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.
trump campaign investigates you
It's all fake news. The president tweeted that out just this morning. And if you can't trust the president then who can you trust? [1]
[1] Note .. for the sarcasm impaired, that was sarcasm.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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.
It all needs to be investigated, From Trump's current list of issues all the way back to seeing just how much involvement Russia had with pushing Clinton through the primaries.
SCROTUS is planning on spending 600 million dollars this year to play golf at Mar-A-Lago every weekend, while cutting Meals on Wheels (which also feeds veterans). He's ripping off the country for his lifestyle of playing golf and watching TV news (Fox, apparently).
More than 55 days in and so far has achieved nothing except piss off most of the country (approval rating at 37%). He has released documents that show that he and the GOP will cut everything (because Bannon has stated that he wishes to destroy the government).
If he isn't a Russian stooge sent to destroy us as a nation, then we have honestly elected the worst example of a human being in all of history.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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.
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.
You misspelled "The guy who helped Trump get elected by blabbing unfounded info about non-existent links between Clinton and Anthony Weiner."
the provided link does not support the quote in the article. This link does - http://live.reuters.com/Event/Live_US_Politics - but its video and fuck video amirite?
http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-39328507 this does actually have transcripts.
Why hasn't Trump apologized to Obama? It would seem to be the decent thing to do.
Trump kept saying Obama was born in Kenya. Then during the election when it was politically expeditious and like a weasel coward said "Obama was born in the US period." No apology nothing. Now the bully we elected president due to the lack of choice has slandered and falsely accused Obama of wiretapping him. What Trump is doing is evil, no president should be falsely accusing people of crimes. If anyone says anything negative about Trump, he takes revenge on them. Trump is like an female dog in heat who can't control control his emotional state. Expect him to carry out many injustices we won't even be told about. As a general rule don't believe in weighing evidence or considering two sides of an issue. Plus he is old, old people's brains stay fixed on an opinion even when shown opposing evidence. They may temporarily agree, and three revert back to their old opinion. It's been proven.
Whatever was the problem with Clinton was surely of much lesser magnitude than Trump's people having secret dealing with foreign state entities.
Ezekiel 23:20
If by interfere we mean "she didnt get elected when it was her time" then, sure, its fairly apparent the trump campaign achieved this by campaigning in more states and cities, and on issues the average person could more easily relate to.
Full Disclosure, im a California Liberal. That being said, Hillary was a turd of a candidate with a domestic policy that was unrelateable outside of large cities. she ignored two intelligence scandals, rigged her primary to destroy her opponent, and took questions from moderators ahead of the debate. She was the epitome of liberal elite, showing up in a fifteen thousand dollar burlap sack from Beverly Hills to lecture the midwest on povery and jobs.
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
You mean the guy who announced a reopening of the investigation right before election day because of "new findings", which simple CRC checks conducted in a matter of days showed to be nothing more than cached copies of things that already existed, but which they'd had in their possession for weeks and not acted on until right when it would do the most damage? An announcement that for some reason Republican members of congress seemed to know about in advance but completely blindsided the Hillary campaign? All over an investigation into "classified" emails, the vast majority of which were retroactively classified, and of the few that weren't, most hadn't included any sort of marking at all that would have indicated that they were classified, and of the few of those that had any sort of marking at all, it was a marking that it was generally agreed that the Secretary of State would not be familiar with? All over an email practice carried out by past secretary of states and other members of the federal government, including multiple officials in the Bush administration, and members of the current administration, including the Vice President? All over policies designed to ensure secure handling of a classified documents - leading to the scenario where we now have a president who doesn't use a secured phone at all (he uses a stock Galaxy S3) and whose staff members recently pored over classified documents in a public place, surrounding by media cameras, using more unsecured phones as flashlights, their cameras pointed right toward the documents - and then proudly tweeted about it?
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.
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.
Now, now... He spends way more time (and taxpayer funds) flying back and forth to Mar-a-Lago in Florida *every* weekend, and I'm sure he gets some work done on those flights -- or, at least, catches up on nap-time.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
For sure, Hillary is much better at keeping her secret deals secret.
"even after she had classified material on a home computer" You are making an assumption here based on what you have heard without actually having seen the evidence. You don't get to pick and choose opinions based on what works for you. Comey cleared Clinton but he was the republican hero when he dropped the bomb about Hillary Clinton being mentioned in Weiner's emails. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
There is a big difference between "It didn't happen" and " Can't find any evidence that it happened."
