US Voting Server At Heart of Russian Hack Probe Mysteriously Wiped (theregister.co.uk) 431
A computer at the center of a lawsuit digging into Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election has been wiped. "The server in question is based in Georgia -- a state that narrowly backed Donald Trump, giving him 16 electoral votes -- and stored the results of the state's vote-management system," reports The Register. "The deletion of its filesystem data makes analysis of whether the system was compromised impossible to ascertain." From the report: There is good reason to believe that the computer may have been tampered with: it is 15 years old, and could be harboring all sorts of exploitable software and hardware vulnerabilities. No hard copies of the votes are kept, making the electronic copy the only official record. While investigating the Kennesaw State University's Center for Election Systems, which oversees Georgia's voting system, last year, security researcher Logan Lamb found its system was misconfigured, exposing the state's entire voter registration records, multiple PDFs with instructions and passwords for election workers, and the software systems used to tally votes cast. Despite Lamb letting the election center knows of his findings, the security holes were left unpatched for seven months. He later went public after the U.S. security services announced there had been a determined effort by the Russian government to sway the presidential elections, including looking at compromising electronic voting machines.
In an effort to force the state to scrap the system, a number of Georgia voters bandied together and sued. They asked for an independent security review of the server, expecting to find flaws that would lend weight to their argument for investment in a more modern and secure system. But emails released this week following a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that technicians at the election center deleted the server's data on July 7 -- just days after the lawsuit was filed. The memos reveal multiple references to the data wipe, including a message sent just last week from an assistant state attorney general to the plaintiffs in the case. That same email also notes that backups of the server data were also deleted more than a month after the initial wipe -- just as the lawsuit moved to a federal court. It is unclear who ordered the destruction of the data, and why, but they have raised yet more suspicions of collusion between the Trump campaign team, the Republican Party, and the Russian government.
In an effort to force the state to scrap the system, a number of Georgia voters bandied together and sued. They asked for an independent security review of the server, expecting to find flaws that would lend weight to their argument for investment in a more modern and secure system. But emails released this week following a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that technicians at the election center deleted the server's data on July 7 -- just days after the lawsuit was filed. The memos reveal multiple references to the data wipe, including a message sent just last week from an assistant state attorney general to the plaintiffs in the case. That same email also notes that backups of the server data were also deleted more than a month after the initial wipe -- just as the lawsuit moved to a federal court. It is unclear who ordered the destruction of the data, and why, but they have raised yet more suspicions of collusion between the Trump campaign team, the Republican Party, and the Russian government.
insecure voting machines (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no mystery about who wiped the machine or how it got wiped. The question is, why isn't someone being charged with evidence tampering?
I'm sure the people who support Drumpf have already started their own noise to try to turn this into some kind of non-issue. And most people won't give a darn either way. This country is screwed.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, I can say I'm about to stop giving a damn ether way and say we just toss all them out. Trump, Clinton, Ryan, the funny lady with the James Brown haircut, and etc etc etc. Clean house, remove all congress and both parties. Hell get rid of the parties. too. We can put the janitor in charge till we reelect new officials.
Re: insecure voting machines (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if it were a matter of regular maintenance it would - best case - be negligent. As soon as they got sued it became legally relevant and your maintenance schedule needs to be delayed.
But it's certainly suspiciously bad timing. They were sued because the system was too old and badly maintained and secured. So maintenance wasn't a high priority for many years and now suddenly they wipe it?
Certainly worth investigating.
Re:Just like Lois Lerner's drives (Score:4, Interesting)
So two groups of people did illegal things. That doesn't diminish this case one bit.
Re: (Score:3)
I would call it one group. They are the people who, if they delete emails and computer records, are not held accountable.
Then there is the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3)
Untrue. a court order to preserve evidence is NOT necessary; oh it heightens the requirements surrounding any and all bits and pieces which could be associated with the case, but once a party has been notified they are pretty much legally fucked.
This is from updates elsewhere on the Net, and the law, showing that these dipshits are (hopefully) in a lot of trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
"but they have raised yet more suspicions of collusion between the Trump campaign team, the Republican Party, and the Russian government."
Why?
