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.
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.
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.
For sure, Hillary is much better at keeping her secret deals secret.
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.
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.
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?
Sure, let's play this game.
Obama's 2008 vacations: total cost to US taxpayer: $4.8 million.
Every time Trump flies to Mar-a-Lago: cost to US taxpayer: $3.5 million.
Trump's travel expenses in first month alone: $10 million.
Total Obama spent over the full 8 years in office, $96 million US taxpayer dollars on security, vacations and travel.
In the first month alone, Trump spent $97 million US taxpayer dollars on security, vacations and travel.
So I guess it's fair to call him Parasite Trump.
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.
I see you're using the alt-right interpretation of "Fake News" where anyathing that goes against your god-emperor is "Fake".
The FBI confirmed an investigation - he hasn't confirmed the exact people (neither did the headline). It's pretty clear the investigation involves the Trump campaign.
The Republicans on the other hand, HAVE spent a lot more time examining the circumstances in which the information was disclosed even though it's unrelated to investigation.
Meals on Wheels receives federal grants, so yes, he can cut it.
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.
no, not well documented at all with travel that including official government business being counted as pure vacation.
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.
official government business was done in Florida, you are not accounting correctly
In that case the public record should show who Trump met with during his stays at his private residence. You can't have it both ways.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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.
You mean the GOP-stuffed hearing? NOBODY other than T himself has offered any public evidence of the O wiretap claim, nor has any agency said they have private evidence beyond the tweet itself.
It appears to be a lone tweet so far.
False. Comey said they have no info confirming T's tap-claim tweet.
In my opinion, T should be forced to disclose where he got the alleged info, either in public testimony or on a signed document. It's too big of a claim to just let fly without accountability.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
You have no clue as to how much his almost-every-weekend visit to FL costs us as taxpayers and to the local community in which Mar-a-Lago is located.
In one month, it's predicted that he spent $10 million for his trips to Mar-a-Lago. He's done that for the last 2 months now, so he's probably close to $18-$20 million already. Obama spent $97 million over 8 years.
Don't forget to tally the near $1 million price tag that Palm Beach County has already had to spend of their own money for the extra police staffing and overtime while Trump is at Mar-a-Lago.
https://www.bustle.com/p/how-m...
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...
Lets also consider the taxpayers cost for Secret Service to shuttle the Trump family around on constant vacations, and Melania's insistence of staying in New York, which itself costs a substantial amount of money for security on a daily basis.
You can be upset at welfare families all you want but your Emperor is consuming vast amounts of tax payer money simply for playing golf, and will be surpassing what Obama spent in a matter of months.
But please... don't let these facts remove you from your precious bubble of ignorance.
To be fair it only receives federal grant money in some States and even in those States it's not actually that much of their income.
In the States where they do receive 'Federal' grant money it is covered under the blanket Federal transfers to States which they can generally spend on anything. In a few cases they use a pittance of that transfer to help fund good programs like Meals but the vast majority of it goes to simple local pork projects.
Cutting these types of transfers will have more impact on some State level Senators plans on having a Library named after himself than any local Meals on Wheels program.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
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.
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.
There is also the fact that Trump is benefiting directly from these trips to his own resort. Do you really think it is a coincident that he is flying to his own resort to play golf every weekend rather than going to a resort owned by someone else?
How many weekends did Obama spend in a resort he owned during his first two months in office?
How much government money was funneled to Obama's businesses in the first two months he was in office (which is what Trump is doing by staying at Mar-a-Lago)
If you really want "major portions of the bloated fed government removed" then you should really be asking for military cuts not cuts to programs that only contribute 0.1% of the national budget.
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."
No. The cuts in the discretionary budget account for 3% of the Meals on Wheels budget.
You said "no" then detailed precisely the nonzero appoint he's cutting. That means "yes he is in fact cutting funding". You then went on to give reasons why you think the cuts are fine. And yet you claim the cuts don't exist.
Do you have no shame?
1. Should the Federal Government provide _ANY_ funding to _PRIVATE_ organizations?
Yes.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
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.
To be fair it only receives federal grant money in some States and even in those States it's not actually that much of their income.
Every meals on wheels affiliate receives a mix of local, state, and federal funding along with donations. It's not just 'some States.'
"The majority of Meals on Wheels programs get most of their federal funding through the Administration for Community Living, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services that serves the elderly and disabled. That agency has a $227 million line-item for "home-delivered nutrition services.""
HUD also provides some federal dollars to States that end up being provided to Meals on Wheels affiliates, but not nearly as much as HHS.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
In a few cases they use a pittance of that transfer to help fund good programs like Meals but the vast majority of it goes to simple local pork projects.
I would have to ask for some sort of proof to back up your claim, as it seems that the federal dollars from HHS goes specifically to health programs for the elderly.
Possibly the federal dollars that HUD passes out to States gets blown off on local pork, but that's a small fraction compared to what HHS doles out, as previously mentioned.
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.
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.
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.
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'll never understand why local law enforcement, like Palm Beach and NYC, would spend extra funds on protecting the President without receiving compensation. Make the President fund protection from his own budget or let him fend for himself.
>> 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
We can and should demand that other NATO members pay their own way
This alone shows that you have drunk the cheeto flavoured kool-aid and have no idea how NATO operates.
NATO members pay for their own standing armies, they are not subsidised.
NATO membership includes a commitment that says you should be spending a certain percentage of your GDP on defense. The bone of contention is that other members have not been spending enough to meet the commitment, even though they have been raising % spending. In other words, their armies "aren't large enough".
Many countries are literally finding it difficult to increase military spending without going down the US route of boondoggles to siphon taxpayer money into the military-industrial complex. They aren't set up that way.
The short version is that NATO members owe the US squat in terms of money.
We can (and should) be friendly with Russia.
Russia has recently annexed the Crimea and show no signs of slowing down, eyeing up the eastern Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, all the while attempting to destabilise major European countries in the same manner. It's apparent that Russia has big ambitions.
Russia is by all accounts a oligarch-run criminal hellhole where civil rights and opposition parties are being stamped out and a cult of leadership is in place. Nobody in their right mind wants to see their country become part of Russia.
Maybe the current US administration thinks it can be friendly with Russia, but that immediately sets the US against the rest of NATO and the EU.
None of this means we have to abandon NATO or our far east allies. And it doesn't mean we have to lick Putin's boot. It just means we stop paying for everything and we stop stirring shit outside of our borders.
Well, as a matter of fact legitimising Russia's behaviour *is* abandoning your allies.