Not to mention the tweet clearly delineated 'wire tapped' with Single Quotes which are equivalent to Air Quotes.
How about the prior news release that said that the NSA did ?
On Jan 20th 2017, the very day Trump was being sworn in, The New York Times, and other mainstream media outlets, claimed that the intelligence community had proof that the Russians worked with the Trump campaign to affect the election. They also claimed that this proof was obtained by wiretaps of Trump Tower. The NYT headline read: "Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry Of Trump Aides - Examining Russian Ties". If the government did not wiretap Trump, then there is no evidence of Russian interference in the election.
http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/new-york-times-confirmed-wiretaps-used-15618638/
Could you source this? All I remember is something about "nothing actionable."
This is the guy that probably sunk Clinton's campaign, so I'd hardly call him a Democrat cheerleader. He looks more like the rarer of beasts, a Ness-like bull dog.
And you understand here that even if you fire Comney, the FBI will continue its investigation, and any attempt by Trump to block that would be a massive abuse of power, and now that Sessions has recused himself, whatever control Trump does indirectly have has been severed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
With 3 fence jumpers at the WH in the last month, I wonder why he wants to use the southern WH more often?
There's this place called Camp David that is much more secure than Mar-A-Lago. If only Trump was aware of it.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I'd like to remind them as a low-UID Slashdot poster I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their investigatory bureaucracies.
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.
"Working hard" is negatively correlated with presidential success. Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover were famously hard working, yet both failed to achieve many of their objectives, and were not re-elected. Lazy presidents set general directions, and delegate details to others, so more gets done and they can avoid blame if things go wrong.
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.
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.
We should still try to know if Russia attempted to interfere regardless of whether they were successful or not in changing the outcome. Focusing on the outcome itself just turns into a political scuffle (which I'll join anyhow).
Using the snake oil argument that he will SOMEHOW magically turn the clock back to the 70's and all the Chinese factories will flow back to the rust-belt and there will be no robots taking the jobs instead. I don't like lopsided trade either, but even no-ed Chinese factory jobs are doomed as robots grow incrementally better every year. He offered an over-simplistic "solution" to complex problems: "Everything is outsiders' fault". Clever marketing, but 90% false.
Education is our only realistic solution to stay ahead of robots and cheap labor, because they are not going away. China is not the only cheap-labor nation by far. H may have had a jerky personality, but her education and retraining solutions were far more grounded in reality and specifics than the vague orange used-casino salesman with A.D.D.
Table-ized A.I.
Oh give it up. His late-election statements that Clinton Emails were back under investigation likely cost her the election. He appears to be no one's friend.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Now, now... He spends way more time (and taxpayer funds) flying back and forth to Mar-a-Lago in Florida *every* weekend, and I'm sure he gets some work done on those flights -- or, at least, catches up on nap-time.
Don't forget that he flies to his resort at a cost of $3 million in tax money per trip just days after he proposes a budget to cut health insurance and benefits for millions of poor and middle class people. The arrogance is breathtaking. I'd say hypocrisy if it were anyone else but he's never been "one of the people" to anyone actually paying attention.
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.
See subject: Comey admitted Hillary Clinton's server was NOT authorized to hold classified info (which it did) or transmit it (which it did). When asked if he would hire someone into the FBI itself who did such illegal things he avoided answering YES or NO (which he was requested to do by Trey Gowdy in a hearing).
* Comey ought to change his name to CRONY imo (either that OR Clinton & crew had 'dirt' on him he didn't want exposed).
Everyone's also aware of George Soros & Hillary BOTH funding shills like mad out online to post anti-Trump things + BOGUS organizations like BLM & those Pro-Sharia Law women's groups etc. (where did you think 20 billion of Soros' money went to folks?).
APK
P.S.=> The entire "political world" is populated by scumbags (except our current President Trump) - Hillary was FINANCED by definite enemies of ours in China & Saudi Arabia (& I don't want to hear bullshit they're not our enemies either - they DEFINITELY not our pals)... apk
Personal attacks and lies should not be moderated favorably, the post I'm responding to is clearly flamebait.
The majority of Meals on Wheels funding, which is federal funding to a _PRIVATE_ organization (so questionable) is not through discretionary funding. The discretionary portion of funding is 3% of their funding. The majority of the funding is through the non-discretionary portion of the budget. "Cancelling" is fear mongering bullshit. I'd say check your facts, but some people have no interest and others are paid not to.
