Yes, I would expect the IRS to get clarification from Trump on any question they might have. Why on earth wouldn't they?
" If the New York Times wants a clarification on a quote that HRC made while she was Secretary of State, the correct person to ask is HRC herself"
That's Time's decision, not State's.
Comey admitted there was evidence, but that it would not be possible to find a prosecutor to act on it
Have you looked into the classified emails they found? There were only a few. They were basically talking points for upcoming phone calls, and were probably mailed by accident because the classified marks weren't obvious. That isn't a crime, which is why she wasn't prosecuted.
There's no evidence that Hilary was coordinating a deception with State. Even if she were, it would only be a crime if she were covering up criminal activity, but there's no evidence for that, either.
Mail in ballots are not OK. So many people see the obvious problems with ballot selfies, but don't have any concern for mail in ballots.
Pieces of paper in a locked box. At the end of the night, the old ladies of the neighborhood count each ballot one by one in front of everybody. It works, it can't be hacked. Parents can't vote for their kids. It's just a bit slower and less convenient.
You're right. you said "criminal behavior", not "crime". Maybe there's a way to behave criminally without committing a crime.
It's called "an example of what kind of thing could have happened",
Which means jack-all. You can't treat Clinton like she committed a crime because in your head you know it's possible, somehow, though we just haven't found the evidence yet.
The fact is, it is unethical for a political campaign to be vetting information that the State Department sends to the NYT, both for the NYT to allow it and the State Department to do it.
Why would that be unethical? Imagine another hypothetical:
State: The Times is asking us about a quote from the Secretary where she claimed the sky is blue. Podesta (or whoever): The secretary wants to emphasize that she said the sky is a steel blue, and that she did point out the clouds on the horizon.
It's a measure of decline of Slashdot that this kind of illogical bullshit gets modded up.
The idea that it's a crime for the State department to discuss it's response to questions from the media with a former Secretary (or her people!) should never have made it past the first neuron in charge of filtering stupid ideas.
"I am going to say 'green'."
"Ok, I'll say 'green' too, so there is no contradiction or confusion."
That's all in your head. If they actually had agreed to lie about something, the story would have been about State and Clinton agreeing to lie about something.
If State is answering news questions about Clinton, it would make sense they would consult with Clinton. It's not collusion because the discussion was not about how to handle an official investigation.
The original poster is guilty of misdirection, but so are you.
The left only just recently learned about the alt right. The only reason the left i.e. regular people, get to define alt-right is that there are so many more of them.
Trump lost the election the day he chose birtherism as his opening move. Obama strung him along, and then crushed him effortlessly at the white house correspondent's dinner. Any intelligent person would have backed out at that point.
In retrospect, it was an accidental master stroke on Obama's part, because he simultaneously made Trump a hero to half the Republican base, and unelectable, seriously damaging the Republican party.
Trump also should have known that sexual assault wouldn't play well, and that the Clintons would find out about it.
I wonder what Gilberthorpe was doing in first class, on a flight to New York when he was 17 years old? Was he taking a break from supplying male street meat to conservatives in parliament, as he claimed to have been doing?
My God, breitbart gets fed shit, they pass it on and you guys eat it up.
Trump bragged on tape about sexually assaulting women. Nobody is going to believe he didn't do it.
Mail in vote doesn't solve the problem of ambiguous ballots in close elections. And no, I don't mean stick with the same thing. I think we should get rid of any electronic vote counting.
My county, for instance, used to use scantron machines (same as Florida, hanging chads etc.) the ballots were dutifully observed travelling in locked ballot boxes handled and put into the machine. But the old DOS computer reading the machine... they didn't really have any proof that it wasn't compromised, they just knew it counted a small test set properly. It almost certainly wasn't compromised, but there's nobody at the elections office who's qualified to check.
Where I'm at, you have to sign an affidavit that accompanies your ballot. In a voting booth, you can vote however you want because it's secret. Your husband can't accompany you into the booth.
Slashdot Mirror
The article is referring to the book, not the movie. The book is pretty fascist.
Yes, I would expect the IRS to get clarification from Trump on any question they might have. Why on earth wouldn't they?
" If the New York Times wants a clarification on a quote that HRC made while she was Secretary of State, the correct person to ask is HRC herself"
That's Time's decision, not State's.
Comey admitted there was evidence, but that it would not be possible to find a prosecutor to act on it
Have you looked into the classified emails they found? There were only a few. They were basically talking points for upcoming phone calls, and were probably mailed by accident because the classified marks weren't obvious. That isn't a crime, which is why she wasn't prosecuted.
