FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
My reading would be this: "We found some new emails. They're relevant, but we don't know if they're important. We're looking into it."
What I find interesting is the timing of this letter and, possibly, the fact that he wrote it at all. But we can't judge the significance of those without knowing if this is standard procedure. For all we know, he may regularly send letters that say things like "I spelled a word wrong on page 875 of our report. Agents are looking into correcting it and resubmitting the report."
Or this type of letter could be highly unusual, especially days before a presidential election.
Either way, he had to know Chaffetz would be shouting this from the top of a mountain...
Perhaps this "reopening" is more the result of an attack of conscience than of the significance of any new information. It's possible that this is a halfhearted attempt to do what many legal experts considered to be the right thing in the first place.
[1] http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/...
The relevant laws are clear as to what happens. It is the CIO responsible for the individual department who is required to regulate the use of IT resources. It would have been their responsibility to tell Clinton specifically that she wasn't allowed to use the server then cite her if she continued. That didn't happen so she's completely in the clear. The law even allows the CIO leeway to allow things contrary to policy under certain conditions (though I don't think that was done in this case).
The law doesn't provide for felony prosecution for using personal IT resources, no matter how much some people want that to be true for politically convenient reasons. The same people crying about Clinton would reject the charges out of hand if it were their favored political candidate.
In the end she didn't do anything morally wrong which is why this whole email thing has been one big nothing-burger. Everyone has had to fight corporate IT's outdated and stupid policies at one time or another and almost all of us have subverted those policies to get our jobs done.
The only reason we even know about this is because she disclosed it. Colin Powell and Condoleza Rice both used private email servers. So did the entire Bush administration. When confronted with requests for the data they just nuked it from orbit and no one gave a shit. Suddenly it's a huge scandal! The crime of the century!
Trump has violated tax law by using is "charitable" foundation as a piggy bank. I'm not calling for an investigation and prosecution of him because that's banana republic territory.
It's kind of funny how the majority of the people who mock Clinton over this get it wrong themselves.
And also omit the context, which was a (C) used in an email which had neither a portion marker in the header (as all classified emails should) nor classification banners. In that context, I think mlet's actually pretty reasonable to have no idea that a parenthetical (C) on a paragraph was intended as a portion marker of classification level.
[0] http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/Marking_Classified_Inform...
It's perfectly reasonable to not know that a lone parenthetical letter at the start of a paragraph in an email that is not itself marked as classified is intended as a classification portion marker. Because parenthetical letters have many uses in general written communication, and there special use as portion markers is specific to documents that are classified as a whole, which there are standard ways of marking.
There's also a point there that intentional negligence is a contradiction in terms. If something is intentional, it's not negligent. If it's negligent, it can't be intentional.
She didn't have to lie should could of been grossly incompetent and negligent in her handling of her duties.
> Or this type of letter could be highly unusual, especially days before a presidential election.
I can't imagine Comey sending that letter out this close to the election without having something actionable. He knows full well the impact that even the allegation that something is there would have.
He apparently was legally required to because he previously testified that everything had been looked out. There is now more to look at. This was a savvy move by Rep Chaffetz, not a strategy by Comey (Chaffetz is also who characterized it as being re-opened, Comey said no such thing).
I think there's a technical correctness to that. The FBI won't look into anything if there isn't an open investigation. So it'd have to be re-opened for them to look into it.
https://twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/792065775658012677 https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/792063653919031296
I'll give you the point on being technically correct (and Chaffetz being full of...) but counter that by that logic she's been under FBI investigation this whole time.
Interesting. Has there ever been a Fortune 500 board of directors in a CEO selection process under way with a CEO candidate personally under FBI investigation say, "oh, that's okay, you're still one of our two top choices"? If not, it is a peculiar juxtaposition.
While an investigation most assuredly does not pass the "guilty until proven innocent" bar, CEO's have been summarily fired by boards or left for the good of the company simply for being personally under FBI investigation. For the political geeks/wonks among us, can you please explain to this layperson how Clinton's situation differs?
There aren't any parallels in the corporate world I can point to. Being under federal investigation would be like wearing skunk cologne to any sane corporate board.
> While an investigation most assuredly does not pass the "guilty until proven innocent" bar, CEO's have been summarily fired by boards or left for the good of the company simply for being personally under FBI investigation. For the political geeks/wonks among us, can you please explain to this layperson how Clinton's situation differs?