We are a nation based on Federalization, meaning that the States should be the primary Government for the people. The Federal Government should not, and was never intended, to be a massive bloat of centralized power. The Federal Government was intended as A) National Defense and B) Arbitration and Law regarding States.
You may disagree with certain powers being returned to the States, but that _is_ _the_ set of ideals you will find both in the US Constitution. That is fully verifiable by reading the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers. This is the current primary driver in many issues.
Both sides have done a whole lot of wrong in the past, and this administration _may_ turn out to be the same. However, 59 days into the administration I have seen a President attempt to live up to promises he made when on the campaign trail. Bids are going out for the wall, he has had every person on their administration sign no-lobbying contracts, immigration reforms are being made (though obstructed), Health Care is being addressed, the Budget recommendations (even if you dislike them) have been submitted on-time to Congress.
This "not my candidate" extremist bullshit is being bought and paid for by some extremely wealthy people. It's disturbing that so many people are falling for the pleas for the status quo, which moved the US into negative territory over the last 8 years.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Why are Democrats SO AFRAID of Russians? They are supposed to be primitive, desolate, obsolete, incapable of building a simple refrigerator...
I doubt coming up with the new information about the Clinton leak was Comey's initiative. It's more that he did not see any way to withhold the new information. I recall that the problem was that if he didn't disclose it others would. So he sent out the information and tried to minimize the damage. Which did not work very well.
As for the current Trump investigation, I can imagine Comey did not see any way to refuse it either. Trump called on the FBI earlier to speak out and say the whole Russia-Trump link was bullshit, (it is) but the FBI seems to have preferred to stay out of it. So I expect the FBI to come up with whatever they find and leave it to others to whip up a frenzy and act as if it's very serious.
I know right? Why wouldn't anyone who's been under constant surveillance want to go back to the place where people who spy and leak information constantly nest? How many physical intrusions have there been in the last 2 months he's been in office?
Why is he constantly going back to marlago, right??? I don't get it. I also can't understand why he wouldn't want to subject his wife and youngest son to this.
It must be because of his skin color, or his hair, or his hands, or how his surname used was changed by an ancestor, or some other thing.
Comey said "Likely". Its still America, you can't have violated the law without a trial to determine it. There was no trial due to lack of evidence.
No, her falling down sick, her endless lies, her miserably run campaign, her complete and utter lack of ability to empathize or relate to normal people outside San Francisco and New York, and several other critical flaws the internet has thoroughly covered lost her the election.
Spending twice as much as Trump did and still losing was a historically unprecedented event that only a true incompetent or complete idiot could pull off.
Trump's campaign was pure chaos, poorly funded, run by people with no experience running national or often any campaigns yet here we are.
Get used to saying, President Trump.
It had nothing to do with the Russians, obviously.
The Reuters article did not say or imply that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign. The Reuters article did report that the FBI is investigating Russian meddling in the US election. When asked whether the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's possible collusion with the Russian hacking, Comey would only say he could not comment on that. I've been watching the testimony; there isn't any implied confirmation that the FBI is investigating Trump campaign intermediaries.
http://www.politico.com/magazi...
Ohh the beautify of blissful ignorance.
"everybody" on fifth street is going to be about 5 people, so why not? Well if he picked the middle of the street right outside the police precinct people might not be able to vote for him I guess...
According to the FBI director, there is an investigation into whether "associates of Mr. Trump were in contact with Russian officials, and whether they colluded with them."
Now, you may say this is not "investigating Trump", but in government corruption investigations, the FBI always works their way from "associates" inward to the main guy. These are not people that anyone would trust not to "flip" on the boss if they're facing jail time.
The noose is tightening. You can tell from the panicked tweets.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So, having government email on a private email server is like jaywalking. It's a minor offence and the law that punishes it carries no real penalties.
No, the analogy was not meant to relate the severity of the crime of jaywalking to the severity of the crime of mishandling classified information. I was just giving an example of the commission of a crime that law enforcement chooses to exercise discretion against prosecuting. These are generally malum prohibitum crimes, not malum in se, because no one would understand an analogy in which the officer decided to let you off with a warning for rape and murder.
So what would colluding with another government to influence the outcome of a presidential election be like? Grand Theft Auto?
