Slashdot Mirror
Jared & Ivanka: Couple 'Continues To Use' Private Messaging For White House Business, Top Democrat Says (thedailybeast.com)
Freshly Exhumed writes: Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has revealed that senior White House advisor Jared Kushner's lawyer admitted in December that his client "continues to use" WhatsApp to conduct official White House business. The chairman also said that a lawyer for Ivanka Trump and Mr. Kushner told the committee late last year that they additionally used private email accounts for official White House business in a way that may have violated federal records laws. Mr Kushner's lawyer, Abbe Lowell could not say whether his client used WhatsApp to share classified information. Regardless, Cummings says the communications raise questions about whether Kushner and other officials violated the Presidential Records Act, which requires the president and his staff "take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records." As for Ivanka's use of a personal email account to conduct official business, her lawyer says she sent the emails before she was briefed on the rules.
If you're not familiar with WhatsApp, here's what you should know about it: "As of January 2019, more than 1.5 billion users in over 180 countries use WhatsApp, created in 2009 as an alternative to text messaging," reports USA Today. "Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014 to make a bigger play in the rapidly-growing messaging market, along with its own Messenger platform, which also boasts 1.5 billion users." The service features end-to-end encryption, meaning the sender and recipient are the only ones who can view the messages.
If you're not familiar with WhatsApp, here's what you should know about it: "As of January 2019, more than 1.5 billion users in over 180 countries use WhatsApp, created in 2009 as an alternative to text messaging," reports USA Today. "Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014 to make a bigger play in the rapidly-growing messaging market, along with its own Messenger platform, which also boasts 1.5 billion users." The service features end-to-end encryption, meaning the sender and recipient are the only ones who can view the messages.
Because people piss their pants if it's not a technology related story on Slashdot, so someone needs to find a tech angle for Mueller to get that posted. Here we have the WhatsApp/Facebook aspect.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's 2019 and "but her emails" is still going strong. Is this going to be the campaign slogan for 2020?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Will you ever grow the fuck up? I'm sure your rant has something to do with the US news but nothing to do with anything here. This story is pretty shallow but is more than 48 hours old on its website. Does that cure your derangement? You need to actually take your medication as directed.
Hello, I'm a lifelong libertarian voting republican in certain races since I first reached 18. In 2016, I voted AGAINST Hillary because I believe the democratic party, due to their demographics, will be the first to outlaw the most sacred amendment, Freedom of Speech. I still feel that way.
All that said. Trump and Co needed to go and yesterday. We need to purge the Party before Country folks in the Republican party before they ship the sink with them.
Fuck Pelosi. Fuck Trump. Fuck McConnell. Get the old rotten blood all out.
Yep. The problem isn't that Trump made POTUS, the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.
Most of the votes cast were really votes against one of the candidates.
In reality "None of the above" was the only sensible vote in the last elections.
Yes, Trump promised to "Drain the swamp" but it turned out to be a lie (surprise!!!)
No sig today...
At least Jared and Ivanka are using an encrypted platform. Hillary, on the other hand...well, he likes to screw taxpayers without protection.
If there's a virus/backdoor on any receiving device then encryption won't make a difference.
No sig today...
Jared & Ivanka: Couple 'Continues To Use' Private Messaging For White House Business
LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! .....
Everybody is talking as if they know what's in the Mueller Report. They don't. It's in Barr's hands now.
All that article talks about is indictments when we know there are many SEALED indictments. We knew since last year there's an INDIVIDUAL-1 that's obviously the president. And we knew if Trump fired Mueller, the fallout would have been massive.
In short, this article is nothing but spin.
Actually, the only news referring to,"damage to the President" is that there were no more indictments recommended by Mueller. It is entirely possible that his legal advice is that a sitting President cannot be indicted so he is leaving it up to Congress (Or something. Not an American). It is also possible that there is evidence in the report but not clear enough to indict leaving the entire situation pretty much the same. You should probably wait until the report comes out in full, if it ever does.
I reserve the write to mangle english.
While you are likely right, it also sounds like a poor excuse on Ivanka’s part, when her father was voted in due to Hilary’s emails. Surely it would have made sense to do better than the one accused? At the same time I have read stories where the approved systems are so clunky that this invariably staff do use other methods just to be able to get work done.
Do note I am not here as a supporter of Hilary or Trump, so I am not taking sides.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
So are all conversations they have person to person also part of the public record? There should be some kind of difference between internal conversations of members of the same team (where hey, at some point, you will have a beer together) and official business between organizations or even countries where decisions are being made.