Short answer is that she's a Clinton and in control (whether direct or indirect) of the entire DNC and it's delegates. The Clinton's are a big part of the DNC money machine, raising money across the organization so everybody owes them favors. They'd ignore anything like this out of fear of spiting her or WJC unless it were criminal not to do so (say if she were convicted).
It will then be clearly refuted in a tidy 6 o'clock news bite next week. The goal will be to give average voters a sense of closure that will also encompass the negative buzz around the wikileaked emails.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/33821 "But if the objective is to connect emails-Benghazi and conflate the two in voters’ minds (which consultants feel is an imperative here), I’m not sure we know whether we can credibly do that"
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077#efmAABABT Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23327 Reluctant to go there. Makes it seem like she consciously went to the home server for security reasons which would fall apart under scrutiny.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545 Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I seems like they will.
https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-... "[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by [Kennedy], Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the e-mail's classification in exchange for a 'quid pro quo,'" https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24353#efmAAMABc... Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region. (Sounds like classified info...)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6185 Someone here just got a tip that the State Department may be planning to release her Benghazi emails tomorrow or Monday. (Leaking info...)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22335 Finally, just for humor value, it looks like Podesta got might have gotten hacked by using p@ssw0rd as his password.
In plain English, the case was closed, but now there is new evidence and we're investigating it. Sounds like 're-opening' to me.
The real news story here is that this is what everyone will be talking about for the next weekend, that's three days, with a response by her on Monday. So, maybe four days. That's more than 30% of the remaining election cycle.
As Trump would say. This is big league.
Why are we now shoehorning the real world in to TV speak?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-i...
Perhaps it would have been better to admit fault and deal with this outright in the beginning, rather than attempting to manipulate the process[0].
[0]http://observer.com/2016/07/exclusive-security-source-detail...
The FBI is looking at more Clinton emails. That sounds shady and bad for Clinton no matter how you swing it.
Then there's the accusation that she rigged the primary, despite the fact that she had nothing to do with that. It was on the DNC.
Or there was the "scandal" about how her staff was smashing cell phones. It's a legit and basically mundane data security procedure. https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed-pho...
People scream scandal at her over mundane stuff or stuff she has nothing to do with all the time. It's absurd.
What were you saying about 'wishful thinking?' A presidential candidate under FBI investigation on election day is huge.
[1] http://www.inquisitr.com/3287325/hillary-clinton-polls-did-f...
Regardless of if it will affect their vote (some it will, some it won't), people absolutely do care.
Edit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/09/hi...
People do care; the way for leftists (like myself) to show that they care is by simply abstaining or going third party which would obviously cripple her.
Most Clinton voters are voting for her, not against Trump.
edit: referring to the claim that Clinton voters aren't voting for clinton
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
I'm inclined to agree that it's not going to make much difference; how people vote is more determined by their social group loyalties, especially when things are as fraught as they are already.
One has received a civil lawsuit which means absolutely nothing and is based entirely on he-said-she-said allegations. There is no investigation. I could go file a lawsuit today against you for sexual harassment. It means literally nothing other than I paid an attorney money to go file a piece of paper.
I'm not saying the email scandal is a non-issue, but I find it very interesting that so much emphasis is placed on what she has done despite plenty of other questionable incidents previously. It follows well the narrative that she is being at the very least held to a different standard than other politicians.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...
[2] http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/did-colin-powell-use-personal-...
The reality is that most cases of mishandling classified information result in little more than a stern talking to from your manager, re-training, and a blemish in your file.
The Bush admin had plenty of other controversies and they were reamed by the media repeatedly for those (and justifiably so). It's not like it was hands off.
Maybe this is a bigger issue because of the continued lying about what happened, which is an ongoing issue for Clinton.
This to me supports the idea she wasn't trying to hide her state dept emails where they couldn't be accessed via FOI requests. If that were the goal, they would have done what the bush administration did and use that server almost exclusively so that both sender and receiver were on a private server. As it was, emails to and from other state dept staffers using their state dept emails would have copies. If that was an attempt to hide official emails it was not a good one.
The law has changed. Requirements were less strict back when email was new and exotic. We don't punish people for violating laws passed after the not-yet-crime is done; this would violate the constitution.
Bush and Powell were not under investigation, and thus didn't destroy evidence while under investigation.
