FBI Agreed To Destroy Laptops of Clinton Aides With Immunity Deal, Sources Say (foxnews.com) 500
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes a report from Fox News: Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, House Judiciary Committee sources told Fox News on Monday. Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the period after the email server became public -- in turn preventing the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources said. The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee fired off a letter Monday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking why the DOJ and FBI agreed to the restrictive terms, including that the FBI would destroy the laptops after finishing the search. The immunity deals for Mills and Samuelson, made as part of the FBI's probe into Clinton's use of a private email server when she served as secretary of state, apparently included a series of "side agreements" that were negotiated by Samuelson and Mills' attorney Beth Wilkinson. The side deals were agreed to on June 10, less than a month before FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency would recommend no charges be brought against Clinton or her staff. Judiciary Committee aids told FoxNews.com that the destruction of the laptops is particularly troubling as it means that the computers could not be used as evidence in future legal proceedings, should new information or circumstances arise.
Good. Hopefully destruction of evidence will... (Score:5, Interesting)
stop all of the conspiracy garbage since there's no more evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't read the article, did you? The laptops' data relating to the investigation is not to be destroyed. For security reasons, however, OTHER data is to be destroyed, rather than leaving it lying around 'in custody' for an indefinite period of time. There is no grounds for a search of 'everything' on those drives, and no search warrant covering the incidental information that would be erased. So, the Justice department doesn't care (and,
Re: (Score:3)
Irregularities (Score:5, Insightful)
At first the immunity deal for Combetta was for destruction, to get him to talk to the FBI after using BleachBit on the server. This is unusual, because he could already have been prosecuted for this since an order was issued which doesn't allow for this. Clinton and her people asked him to do this, which means they could also be prosecuted. Furthermore, I'm genuinely confused why the other 4 immunity deals were offered. Were the 4 others granted immunity because they had a hand in the private server, or were they offered because the DOJ was looking out for them? I'm also confused why they fucking include a provision to destroy laptops (that apparently weren't subpoenaed or seized via warrant like in every other case) as intense scrutiny of this case is going on and Congress is attempting to force further investigation even though the DOJ and FBI are trying to stonewall it.
There's just too much smoke here for anyone to claim that there isn't a fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have evidence of this alleged motivation?
Comey is a Republication, and it seems he'd rather lock Hillary up rather then keep having to answer pesky questions about the case from Congress and the press. (Maybe he wants to get back to pestering Apple :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Comey is a Republication...
If you want to use that logic, his boss is a Democrat (whom met with Bill Clinton during the investigation of his wife) and his boss's boss is a Democrat.
Re:Irregularities (Score:5, Interesting)
At first the immunity deal for Combetta was for destruction, to get him to talk to the FBI after using BleachBit on the server. This is unusual, because he could already have been prosecuted for this since an order was issued which doesn't allow for this. Clinton and her people asked him to do this, which means they could also be prosecuted.
There's another interpretation of events. The law says you have to turn over all the official emails (personal are exempt) and then destroy the devices (so no one is digging hard drives out of landfills). And this is exactly what they did (or tried to do since they job of separating wasn't done properly).
Whether they also destroyed evidence depends on what they were told by the FBI at the time and how much the lawyers were involved (I suspect you're lawyer telling you X is ok gives you a lot of cover).
Furthermore, I'm genuinely confused why the other 4 immunity deals were offered. Were the 4 others granted immunity because they had a hand in the private server, or were they offered because the DOJ was looking out for them?
Because the FBI is only interested in Clinton.
The best way to get everyone else to talk without fear of self-incrimination is to just give them immunity.
I'm also confused why they fucking include a provision to destroy laptops (that apparently weren't subpoenaed or seized via warrant like in every other case) as intense scrutiny of this case is going on and Congress is attempting to force further investigation even though the DOJ and FBI are trying to stonewall it.
There's just too much smoke here for anyone to claim that there isn't a fire.