Just WAIT until you see all the ILLEGAL STUFF Hillary REALLY did. It will make all the PIDDLY illegal stuff we already know Trump and Co. have done look like PEANUTS. And I am NOT talking about the COMIC, as YOU can TELL by my ALL CAPS.
LOL, 2017
Hey dummy! How about posting some Rachel Maddow clips or some Louise Mensch tweets next...
Other people in the government or military have been convicted of similar security crimes.
They didn't have a corrupt Attorney General to keep them from being prosecuted like Clinton had with Loretta Lynch.
The only insane frothing at the mouth is the anti-hillary shriekers like you dearie. She was investigated thoroughly for many years. Yet you demand that trump should not and deflect to "Waht aboot hilairy!!!!!" And when your idiocy is treated with the disdain and scorn it deserves, you HAVE to pretend it is just raving lunacy, not people actually connecting to reality and finding you falling FAR SHORT of it. Because otherwise you would not be able to maintain both your idiocy and your ego's satisfaction.
I wish there was a statute of limitations on using Hillary Clinton to excuse bad behaviour.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Not as dead as this post...
There were no emails that the court requested being deleted. So, wrong.
Mind you, that DID happen with Shrub and Dick. Didn't hear you bleat on about it at the time, and you're still ignoring it today!
The question is not "are they official employees", but rather "are they covered by the FOIA?"
If they're not covered by the FOIA, then they've broken no laws, unless they've discussed classified information on their private server, in which case they should be nailed to a tree for mishandling classified information.
If they ARE covered by the FOIA, then they've broken the same law Hillary did, in the same way. And should be punished in the same way Hillary was.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Uhhh, Comey literally laid out the case for exactly why she should have been prosecuted, then said she shouldn't be prosecuted, and it has emerged more recently that there was White House pressure to change the wording of his report to turn "gross negligence" (an actual criminal offense) into "extreme carelessness".
Unlike the Dems, Republicans actually care that their leaders don't violate the law. But we also don't allow people to just trump up charges against our people. You idiots were shrieking about how you were going to impeach Trump from day one long before you ever had any evidence or even a fucking narraitive. We watched you scheme to come up with one in real time.
And now you are going to PAY for it.
The problem is the system that given two choices picks the one least able to effectively lead the country and make things better for people, mostly because of innuendo and bullshit.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
That's a pretty bold accusation. Can you back it up?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Stop lying. Everything was investigated by a Republican Congress and it was found that she did nothing wrong.
I don't respond to AC's.
"Lock'em up"
If you look beyond the obvious partisan memes that continue to be spouted here, there are a couple of much more significant, underlying concerns.
/. readers have a technical background and are familiar with the concept of designing systems with redundancy, reliability and independent controls [to ensure effectiveness]. None of these concepts are beyond us - certainly not beyond an institution with the budget of the federal government.
1. Why have officially mandated guidelines for all those serving in government - including post-holders, employees and advisors - not been tightened? If the concerns raised by the "Clinton Email Server" were as serious as the talking heads would have us believe, then when the Republicans came to power in 2016, why was the first new legislation on the slate not a comprehensive review of "conduct in public office", with permissible and impermissible activities more clearly defined?
3. Why is it acceptable for "dark money" to be given to aid political campaigns, with voters having no visibility of sources and therefore no way of knowing if decisions and votes being cast by elected representatives are given based on representing their electorate or based on the requirements of those special interests?
One way to look at this is as a customer - you a buying a service from the federal government by virtue of the taxes you pay.
In order to be able to look at this objectively, we need to cast aside the specifics of Hilary's email server or Kushner's use of Whatsapp, or Jrvanka's access to Top Secret information through clearances that raised strenuous objections from every agency involved... Instead we have to look at this from th eperspective of imagining a worst-case scenario: that the republic is under direct attack from hostile foreign actors, corrupt insiders and mendacious corporations and make sure that the framework in which government operates is designed from the get-go to safeguard *us* from abuses of that system.
Many
In shore, there are no excuses for the public to accept these failures of their government.
Are Jared and Ivanka storing US state secrets on illegal external servers outside the control of the US intelligence agencies?
Us Intelligence agencies controls Whatsapp? I'm sure there are many people who'd like to know this little fact, including the US intelligence agencies. Have you told them, yet?
I don't respond to AC's.
Because people piss their pants if it's not a technology related story on Slashdot, so someone needs to find a tech angle for Mueller to get that posted.
There should be a Betteridge's or Godwin's Law postulating that Slashdotters are capable of finding a tech angle on anything.