Look up "spoliation of evidence." It does in fact imply guilt, and generally even if you can't prove who did it it will prove that the entity who was responsible for the data is guilty of something. Guilty of what? What the evidence was purported to prove before they destroyed it, of course.
Otherwise, why would all that juicy evidence ever make it into any lawsuit? Everything would be accidentally destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
The voting machines themselves aren't connected to the Internet. However, the people designing the ballots are just ordinary designers working on ordinary desktop computers. They make their Indesign files or whatever, and eventually those make their way, usually by thumbdrive I believe, to the voting machines, presumably along with whatever malware was on the designer's machine.
Re:insecure voting machines (Score:5, Funny)
Bet you'll find plenty of insecure voting machines around.
Tell them they're pretty or handsome and doing a really good job. That'll help their self-esteem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Handsome" can also apply to women.
NO voting machines are connected to the Internet (Score:5, Informative)
I am a volunteer poll worker in Virginia. NO vote-tallying equipment is connected to the Internet, anywhere in the U.S. We are not idiots. We have about 230+ years' worth of experience with people trying to throw an election, and we understand -- and mitigate -- the risks.
This server in Georgia did NOT hold vote counts. It held voter registration records, instructions, and voting equipment passwords.
Each precinct tallying the votes keeps an independent record of their machines. There are paper backups of voting totals in the form of printed counts and hand-copied summary sheets.
In my state, we have switched over to machine-counted paper ballots in all precincts. Those scanners do not even have wireless hardware in them, they can only be accessed via ethernet cable. Once a machine is tested and certified for voting, a cover is placed over the ethernet socket and it is sealed with a plastic band.
I do advocate the use of paper ballots, but not because then humans could do a hand-count of them. Humans are lousy at repetitive tasks. A hand-count of millions of votes would have a margin of error 10x the size of the margin of error of machine-counted votes. In Virginia, when there is a recount, we bring in a completely different set of scanners than were used to originally count the votes, and run the same paper ballots through them. That is a excellent independent count.
Re:NO voting machines are connected to the Interne (Score:5, Interesting)
Manipulating voter registration records can also affect the outcome of an election, particularly in a situation where you are performing mass voter roll purges -- which I believe Georgia did. Tweaking the purge in the partisan way is one of the things that could be hidden by this.
Many voters who are denied a ballot may not choose to cast a provisional ballot, or come out to vote next time. Although this may seem like they get what they deserve if they're not sufficiently dedicated, voting can be more of a sacrifice for some people, particularly those with limited time to vote and where the polling stations are located inconveniently. If you're risking late for work you might choose just to leave. There have been documented attempts to manipulate turnout by inconveniently locating polling places.
As far as paper ballots, the obvious choice is optically scanned paper ballots. That said, I have never seen any evidence that human recounters don't perform acceptably. They are not perfect, but neither are machines -- for that matter how could you possibly know if a machine is perfect? In any case human limitations can be dealt with using statistics, to any desirable level of confidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have to be connected to the internet to be hacked. Stuxnet showed that pretty clearly.
You don't have to stick a key into an electric socket to get shocked, but still it's strongly recommended to not do it. Seriously, unless you can write secure code, keep it off the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty clearly you shouldn't be anywhere near a computer, whether connected to the Internet or not. Actually, you shouldn't be allowed near anything. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Before I do, here's a quote for you:
"We will have invulnerable software systems, with no bugs in trusted code. We will be confident that these systems enforce the user's security requirements." -DJB
Russians not necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe let's not ignore that a very significant geopolitical adversary of the US was trying to change our election outcomes (for which there is ample evidence) and like a rational person consider them as a possibility in things like this.
Re:Russians not necessary (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Russians not necessary (Score:4, Insightful)
The Republicans lost too. Their party was infiltrated by the alt-right. They can't work with Trump. The fallout from his election is going to be hurting them for years.
We tried to warn them.
Re: (Score:3)
Diebold may have elected Dumya (Score:2, Insightful)
Diebold's CEO promised to deliver Ohio to Bush, and in contradiction to the exit polls, the Diebold machines made good on the promise. Not proof (polls are tricky), but there was a "magic" card that could set the machine to deliver and specified result. Might have been a test card to check the the central server correctly tallied the remote machines, but production code should never have had it.