I'd like to hear what the FBI or legal experts have to say first, the sources of the story (Fox news and Republican legislators) aren't exactly impartial actors.
Re:Irregularities (Score:5, Interesting)
The drives were under Congressional subpoena, not from the FBI. The FBI had no jurisdiction to tell them deleting anything was acceptable.
Mills lied to the FBI during the investigation after she was given immunity and not charged for lying during an investigation (Remember Scooter Libby?)
Not only do we have examples of this happening in the RECENT past, like Scooter Libby, and this not being handled the same way. We have evidence of this being much worse in just about every single possible way. Remember Libby got a year for misquoting something while being questioned, not for what they originally went after him for, which turned out to not be a crime in his specific case. So he got a year of jail for a misstatement on an investigation of something that wasn't a crime.
In this case we have multiple people lying under oath, multiple times. even after given immunity, destruction of evidence, and ACTUAL mishandling of classified information. Not a single charge.
The FBI = shit
The DOJ = shit
Re:Irregularities (Score:5, Interesting)
This.
The Federal Government is three co-equal branches. If congress is unable to enforce a subpoena without the cooperation of the executive branch, we don't have three branches any more, we have one. Effectively, the executive branch would then be able to do whatever it wants, as long as the DOJ promises not to prosecute.
We've seen hints of this particular Constitutional crisis several times throughout our history. We've never been anywhere near so close though, mostly because no previous President has managed to collect quite so many corrupt ideologues under one roof before. Traditionally, the Attorney General resigns in disgust much sooner, or refuses to play along, which is the same thing.
Our congressmen should strongly consider growing some balls and locking these people up. Either for contempt until they produce the evidence they were ordered to preserve, or until they can hold trials on the floor of the house.
The trials will be short. "This is a signed agreement whereby you conspired with the FBI to destroy evidence. Is that your signature? The FBI says you handed over the evidence as planned, and they destroyed it. Do you dispute their testimony? Guilty."
Re: (Score:3)
Congress actually does have a jail of their own, that isn't run by the executive branch. They essentially don't use it except for very short term holding before handing detainees off to the executive for ordinary prosecution. But they could use it when the executive refuses to execute Congress's laws.
It would be trivial, of course, for the executive to break people out of it, if they are ready to escalate a constitutional crisis that will probably lead to a second civil war.
Re: (Score:3)
Indict me and I won't be saying anything that hasn't been approved by my lawyer. Count on it. These are people who know that talking to the authorities can only hurt them.
Give me immunity and suddenly I lose my Fifth Amendment right t remain silent, since I'm not incriminating myself. It sounds like it was also granted so the FBI could go through their laptop file system.
Granting the lower-level people immunity is a fairly common way of getting them to talk. There's nothing particularly unusual abo
Re: (Score:3)
From what I read, the immunity deals were arranged in order to get their hands on the laptops in question. Why they didn't just use subpoena or search warrants is beyond me - unless the reason is the most obvious, which is a DOJ sponsored cover-up.
The most obvious reason is that they could not get subpoena or search warrants for those laptops. The emails were on a server (which got wiped,etc.). These are laptops and so might not have been covered by any warrants they could get. So the way to get to them was for the owners to agree to give them over with conditions.
Slashdot Howto? (Score:2)
How the f do I block stories with 'politics' as a tag because I'm sick and tired of one bullshit story after the next.
Is it bullshit? (Score:2)
How the f do I block stories with 'politics' as a tag because I'm sick and tired of one bullshit story after the next.
Is this bullshit?
I thought bullshit meant something "not true". I know that trust in journalism has fallen recently, but do you really think the things stated in the article aren't factual?
At the very least, it shows that IT professionals who might be offered immunity can ask for concessions.
Given the number of IT professionals who read this site, that might make the article of interest to a lot of people.
Or are you complaining because it puts Clinton in a bad light?
Re:Slashdot Howto? (Score:5, Informative)
See that link to the story? Don't click.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot Howto? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick and tired of one bullshit story after the next.