There's no evidence that Hilary was coordinating a deception with State. Even if she were, it would only be a crime if she were covering up criminal activity, but there's no evidence for that, either.
At the very least, the person you request a ballot form knows.
You can tell if someone gets a new ballot. That isn't secret.
Mail in ballots are not OK. So many people see the obvious problems with ballot selfies, but don't have any concern for mail in ballots.
Pieces of paper in a locked box. At the end of the night, the old ladies of the neighborhood count each ballot one by one in front of everybody. It works, it can't be hacked. Parents can't vote for their kids. It's just a bit slower and less convenient.
You can tell if someone gets a replacement ballot.
There's no freedom of speech issue. People are free to draw up a fake ballot and take a picture if they want.
Yes, except in special cases (military for example)
You're right. you said "criminal behavior", not "crime". Maybe there's a way to behave criminally without committing a crime.
It's called "an example of what kind of thing could have happened",
Which means jack-all. You can't treat Clinton like she committed a crime because in your head you know it's possible, somehow, though we just haven't found the evidence yet.
The fact is, it is unethical for a political campaign to be vetting information that the State Department sends to the NYT, both for the NYT to allow it and the State Department to do it.
Why would that be unethical? Imagine another hypothetical:
State: The Times is asking us about a quote from the Secretary where she claimed the sky is blue.
Podesta (or whoever): The secretary wants to emphasize that she said the sky is a steel blue, and that she did point out the clouds on the horizon.
"That's called conspiracy when criminals do it"
Key part being criminal. If Clinton and State weren't coordinating a criminal act, it's not a conspiracy.
It's a measure of decline of Slashdot that this kind of illogical bullshit gets modded up.
The idea that it's a crime for the State department to discuss it's response to questions from the media with a former Secretary (or her people!) should never have made it past the first neuron in charge of filtering stupid ideas.
"I am going to say 'green'."
"Ok, I'll say 'green' too, so there is no contradiction or confusion."
That's all in your head. If they actually had agreed to lie about something, the story would have been about State and Clinton agreeing to lie about something.
If State is answering news questions about Clinton, it would make sense they would consult with Clinton. It's not collusion because the discussion was not about how to handle an official investigation.
The original poster is guilty of misdirection, but so are you.
Quiet, you. There's a witch to be burned.
It's a definition of a Clinton Scandal piece that it seems like less of a scandal the more you get into the details.
If people were able to override their feelings, Trump wouldn't get a single vote except from the Nazi crowd.
The left only just recently learned about the alt right. The only reason the left i.e. regular people, get to define alt-right is that there are so many more of them.
Welcome to Slashdot, where unhinged ranting is modded insightful.
No it isn't.
Trump lost the election the day he chose birtherism as his opening move. Obama strung him along, and then crushed him effortlessly at the white house correspondent's dinner. Any intelligent person would have backed out at that point.
In retrospect, it was an accidental master stroke on Obama's part, because he simultaneously made Trump a hero to half the Republican base, and unelectable, seriously damaging the Republican party.
Trump also should have known that sexual assault wouldn't play well, and that the Clintons would find out about it.
Are we going to see Trump's personal emails?
That's when smart people saw that this would happen. The slow decline of the US began in earnest about 1970.
Bush looking for WMDs in his oval office
I hope you gave a lot of money to the Trump campaign, because I hear the rent at Trump tower is really high.
I wonder what Gilberthorpe was doing in first class, on a flight to New York when he was 17 years old? Was he taking a break from supplying male street meat to conservatives in parliament, as he claimed to have been doing?
My God, breitbart gets fed shit, they pass it on and you guys eat it up.
Trump bragged on tape about sexually assaulting women. Nobody is going to believe he didn't do it.
She is pretty dumb, but Trump's a fucking retard. Clinton is a genius by comparison.
Mail in vote doesn't solve the problem of ambiguous ballots in close elections. And no, I don't mean stick with the same thing. I think we should get rid of any electronic vote counting.
My county, for instance, used to use scantron machines (same as Florida, hanging chads etc.) the ballots were dutifully observed travelling in locked ballot boxes handled and put into the machine. But the old DOS computer reading the machine ... they didn't really have any proof that it wasn't compromised, they just knew it counted a small test set properly. It almost certainly wasn't compromised, but there's nobody at the elections office who's qualified to check.
Where I'm at, you have to sign an affidavit that accompanies your ballot. In a voting booth, you can vote however you want because it's secret. Your husband can't accompany you into the booth.