Obama did; also we paid for Obama's Hawaii vacations including 2008 vacations before he became president. so, do you really have a point?
It's been well documented that Trump is spending public tax dollars at rate well over double what Obama did, in order to fund his trips to his private club.
All the time while Camp David stands empty.
And then you have secret service costs for Melanie in NYC, and the secret service costs for his sons as the fly all over the world undertaking private business dealings.
This from a guy who basically campaigned on fiscal conservancy.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Just because Trvor Noah and Rachel Maddow didnt bother to tell you that doesnt mean it didnt happen.
I'd expand that to Trevor Noah, Rachel Maddow, or anyone else. Nobody has presented any convincing evidence of Trump Tower wiretaps. What "NSA documents" are you referring to - Do you have some kind of special access that the media doesn't?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting that actual votes were changed (as in voting machine hacked or something), the accusation is that Russia influenced the election through the slow release of hacked emails and spreading anti-Clinton propaganda. The "Russia changed votes" theory is just a straw-man.
The Benghazi hearings were proven to be a political charade anyways where even after months of investigations the Republicans couldn't find any wrong-doings.
But speaking of asking questions unrelated issues, you should listen to some of the Republicans asking questions. They're more concerned with whether the freedom of press applies to news organizations publishing classified leaks than the actual issue of Russian meddling with the election.
In the week before the election, he notified congress that a separate criminal investigation DID turn up new evidence related to the investigation of Clinton's mishandling of classified information. Why was it new evidence? Because Clinton and her aides (who had been granted immunity) said they had already turned over every scrap of data or device containing any record of the emails that Clinton handled from the internet-connected server she ran out of her house. This wan't true, of course. They had NOT turned over all of that data, or the devices on which it was stored. Because Clinton's closest aide had hundreds of thousands of such records on a laptop in her home - something that didn't come to light until the investigation into her husband's criminal activity exposed that fact. The FBI told congress about this, because congress was in the middle of investigations that relied on the FBI providing them with all such information, and the FBI - which had taken Clinton at her word that all such material had been turned over - suddenly found themselves with hundreds of thousand of new records to sort through, some of which might indeed cover some of the material that Clinto had destroyed while under subpoena. You don't think that matters? Or more to the point, you so wish it weren't the case that you're willing to try to lie it away from having happened?
And never told anyone they were investigating Trump.
Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it's because they WEREN'T "investigating Trump" at the time, and still aren't. They're investigating the manner and degree to which the Russians tried to influence public opinion during the election, and owing to political pressure, are including in that investigation whether or not individuals "associated with the campaign" had anything to do with such activity. They've also said, more than once, that they've seen no evidence at all that indicated any such thing. So what is it exactly that you're thinking they were supposed to disclose? They have nothing to show because they haven't seen anything - unlike in the Clinton case, where they had abundant evidence of her repeatedly lying, destroying evidence, and more. They pointed out that they weren't going to be able to get the Obama administration to prosecute the case, though they did say that if had been anyone else (besides Clinton) things would have been handled differently. I know, you're really trying to wish all of that away.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Meals on Wheels receives federal grants, so yes, he can cut it.
But speaking of asking questions unrelated issues, you should listen to some of the Republicans asking questions. They're more concerned with whether the freedom of press applies to news organizations publishing classified leaks than the actual issue of Russian meddling with the election.
Killing off the free press was always one of Trump's stated goals with his desire to open up libel laws in order to facilitate suing the press.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Whatever was the problem with Clinton was surely of much lesser magnitude than Trump's people having secret dealing with foreign state entities.
What? So, Hillary Clinton and her husband personally rake in millions of dollars selling access to foreign dictators, and she conducts all of her correspondence on a server in her house in order to avoid FOIA scrutiny of her conduct in such matters, and then fails to turn over her records as she left office (as required by law), and the foot-drags for years and even destroys records while under subpoena ... all while continuing to soak up cash from overseas businesses and governments in anticipation of getting the presidential crown to which she felt entitled ... and you're saying that's not as bad as some imaginary conduct by someone associated with the Trump campaign having done something that Obama's own DNI and other officials have said they've seen absolutely no evidence to suspect happened.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
while cutting Meals on Wheels
This is Fake News, which you know. So, the question is, why are you lying about it? It's something that's so easily debunked that you have to know anyone well-informed will know you're lying - so why do it? Which low-information audience are you taking to, and what do you think you're going to persuade them to do as they take onboard the false narrative you're trying to sell? Really - I'm curious. What's your purpose?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
The relevant part:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.
So, what she did was wrong and illegal (mishandling of classified documents), and that it's very likely someone doing this would be punished (administrative sanctions like getting fired, losing security clearance, etc). However, in his opinion, they would not be subject to criminal prosecution. And remember this is all the FBI can do...say that there is a case or is not a case. They can't find you guilty as that's the purpose of a trial.
Now, the next point of dispute here would be that the statute surrounding the handling of classified material that she violated doesn't say anything about "intent," so it doesn't matter what she intended by mishandling the classified material, she could still be prosecuted. Your opinion on whether what Hillary did was wrong enough to merit prosecution is likely dependent on whether you vote R or D, but to say Comey and the FBI determined that Hillary did nothing wrong is completely false. It is wrong and illegal for a person with a security clearance to have classified and SAP information on a private server in their bathroom, the FBI says that's what Hillary did, but not so egregiously that it merits prosecution.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It's not fake news merely because you can't handle the truth. Here are two questions for you:
1. Did Trump propose cutting the community development block grant?
2. Does that grant give substantial funds to meals on wheels?
The answers are respectively yes and yes which means Trump is indeed cutting funding for meals on wheels.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
There was not a lack of evidence. There was a decision not to act on the evidence.
Is a person with security clearance sending, receiving, creating, and storing classified material on a private server in their bathroom illegal? Yes.
Was Hillary doing that? Yes.
Did they decide to prosecute her for it? No.
There was no trial due to lack of will, not lack of evidence.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
The relevant part:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
So, what she did was wrong and illegal (mishandling of classified documents), and that it's very likely someone doing this would be punished (administrative sanctions like getting fired, losing security clearance, etc). However, in his opinion, they would not be subject to criminal prosecution. And remember this is all the FBI can do...say that there is a case or is not a case. They can't find you guilty as that's the purpose of a trial.
to say Comey and the FBI determined that Hillary did nothing wrong is completely false. It is wrong and illegal for a person with a security clearance to have classified and SAP information on a private server in their bathroom, the FBI says that's what Hillary did, but not so egregiously that it merits prosecution.
Comey says here that there are "potential violations," but that's not "violations."
"Potential" can mean that you might find a violation after investigating more facts and more laws (but you might not), and you weren't able to find it so far. In other words, it's a prosecutor's speculation that a violation might (or might not) have occurred.
Saying that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" is legal-speak for saying that he found no provable violations, or in simple language, as far as the legal system is concerned, she's innocent. It's not just that she doesn't "merit" prosecution, but that the prosecutor doesn't think a prosecution could succeed. If the courts would never accept a situation like this, then in our legal system of common law and precedent, it's not illegal.
BTW a "violation" is not the same as a "crime."
Their polls were dead on, hillary by 2%.
There are lots of centrist press organizations. Just because a news source doesn't appeal to Nazis doesn't make it leftist.
"Everyone working in intelligence all agree that if they did what she did, they'd 100% be charged. Never understood that one."
No need to understand something that isn't true. Go look at what they actually found on her. It amounted to nothing. The second hand stories that travel around are overblown, to say the least.
The reason Comey couldn't recommend prosecution is that he didn't have enough evidence for a prosecution. No prosecutor would agree to take the case.
Play Command HQ online