No, you mean you're sick and tired of stories that remind you how your preferred candidate gets special treatment in order to avoid indictment. Some of the rest of us are sick and tired of those stories too, but for different reasons.
Why would it matter? (Score:2)
The forensics would have been done on a cloned HD anyway:
"Sure we'll destroy the original, but the chain of evidence will clearly link the contents of this HD back to the original HD and implicate you if anything actionable appears in it."
Re:Why would it matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not aware of any circumstances under which evidence can be legally destroyed. Sure you can refuse to use it but I can not understand how it can legally be destroyed without being recorded and kept for future use, just in case, you know justice needs to be served. It all stinks of high heaven of the corrupt struggling to ensure another corrupt guaranteed not to prosecute high crimes criminal is elected. It seems everything after Carter was just a corrupt conspiracy to guarantee they could commit what ever crimes they wanted to and the next career criminal elected would not prosecute them. So Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton all part of an extended long running con with guarantees of freedom from prosecution. Hidden for decades but now being exposed, that exposure a sure sign of it coming apart. If Trump were elected, you just know he would push for prosecutions against all those who attacked his family, it would all be quite amusing.
It must be.... (Score:2)
ALIEANS!
Perpetual corruption. (Score:3, Insightful)
I just hope that enough citizens will realize that the Founding Fathers came up with this whole "elections every 2-6 years" notion for a reason. Would YOU please help me in voting against every sorry ass criminal holding office currently or formerly? There shouldn't be more than mebbe a small handful of incumbents remaining come 2017, and they'd better have a damned solid history of exposing and opposing the big $ corruption taking over OUR lives.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Holy shit. (Score:3)
To coin a phrase: Well, when the government does it, that means it is not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In practice, this queen appears to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
More or less. Why is the espionage act being used with prejudice against soldiers that take selfies in the wrong places or marines trying to warn comrades of trouble [washingtonpost.com] but Comey takes it upon himself to declare that he recommends against indicting Clinton on the grounds that there was no intent? Over a hundred of her "Special Access Program" e-mails got onto a private server that nobody else had access to except herself, Chelsea, and Huma Abedin, the server had to go down at least once on fears that it might
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But what about Benghazi and Whitewater ??? (Score:2)
This email thing is nothing. Colin Powell and most of the Bush administration used private email servers to avoid scrutiny. This is just a witch hunt... just like Benghazi and Whitewater and a bunch of other "scandals". GOP is desperate... they got nothing. They are going down the tubes. It's fun to watch.
I have just one word for Trump... LOSER!
Re: (Score:3)
Defensive maneuver... (Score:2)
that way if Trump wins there is no evidence left to prosecute. The mounting list of crimes is just astounding.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
who prosecutes them? The people who signed off on that deal should be prosecuted.
Precisely!!! James Colmy sent Scooter Libby to jail for blowing the cover on Valerie Plame, even though the person actually responsible was Richard Armitage. While now looking the other way while Clinton gets away w/ far more. If Trump gets elected, Colmy should not only be fired, but tried and have his sorry ass tossed into jail. With Hilary if possible!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: No! (Score:4, Funny)
#LaptopLivesMatter
Re: (Score:2)
#NotAllLaptops
Re: No! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait were those black lenovo laptops or white Mac ones? I have to know whether to riot & loot or make conspiracy theory
Re:ZOMG! Puppies (Score:2)
Re:No! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly believe this is one of the most insightful things I've ever read about this election. I was ready to vote based on VP choice thinking either Clinton would stroke out or get killed by crazy Clinton haters leaving us with Kaine and Trump would either die of what ever health issues he's hiding or get killed by crazy Trump haters leaving us with Pence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What America desperately needs is to start throwing politicians in jail. Right now we are on a path of ever-increasing corruption at high levels of government, and until we get back to the "everyone equal under the law" this situation will continue to get worse.