I don't know. What law does that break? I mean, we have lots of examples of representatives of other governments influencing our election. Trudeau spoke out for Hillary and against Trump. Was that Canada trying to influence our elections? Nigel Farage spoke at a Trump rally. He's an elected representative of the UK in the EU, is that the UK or the EU influencing our election? Obama went to Britain and spoke against Brexit. Was he colluding with the UK government to influence that referendum?
Assume Putin personally haxx0red the DNC and phished Podesta. What would he need to collude with the Trump campaign for? Clearly Putin would prefer someone who wants to ally with Russia against their common enemy (ISIS/general Islamic jihad) rather than someone who wants to set up a no fly zone for Russian planes over Syria and remove Putin's ally Assad. What's there to collude over? Just hack and release. There's no communication necessary. Assuming Putin was behind the hacking, do you think he would have done the same thing had, say, Rand Paul (also against intervention in Syria) been the nominee instead of Trump?
So, I'd need to know what law specifically (give me the statute numbers, please) you're alleging Trump broke to gauge the severity of the crime.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Right about one thing. There should be a trial for Hillary. Still can be.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
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
Has this actually been supported by the investigators? I didn't notice any such news.
and then fails to turn over her records as she left office (as required by law)
From what I understand, Bush the Slightly Younger was guilty of exactly the same thing.
all while continuing to soak up cash from overseas businesses and governments in anticipation of getting the presidential crown to which she felt entitled
Well, *this* kind of political corruption is apparently common to all participants in your political system. Money wins. Go and reform it.
Ezekiel 23:20
Yeah, that sounds good on paper, but obviously you've never attempted to apply any of those ideals to the real world.
Let's take for example, Education. By your accounting, that should be left up to the individual states, as that's not something that should be administered by the Federal Government.
In your worldview, every state can have different education standards, which would create chaos later in life -- when those students move to another state to attend college, some from, say Texas, might encounter problems when they suddenly find out that Jesus did not ride Dinosaurs and the Earth is round and not flat.
And the other problem is of course that in the real world, there's only ONE set of textbooks for all states regardless of education standards, because states cannot afford custom textbooks just for them.
So in the end, Texas sets the standards because they are the largest market -- meaning whatever the STATE legislature of Texas choses, that's what goes nationally.
So, we *all* wind up with Jesus rode Dinosaurs and the Earth is Flat textbooks. And Christianity is the only true religion. All others are going to bring you eternal damn-nation. If you find that one state can control what we think and teach our children throughout the nation, then essentially, all you're doing is moving Federal Power to a different State -- Texas.
Because that's how the REAL world works. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the rest of us have to live in this world, not your fantasy of it. And in that case, I'd rather that the federal government control this instead of the Texas state legislature -- which I didn't vote for.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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."
It was new information that had been subpoenaed, the Clinton camp had hidden it incompetently. It was going to come out. He saved his own ass by releasing it himself. Simple self preservation.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No.
Nah, that would have been her decision not to campaign in the Rust Belt where Trump was actively going out and asking people to vote for him. Didn't help that Clintonbots had been shouting that if 'Trump didn't accept the election results he was undermining our democracy'. Because when it came time to do recounts, they couldn't do it without looking like the pathetic idiots they are, and had to rely on Jill Stien to do it for them.
If her name was Hillary Johnson she'd be serving decades in prison just for the obstruction of justice charges over her destruction of evidence. Comey is the greatest friend Hillary has ever had.
Even now, Hillary intermediaries are going on TV and the news magazines proclaiming that they lost because the Russians hacked their servers and used it to actively campaign against Hillary. This did not help their cause then, and it will not help galvanize opposition to the Russians now.
The reason for this is that everyone knows that HRC deliberately ran a private server for her communications, and it was insecurely implemented. They're only pointing out the DNC leadership are a bunch of administrative incompetents when it comes to computer security, and we would only see more security incompetence if we elected a Democrat PotUS. This was also made apparent when Obama's HHS secretary allowed the computer server rollout for the ACA health insurance marketplaces to be bungled, and cost the taxpayers even more money to hire expensive consultants to get the servers to work properly. Did the DNC leadership realize they needed to design their computer systems to segregate data on a need to know basis, provide secured email communication, enclose the entire system behind firewalls and IDS, implement VPNs and "harden" laptop/smartphone use, and carefully vet & control every Democratic workers' computer access? Apparently not.