It's kinda sorta like the IT UI saying: "Nothing can be made foolproof, because fools are so ingenius."
That said, I don't come here to read the tech news . . . I come here to read what other tech folks think about the news.
A Slashdot story about Kim Kardashian's butt would probably get a post stating:
"I am a postdoc using advanced topological quantum entanglement field theory models with butt cheeks to create Higgs Bosons."
" . . . and it is a good excuse for a noonday wank."
So for me, a tech folks discussion about the Mueller Report would be potentially interesting . . . however, given the current polarized state of US politics at the moment . . . it would quickly deteriorate into a flame fest.
I would need to set my browsing settings at +5 to avoid the trash.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
It's a major fault in /. moderation system that posts are so easily and frequently modded as troll. A comment, however stupid it is, can only be modded as troll if it clearly insincere.
This is a comment I actually agree with so you can imagine the misbehavior of the modders is even more offensive .
It is indeed very obvious that with the ending of the Mueller investigation every possible claim against the sitting government will be thrown at it to draw attention away from it.
Well, not every possible claim. Nobody cares about the things where he really stinks. This is a horrible president folks, but the only cases where he had the right instinct were the cases where he got resistance from everyone: North Korea (mostly been torpedoed but not dead yet), Afghanistan(might still succeed), Russia(gave up on that very quickly), Syria(unclear). Venezuela: let's get that oil. So that makes him presidential.
Jared and Ivanka aren't dealing with state secrets
They're not? Then why do they have top level security clearance?
I don't respond to AC's.
that Jared and Ivanka used an app known for it's end to end encryption an ability to maintain privacy and secrecy with the full intention of maintaining all records.
Also, I'm quite certain I'm Napoleon. Viva la France!
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You're focusing on the wrong thing. The "system" resulted in the two worst major-party candidates in at least modern history being nominated, and yet your complaint is that the wrong dreadful candidate got elected?
If you fix your party and nominate a real candidate, then we won't have this problem in the first place.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Somewhere there's a bridge.....
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. I won't be holding my breath for a chant...any chant...of lock him up.
And before Hillary there was Shrub and Cheney. Republicans. Who got given the walk DESPITE DELETING EMAILS THE COURT REQUESTED. Since you didn't complain when you did it before, you can't blame Hillary for you not complaining about you doing it AGAIN.
Maybe you should have thought before posting your bollocks. Try something not so obviously ideologically blinded and contrafactual.
It's never about needing the oil. It is about controlling it and a bit about selling it.
"[H]er lawyer says she sent the emails before she was briefed on the rules."
It's a testament to this lawyer's iron will that he/she could utter that sentence without vomiting. If there's anyone on earth who really thinks that this administration could have entered the White House being blissfully unaware that email privacy and security was something to probably think about...
The very first month Trump is in office he blows up Israeli intelligence assets out in the open. It was made known that Israel's security officials now considered anything "leaked" to the U.S. president is at risk. It hasn't gotten any better since then but domestic intelligence has adopted the practice of withholding things from him.
Over every objection by each and every U.S. intelligence agency Ivanka and Jared are given security clearances. These two are paid with taxpayer dollars to advise the president.
I & J have been revealed to be in conflict of interest in multiple instances involving foreign entities, both government and private. The entire family has been shown to be skirting the law and is most likely open to blackmail.
Now we have many posts in this thread that state with absolute confidence that I & J could not possibly have anything worth investigating and by no means could have possibly have compromised anything. The mind reels.
Buttery Males.
the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.
Who would you have chosen instead?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There's a statute of limitations on Hillary Clinton. She's getting old. Thank goodness.
Yep. The problem isn't that Trump made POTUS, the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.
Most of the votes cast were really votes against one of the candidates.
In reality "None of the above" was the only sensible vote in the last elections.
Yes, Trump promised to "Drain the swamp" but it turned out to be a lie (surprise!!!)
Clinton was a disappointing candidate and poor campaigner, but she was not "None of the above".
She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington. The only difference is her thing happened to be a charity which happens to be one of the least personally beneficial. And the charity actually seemed to be doing good work!!
And the emails, again one of those laws that everyone huffed and puffed about, but most top-level Washington people either ignored it or followed it only through convenience (ie, they used the work email because they didn't want people using their personal addresses).
That's not to say she didn't have legitimate flaws, but among candidates of the last 30 years I think Obama was the only definitively better one. Bill Clinton's charm probably made him a more effective President than she would have been but she certainly seems to be a better human being than him.