Re:And yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
We have one, it's called the Libertarian Party. They are polling in the double digits and are on the ballot in all 50 states. Hardly a fringe protest vote this time around when they have more support than Perot did in '92 and far more than Nader ever did. Johnson and Weld are running on a fiscally conservative and socially liberal platform.
It's only an "empty protest candidate" vote when you buy the herd mentality bullshit that voting for a 3rd party is a "wasted vote" and people let the debate commission get away with shunning them and moving the goalposts.
The only difference between an "empty protest candidate" and a serious 3rd party is polling numbers and the financing that brings. If you want another party, STFU and start voting and contributing to one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apart from all the simple-minded stupidity that Libertarian beliefs entail, are you really going to vote for someone who doesn't know or can't remember what Aleppo is, nor name any foreign leader?
Whatever your beliefs on Libertarianism, Johnson isn't credible as a presidential candidate.
Re: (Score:3)
Naming a foreign leader wasn't the issue, see some of my other responses. It was naming one he admired. "What is Aleppo" was an honest brainfart.
Gary might not be quick on his feet but compared to some of the bullshit Gee-Dubya Bush was famous for spouting, he's a fucking genius.
Re: (Score:2)
Read a transcript of the interview. He explicitly said that he could not name the former president of Mexico. There are lots of foreign leaders he could have said he admired.
I'm sorry, but if you have a "brain fart" on a foreign policy question, learning the names of a few foreign leaders is something that you obviously need to do. It's not being slow on your feet, it's being stupid about your preparation.
As for comparing him to George Bush, that's such a low bar that it says nothing about his intelligence
Re: (Score:2)
As for comparing him to George Bush, that's such a low bar that it says nothing about his intelligence.
And yet several people you know not only got Dubya elected.... but RE-elected. I don't think Trump could name a single foreign leader he hasn't been prepped for by his team and/or shared coke and prostitutes with yet he isn't held to near as high a standard as Johnson supposedly needs to be. Trump's rants were downright incomprehensible and RETARDED during the debate and it hasn't hurt him any.
I seriously doubt Johnson is genuinely incapable of naming a few foreign leaders. Respectable right-leaning ones
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can forgive a brainfart on Aleppo. He at least caught on after a few seconds. I doubt you could even point out Syria or Aleppo on an unlabeled map without a quick Google search first. The only reason Clinton can point it out is because is one of many of her foreign policy failures. The only reason Trump can point it out is because it's good ammo against Hillary. The other big "Libertarian blunder" was the fact he couldn't name a leader he admired. I can't name any that have been in power that I look up to either.
For someone that prides himself on being human and doesn't have an army of paid media jockeys to prepare material to spoonfeed people, he's actually doing a pretty admirable job. I actually prefer a candidate who's down to Earth versus paid shills lying through their teeth parroting canned responses prepared by an army of political science graduates and soap opera writers.
So yeah, I still consider Gary Johnson more credible and CERTAINLY more GENUINE than either mainstream candidate running.
Re: (Score:2)
> I doubt you could even point out Syria or Aleppo on an unlabeled map without a quick Google search first.
As a candidate for POTUS, knowing something about the region is part of the job. He failed 2 basic interview questions (which developers do you admire, er uh...). He's unqualified, it's ok, lots of people are. Some of them are running for president anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
(which developers do you admire, er uh...). He's unqualified, it's ok, lots of people are. Some of them are running for president anyway.
That's a trick question, the correct answer is myself because everyone else's code is shit. I'm unqualified but that's ok, lots of people are. Most of them get development jobs anyway.
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Interesting)
Internalize theoretical qualification scenario, deflect on manufactured attack, ad hominem without making a point to just disagree with vitrol. Classic troll.
Of course it was.
In reality, no-one is truly qualified or "experienced" enough to be president. Once you are, your term limit is up and everyone thinks your an asshole unless you get assassinated and/or successfully get a moon shot funded. Johnson/Weld are the ticket with actual experience governing and running a state. Both were re-elected and both were able to gain cooperation on both sides of the isle in a non-partisan manner. IMHO, that makes them far more qualified to be promoted to the national stage than the other leading morons famous for "pivoting" and/or deflecting blame when the shit hits the fan and things don't work out.