How does "...but ...but, we were victimized by the evil Russians" going to help their brand in the next election? Democrats are a party of victims. They don't know how to hire and manage competent computer personnel, they can't accept their own culpability in their campaign failure, and if elected, they would probably weaken the computer security of the nation's bureaucracy.
What good does it do for these losers to say, "We need to go to war with the evil Russians"? The House, Senate and executive branch are all controlled by Republicans! (I guess Democrats will have to relearn how to win elections in the next two to four years.) It doesn't even help bolster the case for the Republicans who DO want to actively confront the Russians. It just looks like sour grapes from incompetents. BTW, the RNC was hacked as well; Republican leadership (even outside of Trump) are just as incompetent about system security, even as they bray about how much they care about it and "improper" leaking.
No, he has to say "evidence of potential violations" because it's up to a court to determine that there were violations.
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.
No. No, absolutely not. It is not the place of law enforcement to say someone is "innocent." He specifically says there's evidence of violations and you're spinning that into "innocent."
Did Hillary send, receive, create and store classified material on a private server in her bathroom? Yes.
Is that a violation of the law? Yes.
Are they going to prosecute? No.
That is in no way the same as being "innocent." If that's "innocent," then you're okay with any Joe Blow with a security clearance keeping top secret material on a server in their bathroom?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The US pretty much got dragged into that. France and Britain were the first to start making plans to do something about Libya, largely because they were very concerned that if Ghadaffi wasn't stopped, hundreds of thousands of Libyan refugees would end up in Western Europe. They wanted US support in part because they wanted to this to be a sort of "Allied action", and in part the US just has the better satellite systems, making the whole job easier. We can debate the value of going into Libya, but at least one should understand why it happened.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
> His late-election statements that Clinton Emails were back under investigation likely cost her the election.
Good. She's obviously as corrupt as a $9 bill. She needed to be excluded for the benefit of the country as a whole.
I actually read that the Clinton camp had people who talked to Russia. So why haven't they been investigated? Oh, I guess maybe they had but got a pass. Gee, given that Russia is a Country the US had a relationship with good and bad considering our space exploration, our commerce, that both the US and Russia are significant players in the world might mean both Trump and Clinton camps talk to Russian people? Gee when the Democrat's accused Republican's of conspiracy theories now we have Democrat's doing the same. You know what won the election for Trump, hint it wasn't the Russian's. It was the people fed up with how government and the liberal media ignored them so they fought back in votes.
With our justice system the way it is right now, that would be an absolute shit-show.
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
I don't like to see Hillary selling access to foreign dictators, any more than I like her selling access to Bear Sterns and domestic corporations. I am not a Hillary fan.
Trump, however, did things like personally change the Republican platform from supporting arms to the Ukranian resistance to pro-Russian factions. At the same time Trump had business deals with Russians like the "Fertilizer king" which got him hundreds of millions of dollars. This was documented pretty well by Rachel Maddow and others http://www.politifact.com/trut... https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/... and, if you prefer the other reality, even the Daily Caller http://dailycaller.com/2016/07...
So Trump was taking hundreds of millions of dollars from a country run by a dictator and adversary of the U.S., and he subsequently changed U.S. policies to favor that adversary and go softer on him (and defended Putin's killing of political enemies).
If he is serving the interests of a foreign adversary against the interests of his own country, because of his financial benefit, that's treason.
Hillary did something similar with her Clinton charity, Bear Sterns speeches, and other corporate favors. However, unlike Trump, she didn't take money from countries that were U.S. adversaries, but from "friendly" middle eastern dictatorships. And while I think that corporations like Bear Sterns are enemies of the American people, U.S. law doesn't support me on that.
Hillary sold out the working class (which should be a crime but isn't).
Trump sold out the whole country to a foreign enemy in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars laundered as business deals. That's treason.
The Jimmy Carter who was shot dead while in office, therefore could not manage to get a full term of work done by being dead for a fair bit of it?
No, he definitely didn't mean that one. I think he meant the one who's still alive. You know, the one who is the oldest living president to attend a Presidential inauguration.
Impressive that being shot to death in office didn't seem to slow him down much (and still doesn't).
Nullius in verba
And what exactly is Trump? If his campaign team (and thus, at least indirectly he himself) are part of an active investigation over Russian links to the campaign, what exactly would you call that?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
No she violated the rules. Which is a firing offense from a job she no longer held. Breaking the security practices at work is not a crime unless you do it with malice.
No, he has to say "evidence of potential violations" because it's up to a court to determine that there were violations.