Re:Russians not necessary (Score:4, Insightful)
So we're putting the foundations of our system of consensual government at risk just to save 1 sheet of paper every 4 years? Look, I'm all for saving the environment, but is this really the best way to do it? Maybe the newspapers can agree to sell ONE LESS PAGE of advertising on ONE DAY out of every 1,461 days instead? Or maybe we can all agree to buy one less book in our lifetimes? Or maybe we just agree that this is one situation that really IS worth "killing trees" for!
But however we justify it to ourselves, can we PLEASE go back to paper ballots?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Despite the accuracy of your assertions about domestic corruption, I think there is reasonable evidence that this time there was also a lot of Russian participation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Russians not necessary (Score:4)
No, what he's saying is that it's more likely that there was internal corruption than external hacking. The voting machines have been insecure for over a decade, if not more, and politicians have been corrupt longer than we have history. The Russia hysteria is to cover the DNC's bad behavior and to explain away how Clinton lost to the worst candidate ever. The answer was that she was the worst candidate that the Dems have produced, and she was running on the status quo with an electorate more pro-change than the one that elected Obama.
Trump didn't win. Hillary lost. The Clinton wing needs to die off, and the Bernie wing needs to take over. Until that happens, the Dems put themselves at a disadvantage despite demographics and policy opinion actually being considerably left of them.
Re:Russians not necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
The only problem with giving the Democrats the roto rooter treatment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], is Americans expect everything now, it must happen yesterday and cleaning out the Democrats much like cleaning out the Republicans will take at least 6 years. Two minor elections and one full election. Not that it wont be chaotic fun to do so but too many Americans expect it served up a platter for them, someone else to clean up their mess.
I don't get, look how much fun it has been screwing over the establishment and making them look as stupid and clumsy as clowns in a clown car. This is the best time to enjoy politics, sure the outcomes at the moment aren't all that flash but you can see them literally falling apart in a blind panic, collapsing in the pile of bullshit the have crafted out of US politics.
Being a reformist is always way meaner than being a revolutionary. Revolutions tend to lead to one thing only, another revolution. The Reformists use the power of the state to clean the state and once started becomes pretty much impossible to stop. We are not fighting the authorities but backing those with honour and integrity and allowing them to do the job they want to do and providing them with the support and information to do that job. The best way to fight crime of any sort is for the authorities and the public to work together and that takes patience, cooperation and clear thought, the willingness to do the hard yards to get the touch down.
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Voting Machines: https://xkcd.com/463/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to see here (Score:4, Interesting)
Move along. Ignore the man behind the curtain. Electronic voting systems are perfectly safe. There's no need to keep any paper records because the machines never make mistakes and are secure from intrusion.
There's never been a case where voting machines have been compromised. How do we know? Because we say so.
Does not get much more sketchy (Score:2)
than deleting backups.
Just sayin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It takes more than a Format command to destroy data on a hard drive (the age of the computer means spinning platters), because the erase head never perfectly aligns with the written data, there is always a little bit missed. A good data recovery company should be able to recover everything.
They techs did a triple degaussing, even the NSA is unlikely to be able to recover anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does not get much more sketchy (Score:4, Informative)
You're nearly 30 years out of date. On '80s era HDs, it's true, a single overwrite of the data would leave traces sufficient that given some very expensive equipment and a very expensive analysis, the data could be recovered. On modern drives, even a single overwrite with zeros is sufficient to make the data irretrievable.
Re: (Score:2)
But with the ever increasing capacity, the read/write heads of today's hard disks operate in such tight conditions that you don't have that tolerance left once used to recover data from a formatted hard disk. Today's hard disk have basicly nothing left of the previous state of the magnetic surface once you make a singl
Windex? (Score:2, Funny)
By "wiped" do you mean with Windex? Was Hillary anywhere around?
Russian Squirrel! (Score:2, Interesting)
The state was being sued for having a shit electronic voting system with no verifiability, and now the primary evidence was mysteriously erased! Must be the Ruskies (who haven't been shown to have done jack or shit last year), not someone looking to cover for corrupt election officials in the state.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to think this would mean the lawsuit would be "confirmed" because the machine couldn't (now) be verified, even though well within the require data retention period. Knowing how these things work though, it'll get thrown out for lack of evidence instead.