It's not like these guys are dumbasses straight out of college, we are talking about experienced multi-term politicians here with a good track record. I can forgive the fact he probably got a C in world geography and had one bong hit too many that morning in high school. At least he doesn't have a huge track record of negative foreign policy failures like Clinton. Or zero governing experience and lots of daddy's money.
Re: (Score:2)
"What's Aleppo indeed..."
My wife is from Aleppo (where she was born and raised). ... and when *I* heard the question I had no idea what the interview was asking. How he pronounced it wasn't the same as I've heard it the past 20 years...
Not that it excuses Johnson...
Re:And yet... (Score:4)
The guy who couldn't name one that HE ADMIRED. Yeah, him. And tell me you've never had a brainfart during an interview. He recovered quickly from that in spite of the guy turning around and being a complete douche to him as soon as the phrase came out of his mouth.
There's many instances of both Clintons, Trump, GW Bush screwing up just as badly on live TV or just spitting out incomprehensible bullshit that "sounded smart" to dodge the question.
He's already apologized for not being as talented a bullshitter on the spot as other candidates..... time to move on.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly Johnson is a dufus and can't even name one living president he likes. And earlier he didn't even know what Aleppo was.
Had he been asked which US president he admired, you probably would have gotten a decent response. As far as Aleppo, honest screw-up, I can point to much worse from both elected presidents and candidates both now and years ago. He certainly knew who Assad was though. I could care less if he got a C in geography.
I'll take a likeable dufus with integrity who fosters non-partisan cooperation and strives to do the right thing over a tyrant any day. To consider Trump a serious candidate and discount a well-l
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Threatening rape victims.
Accessory before and after the fact to murder
Treason
That merely scratches the surface of Clinton's evil. Trump has been a net benefit to the world, and probably will be a net benefit as President.
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Informative)
Watch the documentary Clinton Cash [youtube.com] and then describe which one of the nominees is more ethical.
Re:And yet... (Score:4, Informative)
While this is theoretically true, in practice the american political system is currently such that all elections are decided between 2 parties.
(Source: wiki article on Duverger's law [wikipedia.org]
There are ways of setting up the system so that it favors multiple parties, but this requires large-scale reform towards some variant of proportional representation [wikipedia.org]. And herein lies the core of the issue: since the existing parties both clearly benefit from the status quo which essentially makes it impossible for them to lose power, there's de facto no change they will be interested in reforming the political system or funding for that matter.
As far as I can see (as a non-American) the only change the people have to change the system would be getting it done through local levels (ie. through for example article 5 convention).
Re: (Score:2)
The limits of Presidential powers ensure that a President can actually do very little harm.
Great. Now, tell us about the limits on the powers of a Supreme Court justice.
Or, more likely, a coalition of two or three of them.
Trump versus Clinton (Score:2, Insightful)
Clinton is the "stay the course" candidate, and Trump is the "make changes" candidate.
A bit over half [forbes.com] of Americans are on the brink of poverty, so a lot of people are looking for things to change.
The other slightly-less-than-half people think things are going pretty well, and don't want anything to change.
Add to this the fact that corporations don't want changes that benefit the American people because of the expense, a media that feeds on emotional investment (for advertizing clicks), and a political party
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, he is known and is very bad. He donates to his own foundation to get tax breaks, and then uses that foundation to run for president. He has bankrupted more businesses than most people even get to work for. He has offended every sane person in the country. He has changed positions on almost all of the key issues JUST THIS YEAR. He perpetuated an made m
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you are wrong here. There isn't any evidence that he has donated to his foundation for many years. After all, if you don't pay any tax, there is no tax break to be had from donations!
Instead, he has used other people's donations for his own benefit. Either settling various allegations, or buying large self-portraits.