No. Carelessness is not a crime or anywhere near being a crime unless you can prove malice, and she was never accused of maliciously being careless with the purpose of being hacked and leaked.
No she violated the rules
That "rule" is a federal law.
Breaking the security practices at work is not a crime unless you do it with malice.
18 USC 1924:
(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].
I don't see anything in there about "malice." You just have to do the thing to be guilty. Whether you're doing the thing maliciously or just for the hell of it is irrelevant.
Hillary did the thing. I don't think there's any dispute about this. Comey chose not to recommend prosecution because shrug.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Just like Congress members do not get procecuted for insider trading, or it it Law?
No, by law they're exempt from insider trading rules. I don't think that should be the case, but literally they're exempt. No one is just "deciding" not to prosecute them for something they could be prosecuted for.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
we have lots of examples of representatives of other governments influencing our election. Trudeau spoke out for Hillary and against Trump.
I've got an even better example: The Obama Administration gave $350K to help Netanyahu's opponent win the election. The official claim was that they had absolutely no idea that the money would be used to influence the election, despite the fact that the group had sent an email describing their plan to Consul General Michael Ratney. Mr. Ratney's explanation is that he deleted their email without reading it because it was large.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
The liberals have a habit of demanding that prominent Republicans should publicly denounce things. I'd like to find all the people advancing this "Russian hacking" thing and ask them whether they will denounce the Obama Administration's efforts to interfere in the election in Israel. (I'll bet they won't, even though they could just lie and say they do disapprove. Just like all the SJW's knew that Obama was lying when he claimed to be against gay marriage while running for President, the people pushing this Russian hacking thing could claim that they are against all governments interfering with elections even though they really just don't want it to be done to them.)
Assume Putin personally haxx0red the DNC and phished Podesta. What would he need to collude with the Trump campaign for?
The theory I favor: Putin and everyone else in Russia expected Hillary Clinton to win the election; the plan wasn't to use nefarious means to make Trump win, but to lay groundwork for applying pressure against her.
There's this idea going around that Russia wanted President Trump because he's a big fat idiot and they will have an easy time pushing him around. Yet Hillary has done all sorts of things that would open her up to blackmail, while Trump has so far been about as easy to push around as a bull in a china shop. (Even if you deplore what's happening to the china shop, you have to admit the bull is not easy to push around.)
It's already been a shit show.
If you let dogs shit in the house without consequences, expect a super shitty house.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Generally a conviction requires at least some nod towards intent. Yes, she broke the law, but without demonstrating intent, her lawyers likely could get her off, or at least with a much reduced punishment. And as others have pointed out, this is an administrative sanction, so the likely punishment would be pretty moderate. And generally when anyone is pondering a prosecution, the likelihood of conviction is weighed pretty heavily, and where it is deemed that the likelihood is small, it's often the case that charges won't be laid.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
We will reach the Nixonian "what did he know and when did he know it" at some point soon. Even the Republicans on the committee could only really gripe about leaks, which tells you even they know that this hearing is going to reach some damned dangerous ground. And don't imagine for a second that they'll sacrifice their political careers to keep a Republican President afloat.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What "Free Press"? are you referring to? The "Free Press" that did everything in their power to get Trump elected, because as we found out later the Democrats believed he would be the easiest for Hillary to beat? The one that colluded with the DNC to install a particular person to the highest office in the land after the two Primaries? The one that continues to collude to disrupt the current President? The painfully obvious slander and hit jobs by CNN and MSNBC colluding with (and repeating the stories of) NYT, WP, etc..? That "Free Press"?
The "Free" press has been dead for quite a while. We were put on notice by journalists when the monopolization was legalized (previously restricted by law).
I believe it would be more apt to say that Trump wanted to attack an openly corrupt media establishment. A whole lot of people agree with him, and of course the owners of that powerful block of corruption are doing all they can to maintain power and control.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Dogs? Heck, we have donkeys and elephants shitting! Way worse than mere dogs.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Generally a conviction requires at least some nod towards intent.
Only if intent is part of the law. It's not part of all laws by default. We really prefer them to be written that way, with a mens rea component, but our lawmakers have gotten shittier and shittier and they write shitty laws now. The laws about mishandling classified information are strict liability. Same as an awful lot of states' laws about, say statutory rape. Nobody cares if you didn't know she was 15, or you didn't intend to sleep with a 15 year old. Did you do it? Yes. Guilty.