I stole this Sig
What's in the Mueller report?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Fix your caps lock key. Or maybe just buy a new keyboard. You've almost certainly sputtered on that one enough that it's very damaged.
Yep. The fact it's done is a minor news item. When we find out what's actually in it, if we find out, that will be real news.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.
Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?
Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?
The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia, including secret meetings in 2016
as she was candidate Clinton?
Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?
Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?
Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
There's no evidence that I've ever seen that Hillary intentionally gave away or sold state secrets. But what she did do, and the evidence is clear, was to demonstrate gross negligence in the handling of classified information. That is a crime and it's a crime many people have been sentenced to jail over.
Moderation at Slashdot is "-1 if I don't like what you said, even if it's true and referenced", unfortunately... Feelings seem to matter more and more, over facts.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.
Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?
Uhhh, you're confusing things.
Like I said, people were donating to gain favour. Obviously they did so more when she was in a position of power or potential power. But that's absolutely Washington SOP.
It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong". I mean it's pretty much standard that if you want to meet with a politician you don't have to be a donor.. but it would really help if you were.
It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.
Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?
You mean the acquisition that was completely normal and uncontroversial acquisition and H. Clinton had almost nothing to do with anyway?
The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia,
People with international dealings having a few connections to a major country is fine. The problem with Trump is there's a ton of people with big connections to incredibly shady people.
including secret meetings in 2016
as she was candidate Clinton?
The problem with the Trump orbit meetings is:
1) A few of them seem directly related to the stolen emails.
2) Many of the Trump people in question repeatedly lied about the meetings. Either leaving them off official forms or denying they took place under oath.
Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?
Sigh. The dossier was opposition research, not "fake". Somethings have been proven wrong, and some have been verified.
Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?
Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...
Campaigns do sketching things sometimes. Hell, this guy signed up a fake candidate to launch an attack campaign against his rival then drop out of the race.
Oh, and here's a fun question where I'm really interested to hear the answer.
So lets assume you're right and the dossier really was a "fake dossier".
So... what was the point?
Because it didn't come out before the election, and as you pointed out she certainly had enough friends in the media to put it out.
Hell, they could even "anonymously leak" it somewhere, yet they obviously didn't.
So why get a fake dossier to slander Trump if you don't actually release it till after you already lost the election?
I feel like you w
I stole this Sig
This is just whatabboutery on behalf of Hillary Clinton without mentioning her by name. No one else has set up their own private server, used it extensively & exclusively for electronically communicating the highest levels of classified information, or destroyed huge amounts of evidence while under active FBI investigation. There is no comparison whatsoever between Hillary and any Republican - Republicans, by the way, who Hillary blasted for using "secret email" accounts a mere two years before setting up her own secret email server. So she was a much worse hypocrite, much earlier, than anyone who chanted "lock her up" but now doesn't care about the Kushner's.
And that's not the end of the BS. There's the nonsense that Hillary's emails were ok because they weren't marked classified. If Hillary got an email from a CIA section chief in Japan about the state of North Korea's nuclear weapons program, that information didn't have to be stamped as classified to be treated as such - it was inherently classified. A fact Hillary knew full well as she received special training on handling such information.
Then there's the line that it wasn't that bad because Hillary didn't have any intent to mishandle or misuse any information. But intent is completely irrelevant to being charged with handling classified evidence - just ask Kristian Saucier. He was prosecuted by the same DOJ that whitewashed Hillary's actions, despite the DOJ agreeing that he had no intention of misusing the selfies he took on Navy submarines. They prosecuted him anyway, because he had classified information on his unsecured, unauthorized phone. Hillbots, try and explain why she shouldn't be prosecuted for her unsecured, unauthorized server when far lesser people have done time in federal pound-me-in-the-ass penitentiaries.
Last but not least, there's the destruction of tens of thousands of pieces of evidence while under active FBI investigation. Dembots have been cheering Mueller for indictments over process crimes, like lying to the FBI. Just what do you think St. Robert would have done if Manafort or Papadopolis had deleted 30,000+ emails while he was actively investigating them. They'd get decades for obstruction of justice, even if that was the only charge he went to trial with.
There's so much wrong with this information it reminds me of the 9/11 truth movement and antivaxxer nonsense.