Calm down... there was a backup (Score:5, Informative)
The non-clickbaity side of the story (a statement from Center for Elections Systems at Kennesaw State University, who had possession of the server) is here [arstechnica.com]:
"In March 2017, a Center for Election Systems’ server involved in an alleged data breach was turned over to the FBI. While the server was in the possession of the Bureau, a forensic image or copy of all the data on the server was made and held by the agency. Following the notification from the FBI that no data was compromised and the investigation was closed, the server was returned to the University’s Information Technology Services group and securely stored. In accordance with standard operating procedures, an after-action report was prepared. This report outlined hardware improvements for the Center, including repurposing the impacted server and surplusing servers that had exceeded end of life. As part of the report, the original server that had been investigated by the FBI was designated to be repurposed, and the drives on the server were erased and the server made available for alternative uses."
"As noted by the subpoena filed today by the Attorney General’s Office, the data and information that was on the server in question has been and is still in the possession of the FBI and will remain available to the parties in the event it is determined to be relevant in the pending litigation."
So (a) the feds already investigated and found no evidence the server was compromised, and (b) they still have their forensic image of the server. This seems a lot more like litigants and journalists huffing and puffing than it does a real issue.
Re: Calm down... there was a backup (Score:4, Informative)
You don't find it odd that the server was wiped after a lawsuit was filed? You don't find it odd they degaused the backups three times when the lawsuit moved to federal court? Are you for real here? I mean the first wipe could have been morons being morons. But the destruction of the backups? And hey isn't preservation of records in the face of litigation a thing? Even armchair lawyers know that's a thing. Somebody really doesn't want those records examined.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't find it odd that the server was wiped after a lawsuit was filed?
No one who understands technology finds it odd, or even cares.
A server is the data the server contains, not the physical hardware.
The FBI still has "the server", with a legally admissible chain of custody, so it doesn't matter if the hardware itself was repurposed as material in an art exhibit, or whatever.
Pen and paper (Score:2)
so in the absence of evidence (Score:2)
Conclude that it was compromised and proceed from that standpoint.
What, like with a cloth or something? (Score:2)
A computer at the center of a lawsuit digging into Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election has been wiped.
"What, like with a cloth or something??" [go.com] - That never gets old...
Let's remember... (Score:2)
...it was Democrats who INSISTED that electronic voting was the key to the future, since their voters were too stupid to operate a paper ballot in the Florida 2000 presidential election.
Re:Like Hillary's server was? (Score:5, Informative)
Hillary's server was wiped, and the circumstances under which is was wiped (and who decided to do what when) was thoroughly investigated and no one was charged (though the admin probably should have been), and the files were recovered.
Hopefully this server wiping is as thoroughly investigated.
Re:Like Hillary's server was? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully this server wiping is as thoroughly investigated.
I won't hold my breath.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh please shut up with your petty partisan politics.
Election rigging has a long history in the US, and neither major party has shown much interest in reforming the system.
Re: (Score:3)
p.s. sorry quantaman, of course that wasn't directed at you, but the AC you replied to.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, nvrmnd.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hillary's server was wiped
Like with a cloth or something?
Re:Like Hillary's server was? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a personal vendetta against Putin too. Turns out, when you're a ruthless cunt, people don't like you very much.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he just did a Crazy Ivan on you.
Re:Like Hillary's server was? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are fake news.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers
>The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.
>“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn
Re: (Score:2)
You don't consider that funny? FBI talking about this huge russian hack of our election, an unprecedented act of war, but they don't deem it necessary to analyze the DNC servers?
Re: (Score:2)
And still the DNC never had denied the FBI access to the server.
Why, you almost make it sound like the FBI never wanted the physical server... But as reported in January, 2017 [wired.com] I don't believe that to be the case.
Re: Like Hillary's server was? (Score:2, Funny)
What, like with a rag?
Re:Like Hillary's server was? (Score:4)
Yawn... Hillary lost the election old news.
Because having a madman in charge of the country is much better then a lady who poorly managed her IT.