There's no mens rea requirement in the law about mishandling classified information. She did the thing. They chose not to prosecute, which is a matter of opinion. If you agree with that opinion, you're probably a Democrat. If you disagree you're probably a Republican.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The only Mystic Orb you should be heeding is the Loc-Nar.
If it's good enough to destroy Trump with madness, it's good enough for America.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Well I'd call him the best of two bad choices. I certainly think that he needs to be investigated, at least to get rid of the obviously left-invented myth that the Russians helped Trump win.
In fact I seriously think that Putin would have preferred Hillary, because they could simply donate a few million $$ to the Clinton Foundation and gotten whatever they wanted.
Say what you like about Trump, but he's a businessman and negotiates hard and is far more of a pro-US Patriot than Hillary ever is. She had already demonstrated many times that she only cares about herself and that she'd sell out the US for just a few hundred thousand $$ donation to the Clinton Foundation (i.e. a tax-free tunnel to her wallet). Trump is much harder for Putin to manipulate than Hillary ever would be.
But isn't the FBI a law enforcement agency? If there's no potential crime, then what are they investigating?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Careful... you'll find that slashdot has a heavy supply of deniers on this subject. Despite how easy it is to find reports on exactly what you said.
18 USC 1924:
(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].
There is no malice required. This is a strict liability statute. She did the thing, intent is irrelevant, they chose not to prosecute. If you agree with that choice you're probably a Democrat and if you disagree you're probably a Republican.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Yes, that's wrong (if it's true). But it's like a cop opening your car trunk without a warrant. And finding a dead body. It's wrong and inadmissible as evidence. But the body was still there.
Elections aren't about selecting the first person that manages to escape a guilty verdict on a technicality. Had Hillary not used amazingly poor judgement in her handling of official communications, there would be no ammunition for Russia, Trump, or the GOP to embarrass her with and drive undecided voters to the other camp. The fact that it was Russia, with no right or jurisdiction to conduct an 'investigation' is also problematic. But from a point of view of ethics and justice rather than legality, the voters chose not to overlook the smell of a body in the trunk.
Have gnu, will travel.
I'm really tired of seeing this same racist/misogynist bullshit repeated time and time again. Even Obama and Clinton were calling for securing the borders previously, including fence/wall building. It's on youtube if you don't believe me. Obama also put a hold on people entering from the same countries that Trump is trying to temporarily ban. Your reply is all echo-chamber.
If the sore losers somehow manage to knock Trump out of power before the next Presidential election, prepare for all hell to break loose. That will be a call to arms that I believe will lead to the end of the United States. We're already heading that direction with the judicial branch shitting all over the executive branch.
Your mention of race riots is humorous given that Obama started that, not anyone in the GOP. Nuclear fallout? Thank Hillary for her uranium deal and Obama for letting Iran do whatever it wants.
For you it is, for others it was the last eight years.
If you have some evidence of malfeasance in the Clinton Foundation, please provide it. Otherwise, you're just repeating exactly the kind of fake news the Russians produced and the witless Trumpites repeated.
Comey sat in front of a Congressional hearing today and made it clear that the three letter agencies are very much investigating links between Trump's campaign and Russia, so your own particular line of defense no longer holds any water.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That's a regulation and/or rule, not a law.
The more you know.
No, he specifically said there was evidence of potential violations.
Quote it correctly, or understand that others are ignoring you because you're spinning.
Further, the rule is "innocent until proven guilty. Remember? USA and all that?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
>> If you have some evidence of malfeasance in the Clinton Foundation, please provide it.
Oh dear God are you really that ill-informed, or just another one of those braindead Hillary fans that are determined to live in denial?
Just google "Clinton foundation corruption" or similar. Its all over everywhere. here's a few to get you started in case even that's to much of a challenge:
http://observer.com/2016/11/wi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
I worked at a secure facility for several years and had a high clearance for over 20 years. While I can't get into specifics, I am aware of several cases of people taking classified documents home with them, putting classified mail on an unclassified server, copying classified documents onto an external drive, etc. In one particularly bad case a modem was connected to a terminal on the classified network.
In all cases it was determined that the violations were either unintentional or without criminal intent. Usually it was to work on the classified data/documents at home in order to get some critical work done. All were punished administratively with no charges filed. I was not privy to he punishment though I know that in one case where the person was terminated.