The investors.com article claiming Russian ties is a hatchet job. Let's not forget this rag's editor claimed Hawking's would have died if he lived in the UK and depended on NIH (in fact he lived so long partially because of NIH). Renaissance Capital does not have Russian ties, Bob Mercer does and he has been estranged from the company and finally removed from the organization due to his ties to Brietbart. There was no connection between Bob Mercer and the donations from Renaissance to the Clinton foundation. This has been one of the highest earning most wealthy hedge funds going back years and the real man in charge is Jim Simons a long time Democrat supporter. Half million dollar speeches are normal for this company, they are rolling in many billions. Bob Mercer in fact owned Cambridge Analytics and a large part of Brietbart and was one of the largest donors to Trump. Joule Unlimited was a Roger Stone/Brietbart operation blown way out of proportions. Its the same for the rest in this story, the author even admits he didn't quote stories properly at the bottom.
The Hill article cites Peskov saying Putin preferred Trump and found Clinton to be hostile toward Russia. He said the meeting with Clinton were normal diplomatic meetings with no intent to manipulate the election. He also carefully avoided mentioning the many contacts between Team Trump and actual Russian spies.
From the factcheck on U1: "as we’ve written before, there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation from people with ties to Uranium One or Bill Clinton’s speaking fee influenced Hillary Clinton’s official actions. That’s still the case."
The Opensecrets article clearly states that Hillary resigned from the Clinton Foundation before she started running and after the election started a 501(c)(4) where more donations are now being funneled.
I could go on but what's the point, people here aren't looking for reasonable debate, they're looking for confirmation bias.
All agreed there; that's why some of us browse at -1 permanently, so we can dig through the wreckage and upvote hidden gems (defined as Shit I Like).
What makes the system of moderation great is that it allows us to use our own squishy matter between the ears to decide what we'd like to see, instead of nanny stating us like sheeple.
All this nail biting for the benefit of the advertisers and tabloids...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Yep. The problem isn't that Trump made POTUS, the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.
Most of the votes cast were really votes against one of the candidates.
In reality "None of the above" was the only sensible vote in the last elections.
Yes, Trump promised to "Drain the swamp" but it turned out to be a lie (surprise!!!)
Except that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
So most people were for her, it's just the US has an anti-democratic middle man called "the Electoral College" that got in the way. If the American system was more democratic there would be fewer problems (see also Al Gore (who I'm guessing would have handled 9/11 differently, i.e., not invade countries at great cost)).
"Like I said, people were donating to gain favour. " Also known as bribery...
Having classified email on a "home" computer IS ILLEGAL. Subject to fines and imprisonment. Look it up. If she bothered with security briefings she would have known. Heck, if she had a *brain* she would have known. But rules/laws are for "deplorables", not her.
the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.
Oh! I didn't know that we're supposed to wait for the Party to offer up the candidates from their Rolodex. From what I learned in high school, we can can petition for and nominate the candidate we want, not necessarily what the Party "offers". I believe those are the rules, should we ever decide to enforce them.
By the way, there were other candidates on the ballot. You shouldn't be so scared to take a chance.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
They're still blaming Reagan. Not as much, but still. And Bush. And Bush. And now Trump. And occasionally Nixon. And FDR (by Occasionally Coherent). And Jefferson. And George.
Sorry, they're still blaming presidents from the 1700s and early 1800s. I believe they're dead.
It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.
That is the point. Our government runs on sleaze, and HRC is a "normal" example of that sleaze.
So the choice was between a slimy politician and a slimy businessman. I don't know what the solution is, but our system is clearly broken if the only options were HRC and DJT.
One solution is instant-runoff voting, which was done in Maine and seems to work well. There were predictions that the voters would be too stupid to understand it, but that didn't happen in Maine.
Another (or additional) solution is open primaries. California has gone to open primaries for state, but not federal, elections. It seems to be working to elect more moderates, and weaken the power of political parties.
:-) You're objection to the Electoral College is duly noted.
Overruled... Next...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Blame is fine. "Her emails" as defence of your own shitty behaviour is not. Take responsibility.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Who would you have chosen instead?
For the 2016 presidential election:
Republican: John Kasich
Democrat: Tim Kaine
Or two candidates with similar ethics, executive experience, temperament, and political realism.
In a 3-way instant run-off, either of these guys would have easily beat HRC and DJT.
(The /. ratio is defined as the ratio of AC comments by paid Russian propagandists compared to the rest of the comments in aggregate.)
Just WAIT until you see all the ILLEGAL STUFF Hillary REALLY did.
About as likely as finding Jimmy Hoffa. These people are untouchable. They have insurance. For one to go after the other is the very definition of Mutually Assured Destruction.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
senior White House advisor Jared Kushner's lawyer admitted in December
This is news now? I remember hearing about this at the time (December) - Cummings isn't claiming they are using WhatsApp today.