Any loans Trump made to his campaign have been repaid. At this point, he is the first presidential candidate to actually profit
Re: (Score:2)
There is a deep concern for the quality of one's own candidate when the best compliment that can be said is, "X sucks, but not as bad as Y."
It might be time to buck the two party system, if this is the best they have to offer.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He donates to his own foundation to get tax breaks
It is a 501c charity... of course you get a tax break. Clinton gets a tax break from her donations to her foundation too.
and then uses that foundation to run for president.
Cite. No idea what this refers to.
He has bankrupted more businesses than most people even get to work for.
He has created something like 500 businesses. Having only six fail out of that many is actually quite a good record.
He has offended every sane person in the country.
No he has offended a bunch of SJW. People call him racist for wanting to keep ILLEGAL immigrants out. People call him Islamophobic for wanting to keep Islamic TERRORISTS out. SJWs leave the capitalized words out just to try to ma
Re:Trump versus Clinton (Score:5, Insightful)
People call him racist for wanting to keep ILLEGAL immigrants out.
Actually people call him racist for his very many racist remarks. His immigration policy is just a drop in the bucket.
People call him Islamophobic for wanting to keep Islamic TERRORISTS out.
Actually people call him Islamophobic because he intends to keep out anyone who would claim to be Muslim. That is pretty much matches the definition of Islamophobic.
Nearly all of those things apply to Clinton as wel (Score:4, Insightful)
Nearly all of those things apply to Clinton as well. She too dodged taxes, offended nearly everyone, changed positions on e.g. TPP (not to real, of course, just to get elected). And then there are a number of more serious offenses (influence peddling, mishandling of classified info, lying to the FBI, to name just a few) for which any normal person would be in prison already.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You need to go look up the Clinton Foundation for textbook example of a "charity" that operates an awful lot like a money laundering scheme. Where are the investigations on that one? Oh, right, swept under the rug with all the other crimes the clintons have committed. Meanwhile, anything Trump has done is blown out of proportion (tax return).
Hillary lies about her positions. She claims she's against TPP, but was previously all for it. This is the woman who pledges her support for the poor while wearing an o
Re:Learning from mistakes, vs. acceding to public (Score:4, Insightful)
No, Clinton isn't learning from her mistakes. She looks at the polls and says the public says this is a mistake, so I'll say it is a mistake to win their approval. She has shown zero interest in understanding why any of her so-called mistakes were mistakes.
Re:And now, Trump and mistakes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And now, Trump and mistakes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Trump versus Clinton (Score:5, Informative)
Hillary has repeatedly admitted that using a personal email server was a mistake.
Which is, as you know, a completely BS thing to say. She didn't "make a mistake" (other than in the sense that she didn't understand the inevitability of being caught), she deliberately and purposefully set out to get around federal rules and laws regarding record keeping and the handling of sensitive information. That wasn't a mistake, it was completely deliberate. And her incessant lying about it ever since makes that very plain. You don't dole out immunity like candy to her staff over "a mistake."
Yep (Score:2)
So I'm not here to defend Clinton by any means, but holy crap have you been binging on the Trump kool-aid?
Okian Warrior admitted to making "provocative" posts a few months ago. IOW, he's been trolling for the summer.
I can verify that. Completely true.
Re:Needs to stop (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see any options (Score:3)
I wouldn't mind seeing a parliamentary system like Canada. But barring that I don't see any options. Keep in mind our
Re:Needs to stop (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Needs to stop (Score:2)
be as it may, one of the two is going to be president.
not one of the four, or six.
there are ways to reform the system, but voting for someone who is sure to lose is not one of the best ways. you risk effectively favoring the candidate you dislike the most.
Re: Needs to stop (Score:5, Funny)
Rhetoric (Score:2)
I've heard that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Trump, from the Clinton camp. I've heard that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Clinton, from the Trump camp. And a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson. It's the best deal on the market, three votes for one!