The only case I am aware of that went to prosecution was a system admin who installed a private web server which was serving softcore porn (nudes) to some friends. The NY Times learned about it. He was terminated, fined, and perhaps given a suspended sentence.
Based on this experience, I would say not taking criminal action against Hillary Clinton was in line with many other cases.
Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
A non-sequitur, that's what. Trump has fuck-all to do with the fact that Clinton was a horrible candidate with a horrible record of bigotry, hubris, incompetence and corruption.
That explains why nearly all of them are millionaires. Think of all the inside info they get from lobbyists.
The law in question requires the actor to have intent.
It literally does not.
18 USC 1924:
(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].
It's strict liability. No intent required. Do the deed, you're guilty.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
"Comrade Trump, we might have some information very damaging to the Clinton campaign, and we're not sure what to do with it. We could publish it, in the interest of fairness and openness between our two countries, be we would expect the US to reciprocate by removing the silly and unfair Ukrainian sanctions."
And Trump, being a shrewd deal maker who understands leverage would say "ha! You know and I know that Hillary wants Assad removed because she's getting paid by the Saudis and Qatar so they can run their pipeline through Syria instead of yours. You know I don't give a shit about that. So it doesn't matter what I say about sanctions, you're going to release those things anyway."
There's nothing Trump needs to give Vlad to make him release the emails. And doing so would be retarded, because then you're making a deal with the devil. Now Putin can tank Trump's presidency at any time by revealing their collusion.
So it just doesn't make any sense. If Trump doesn't collude, Putin releases the emails. If Trump does collude, Putin releases the emails and can now blackmail Trump. Trump doesn't gain anything by colluding, and risks everything. Very bad deal, and I think even Trump's worst critics have to admit he always makes sure he comes out ahead in deals.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
>> You've got nothing
You BADLY need to educate yourself about corruption in government and stop living in absolute denial like a brainwashed sheep.
It's one thing to accuse or insult other politicians in the US, but dragging our allies into his Web-of-BS is just the kind of thing us T detractors feared.
Many political decisions require hard choices and sometimes you have to offend an ally to make progress in other ways. But this UK accusation is not one of those trade-offs; it's manufactured out of nowhere; an unnecessary source of tension.
T should be put on trial for dragging the UK into this. He should be required to give answers to the citizens of both USA and the UK.
Table-ized A.I.
The same polling organizations had been fairly accurate for the last 3 prez elections. Why would they suddenly all go evil at the same time in one election?
The Brexit polling was also unexpectedly off. Are they "in on it" too?
Rather than global Illuminati-like conspiracies, a better explanation is that new technology has made old polling techniques less accurate.
Table-ized A.I.
Actually, she *is* innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law. If the FBI says there is not enough evidence to bring a case before a court of law, then she is innocent, as she has not been proven guilty in a court of law.
They wanted a wall when it was advantageous to them, then they wanted open borders when that was more popular. They'll say whatever they think will get them more votes and then do little to nothing once in office. Trump's campaign was about restoring us to a nation with laws. It has nothing to do with race or gender or any of that. It has everything to do with enforcing the laws we already have.
There is nothing ill considered about Trump's order. Protecting the homeland comes first. Guests of the country don't have guaranteed entry to this country. The executive branch absolutely has the power under law to withhold entry if national security is at stake, If you don't believe national security is at stake, you need only look at France, Germany, or Sweden.
The Iran situation was a joke. The previous administration did everything short of handing them nuclear weapons. They also broke the law by paying off a ransom in the dark of night. But that was how that administration operated, without transparency, in flagrant violation of US law. And the left still wonders how Trump won.
Based on this experience, I would say not taking criminal action against Hillary Clinton was in line with many other cases.
Kristian Saucier got 1 year in prison for taking 6 photos of the engine room on the sub he was assigned.
Sailor Denied 'Clinton Deal', Gets 1 Year in Prison for 6 Photos of Sub.
It's obvious that Hillary was protected because she's part of the ruling class.
A regulation carries the force of a law. Just ask anyone of the thousands of innocent people that have run afoul of the EPA regulations, or any of the other intentionally bad, America destroying regulations BHO's admin put out.
If there was a good regulation that was passed, it was by mistake I'm sure.
And the outrage you had when the Obamas...
President Obama spent $85 million of taxpayer money on vacations in 8 years. A tidy sum but Trump is on pace to eclipse that total in less than a year. Trump has racked up north of $15 million in travel costs in two MONTHS. Spare me the bogus false equivalence.