At this point it isn’t about Clinton or Trump. We had been played for suckers by the Russians. They had shown to push both sides of the political spectrum to be more radicalized just to destabilize the US. So they can wield more power. If Clinton won there would be so much hatred on the right that she would be facing massive battles to push any agenda. Trump is just too stupid to be able to push an agenda even with his party in power.
Re:Like Hillary's server was? (Score:5, Insightful)
a lady who poorly managed her IT
What? You bought her "aw shucks, gee whiz" performance?
With malice of forethought she NEVER, EVER logged in or in any way touched a government email account in her entire term as Secretary of State because, being so backwards technically, she found it easier to hire her own IT consultant, have a server built and managed on her own dime, and have to tell everyone she worked with her email was not hrc@state,gov but instead Hillary@hrc45.com?
Hillary somehow "for simplicity sake" abandoned her official email that she used as a US Senator opting for one run by a guy that does IT work on the side when she stepped into Obama's Cabinet?
As an Ivy League educated lawyer, who was on the wrong side of dozens and dozens of "he said, she said" lawsuits and investigations, you honestly believe she has no idea how emails can derail a political career?
Re:Nothing narrow about Trump's win in Georgia (Score:4, Interesting)
Liar, moron, or just didn't even read the summary?
The data was wiped AFTER the suit was filed.
Re:Nothing narrow about Trump's win in Georgia (Score:4, Funny)
Why not all three?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that even the summary describes people trying to legally get access to this server prior to it being wiped. Maybe try reading the second paragraph of the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess all the right-wing conspiracy nuts will be jumping all over this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for the input comrade! how is the weather in Vladivostok?
Is good.
- LarryStorch213
Re: (Score:2)
The view is quite a bit more clear than rom the hole you climbed into after accusing Iraq invasion skeptics of being Saddam lovers. Why don't you crawl back in it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Way to troll.
"If it was ordered by a Republican, it would be the first thing mentioned."
Of course it would because then we'd know who authorized it.
Re:aha (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would it have to be mentioned? The Georgia Secretary of State is responsible for elections there, top-to-bottom (he's a Republican). The Governor of Georgia is a Republican. The state legislature is controlled by Republicans. The Attorney General of Georgia is a Republican. Republicans control every single state-wide lever of power.
The server was wiped after voting rights activists filed a lawsuit against the Republican Secretary of State. The reason for the lawsuit? To force the Republican Secretary of State to have the server independently analyzed.
So, please explain why and how "Dems are burning the evidence" in this case? And how did they manage to get a server, and all of its backups simultaneously wiped when they were under Republican control.
Re:aha (Score:4, Interesting)
Voting results for federal elections -- at the individual ballot level -- must be kept for 22 months after the election. The servers got wiped after just 8 months.
I'm thinking this is a clear violation of election law. IANAL but, given the timing of the destruction of the records -- mere days after the lawsuit was filed -- I wonder whether it's also obstruction of justice.
Re: (Score:2)
So, please explain why and how "Dems are burning the evidence" in this case?
The whole story is part of a smear campaign against Republicans. If the name of the person who ordered the wiping matched the rhetoric, he would be accused immediately. Everything about the "russian collusion" story is repeated unsubstantiated allegations against Republicans or "we don't know this 100%"-type defense of Democrats. If no accusation has been made, then (consistent with the mode operandi so far) the person who did the did was a Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
First: The FBI made and has retained a full copy of the drive previous to the lawsuit. The FBI has stated it is available to the participants in the lawsuit.
Second: The computer was at Kennesaw State University when it was degaussed by a low level technician.
These are the facts. What are you talking about? Everything you stated is irrelevant in light of these facts.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but the ones who control election systems are.
Re:They always tell the truth so this is fine (Score:4, Insightful)
If the USA votes Trump in for a second term then your decline into irrelevance will fall off a cliff. Such insanity should be punished.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Trump will get through this term just fine. Despite all the ramblings from foolish democrats they are not going to impeach him. Really democrats, you should write these representatives and tell them knock it off. It used to be funny, now its just sad.
As for Trump going for a full 8 years, I predict there is a 50/50 chance of that happening. I'm betting there is a 50% chance he will not run again in 2020. Then again, Trump has to much of a ego not to do round two.