While that is rhetorically amusing, the reality is that for most people, their presidential vote is unimportant, and vote for a third-party candidate is entirely appropriate as a mechanism to encourage further political discussion in our country--although they should pay more attention to their local races.
But for people who live in swing states, they have the opportunity to influence the election at almost no cost to themselves, and they give that up if they vote for a third party. "Vote Gary Johnson" shou
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Rhetoric (Score:4, Insightful)
You think Hillary the Warhawk is passive-aggressive?
Re:Rhetoric (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Needs to stop (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
be as it may, one of the two is going to be president.
But I would prefer that the one who wins gets something like 35% (Johnson has a good showing) or 27% (Johnson and Stein have a good showing) of the popular vote so it becomes clear that the majority of people don't want what the major parties are selling.
Re: Needs to stop (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Needs to stop (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And please describe how the Democratic party is not due for a breakup after being caught throwing the election wholesale to a committee chosen candidate? Funny how no on caught on earlier when the Dem debates stated with only 2 viable candidates, no?
Re: Needs to stop (Score:2, Informative)
Except trump has committed no crimes and has not abused his power of being a public official for his own gain . Hillary has over and over . Not a big trump fan he is unpredictable but that is better than what we know Hillary will do . Lie cheat and steal
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hillary said he ALREADY pays zero tax.
Then she said he wants to lower it.
Is Hillary stupid? No, she's just can't help lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a troll if you take it out of context (meaning in regard to the topic instead of /.'s system), otherwise his response is insightful. After decades, it's safe to say that anonymous speech (ACs) havent been helpful here. My biggest gripe is that is sucks up mod points (which could be doled out based on the number of non-ac posts) that would otherwise help build a community. Instead, I believe it has thinned it.
Re:Desperate Donald, there's no point... (Score:5, Interesting)
I honestly doubt Trump gives a shit about slashdot, so you'd have to explain better how it's relevant in any context. Furthermore, some AC posts are pretty good, and sometimes there are good reasons for regular users to post as AC. I recall one time a self confessed pedophile posted as AC to explain that even though he was attracted to children, he had never attempted to have sex with one, which if you ask me is a sane thing to do because it doesn't matter whether or not one abuses children, if they confess to even thinking about that then their life is pretty much over, and for no good reason.
Hell, I've posted as AC myself to make some decidedly un-PC jokes that I just don't want associated with my regular identity here. And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Sure, some twats get offended, but that's their problem, especially the times when those posts get modded +5 funny.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, which candidate is more likely to get this person their meds?
Maybe that's more important than who cheats more on emails/taxes.
Re:Trade-offs (Score:4, Insightful)
People with immunity are generally held in contempt if they plead the 5th.
Combetta pled the 5th while under immunity protection. No contempt of court was issued.
So in this case, immunity turned out to be a protection against testifying rather than an inducement to reveal facts. Combetta got to have his cake and eat it too. So did Hillary and all of the others that could be implicated by his testimony in this ridiculous farce.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the deal ever went through.
Looks like it went through [nytimes.com]: "Mr. Combetta is one of at least two people who were given immunity by the Justice Department as part of the investigation." The NYT usually gets their facts right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There probably were current legal and Democratic campaign strategy data on the laptops. Keeping them would leave them open to a possibility of FOA requests, leaks, etc. I would definitely expect that once the FBI looked at the laptop that any pertinent evidence would have been copied and cataloged and added to the case notes prior to destroying the laptops.
This was purely about the personal email server. How much "evidence" do you expect that the FBI would find on these laptops that they didn't already h
Re: (Score:2)
"Back in 2007, the White House "lost" more than five million private emails [salon.com]. The story was barely covered"
"Back in 2007, the White House "lost" more than five million private emails [salon.com]. The story was barely covered"
Should we not hope for change? Expect things to get better as time goes on? Not to mention the fact that laws were changed after that particular email scandal. As far as I am concerned, though, you can throw the whole lot in jail. Everyone who has tried to hide anything under the FOIA can rot in prison.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)