Just to be clear an exchange between a husband and wife where oneor both work in the whitehouse about whether the other will be home for dinner qualifies as "official whitehouse business" since it involves their work schedule.
Ken
Individual 1 is a name for the President in a Southern District of New York investigation, not Mueller investigation.
Ken
In Soviet America all people are equal before the Law. But some classes of people are more equal than others.
How naive are you? OF COURSE our intelligence agencies control WhatsApp. It's part of friggin' FACEBOOT for crying out loud!
Hell no on Tim Kaine, though. That guy is a snake. At least with Trump you know what you are getting.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
How is there a more important story than the hypocrisy of the right, who will be dictating who you can fcuk for the next 70 years via the stolen seat on the Supreme Court?
LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! .....
Excellent example of the brokenness of Slashdot's moderation. I can see the selfish (even authoritarian) basis for the "I disagree" negative mods, but what's the justification for insightful in such a tiny joke? A "funny" mod or two for the satirical aspects might have been justified, but I don't think nepotism, even flagrant nepotism, calls for the chanting mob.
However it does remind me of the parody protest I'd like to see, based on the chant of "Lock kids up, LOCK KIDS UP!" Obviously it would be a parody of a Trump rally, but as part of a protest against child separation, especially for asylum seekers. I think for maximum impact, the protesters should chant in "Trump face", with the short video building to a crescendo of rage before dissolving into mad screams. Each Trump face could be as simple as a piece of paper. I'd recommend an angry shouty closeup of Trump's face. Try to forget the image of a mob of enraged little Trumps!
Well done, I think that such a video might go viral. It might even cause some people to stop and think "Do I really want to be part of that sort of thing?"
The bottom line is that it is legal to seek asylum. Be quite amusing if Trump's supporters want to flee in panic because the next president turns out to be a Democratic anti-Trump with Trumpian tendencies, only to discover that Canada and Mexico have closed the borders and will separate them from their children if they seek asylum.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
> It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong".
Wow, that's really neat. You can completely ignore bribery laws by declaring that you intended to favor those donors regardless of their donations? That's incredibly convenient!
> It's 2019 and "but her emails" is still going strong. Is this going to be the campaign slogan for 2020?
Well, they contain collusion with foreign spies (Steele, Deirpaksa & co.), every sort of records law evasion you could want (and intent to do so in the email with Colin Powell who explained how to get away with it, that it was against the law, and that the NSA was strongly against this), violations of handling of classified materials, quid pro quo (e.g. the "WaPo party"), among other things... but nobody's going to prosecute any of *that* so yeah, it kind of is relevant that some parties are just above the law.
But you know what? You find Trump did these things, then feel free to prosecute him. Because I'm not a filthy hypocrite like the people up thread explaining that it wasn't "really" bribery when Hillary did it, because she didn't do anything she felt was wrong.
Until you arrest the grand prize winner for top secret material stored on a box conveniently accessible to the world, until that day I say not one government official should be punished for leaking information.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Speaking out against Israel in an attempt to get them to change their ways is protected speech.
Boycotting them is, by definition, going beyond speech in an attempt to do economic harm, to get them to change their ways. You might have an argument about freedom of association, but that is regulatable in the business realm to prevent discrimination. Women, minorities, or country of origin, these are all constitutionally acceptable reasons to ban business discrimination.
These laws prevent businesses from discriminating over many things.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
*raises hand*
What do I do if some of my squishy matter leaked out on the floor?
The fact that nothing happened to Hillary is the precedent. If nothing happened to her, and remember there were others pre or during Hillary that got away with it, then why would such a genius as you self-proclaim yourself to be have anything to whine about vis a vis Trump et al continuing the stupidity?
She wasn't corrupt,
Tell it to Haiti.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Who would you have chosen instead?
Adam Savage.
No sig today...
The entire "political class" is unsuitable and cannot be trusted to run a country. Their own interests will always be first.
No sig today...
Then don't vote for them!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Hiring someone is not collusion. And, from on objective standpoint she seems to have done everything required of her (making the records available), when it was required of her. She certainly should have done that earlier (e.g.: when she left office), but the actual laws were non-specific about that.
Yo mentioned Colin Powel, who absolutely broken both the spirit and letter of the law intentionally, and then don't mention that he has not been punished for this, nor that Clinton seems to have gone out of her way not to do that.
People are rightly asking that from a family that campaigned on someone not releasing records that they release their records. How can you really argue against that?