Now lets poke some SJW. If Trum
Re: (Score:2)
Even the expenditure of so much blood and treasure over nearly 2 decades makes little impression.
Re: (Score:3)
Having seen Trump on TV, on the news the other night in relation to a couple of Republicans publicly 'censuring' him, I did find myself pondering this very question...
Who will run for the Democrats in the next election?
The question spawned a host of others, about the DNC, terms of office, chances of re-election, and so on, though most are somewhat imponderable at this stage.
What gave me pause though was the thought that, as someone not hugely interested in US politics beyond the broad, global, geopolitical
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, expect the Democrats to run another "novelty" candidate. They learned when they ran Obama that it was a trivial exercise to label all opposition to his proposals as "racially-motivated", and with Hillary's stunning defeat in 2016 (herself another novelty candidate, this time the first female candidate), Democrats are desperately working to make her loss about anything other than the obvious result of a poorly-run campaign that literally ignored a handful of key strong democrat states by choice, o
Re: (Score:3)
When asked about the budget, healthcare reform, tax reform, etc Democrats say they'll vote against it all because they don't like Trump, despite agreeing that all are in need of serious reform.
What the hell are you talking about? They've said over and over again that they would be happy to work with Trump or republicans (look at the Chuck Schumer deal for god's sake). It's just that they have their opinions about how the government should work, and they will only work with Republicans on legislation that is compatible with their goals.
Re: (Score:3)
When asked about the budget, healthcare reform, tax reform, etc Democrats say they'll vote against it all because they don't like Trump, despite agreeing that all are in need of serious reform. They put party ahead of country, and proudly say so at every press conference and sunday morning show appearance, in terms even the slowest liberal can understand, and the think this is how they'll win over undecided voters in 2018/2020?
This exactly. There may be a few democrats that are willing to put the country ahead of the party but those are always shouted down by the democratic party leadership. It's ether that loon Maxine Waters up there frothing "Impeach Impeach", or Nancy Pelosi doing every thing she can to block all cooperation.
Re: (Score:3)
I really wonder if the Republican party will even back him for re-election or officially support a different candidate. It has happened before [npr.org].
Re: (Score:2)
There is just as much division in the Republican Party. Why the heck do you think they haven’t passed any major policy change even in control of all levels of government.
In may ways the Republicans are worse off. The split between Bernie and Hillary are old news as neither is probably going to run for president again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"but all Trump has to do is fire Mueller, and that investigation is over." So what you're saying is you're a moron. See you at the gallows, traitor lol. Bring your long necktie! #Winning!
Firing the guy investigating you is basically the next thing to admitting guilt, particularly when the reason given was that they felt bad how they treated Hillary. I actually talked to a guy at work. He believed that you had to successfully stop an investigation for it to be obstruction of justice. That is not the law. Here is the quote from wikipedia.
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsified, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under Title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Note that it doesn't say success. Mueller is spotless. There is no plausible reason to fire him other than to obstruct justice. I think at that point
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's time to get over it.
Really. Like the way Republicans "got over" Obama winning twice?
The "Hillary lost, get over it" meme is old and tired. Get over that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
* I've lived over 1/2 a century & NEVER in my life have I seen such utter STUPIDITY over a Presidential Election in the USA!
Alzheimer's is a bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why does it have to be Trumps fault? (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s hyperbole. You can make just as many claims on either side of the aisle. Trump has his Russian friends in business, Clinton/Obama apparently had their Russian friends in politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Be fair. It's not like this is the first time there was presumptive evidence that a voting machine had been corrupted, which mysteriously disappeared before it could be validated. This is probably a bit more important than many of the others, but I believe there was a time or two in Illinois that were equally suspicious, and similarly important.
Re: (Score:2)
There are exactly 2 Podesta's mixed up in all this and they are brothers and co-founders of the Podesta group. Both worked with Manafort on Russias's behalf (often paid through shell charities) it's just that one also happens to have been Clinton's campaign chair.
The Podesta's (either one, take your pick) have a pretty long and very deep relationship with Russia but they seem to be more than willing to take money from anyone so there's always that defense.