Bush and Powell didn't have the issues with classified material, possibly excepting one disputed Powell email.
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"
If a normal citizen were to have done the same -- a citizen which didn't have the same profile, stature, or benefits of connection as Hilary, the "reasonable-ness" from the prosecution's vantage point would likely sky rocket.
People are jailed for far less round these parts.
Then again, a normal citizen doesn't really have a lot of people sending them classified emails. I don't think this is a situation where you can extrapolate from VIP to non-VIP…
Also, how many CEO's do you know that do stupid stuff with customer data and break rules in an organization? I'm not saying is right or that it shouldn't be punished but the double standard to me is the problem. If it wasn't Hillary nobody would care but there has been a marketing campaign against her for so long its practically Pavlovian at this point.
Do I believe Hillary acted with malicious intent? I don't. I do believe she broke the law.
The reality I believe in is that if it were me somehow in this situation, there would be no common-sense applied, just the letter of the law. No judge would look at my past and see someone making a mistake, or try to get to know me to better understand me. Just gitmo.
She just wanted email on her Blackberry so she could conduct business while traveling.
I would bet that we're seeing a lot of that this year because there are many Republicans who don't like a Democrat winning but also aren't keen to have their personal reputation tarred by support for their party's candidate. If, say, you feel there is an immigration problem it's much easier to say something about email servers rather than trying to defend Trump's positions on the issue or defend yourself against charges of racism.
Perhaps true. But it does indicate who Comey thinks is going to win the election.
If you were the director of the FBI would you re-open an investigation of your about-to-be boss?
[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-inves...
1) Saucier generated the classified information. He took the photos. I don't think there was evidence the Clinton was knowingly sending classified information to non-cleared individuals
2) Saucier himself deleted the files from his laptop after learning he was under investigation. The FBI in Clinton's case determined that there was no willful attempt to obstruct justice
3) The quantity and quality of the information likely differs. If the Clinton emails contained photographs of classified military hardware, we'd probably see more motion.
See Comey's quote comparing the Petraeus case to the Clinton case:
"So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of information," Comey said. "He admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey-hillary-c...
> The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.
> It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
> We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey-hillary-c...
We don't know that about Clinton, and the reason that matters is because information does not get declassified just because it is publicly known. The full text of a newspaper article about a Snowden disclosure contains information that to this day is classified top secret or higher. Someone sending her an email about a NYTimes story could result in classified info in her email.
Another difference is that Clinton was legally empowered to determine which emails were work-related (and therefore must be archived) and which were personal (and therefore could legally be deleted). The fact that she and her team made mistakes in this process is not criminal; mistakes are not a crime. In addition the FBI recovered and reviewed many of these deleted emails and still recommended against prosecution.
The extent to which one can point to a classified disclosure prosecution and say "this is just like Clinton!" is exaggerated. The details matter.
It was also much more widespread, with 88 staffers having accounts on this server. Of course, there's no evidence that classified information was discussed, since they deleted the evidence. But it's hard to believe Karl Rove sent 150k emails without a single bit of classified information in them.
So there's precedent for think kind of thing being swept under the rug.
Obama pardoning Hillary might prove to voters that the system really is corrupt... That could backfire in a big way.
For example, Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, even though he hadn't been convicted of anything.
To do this two weeks before the election raises very serious questions about the U.S.'s most fundamental institutions, rule of law, and democracy. Every Democratic leader is subject to endless investigation and deligitimization.
EDIT: This is not a partisan concern. Everyone needs these institutions, democracy and the rule of law.
Besides that it's exactly as if Comey convicted her without trial. /s
It's not a partisan concern and we should be concerned about the rule of law...except in this situation? Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.
A society that lets its leaders do whatever they want without repercussions but "lesser" people get punished is not one particularly concerned about the rule of law. Why would we not want the FBI doing its job?
The FBI has the power to influence elections if it chooses to. Re-opening the investigation 11 days before election day fits the profile of trying to influence the election; it's an "October Surprise". But 'fitting the profile' is not conclusive and it's also very possible that re-opening it now was apolitical. We don't know enough right now to prove it either way.
My point is that we should seriously consider the possibility. Nobody wants the FBI trying to influence elections. Recall that another institution, the Supreme Court, decided a recent Presidential election on a party-line vote. A core value of the U.S. is that voters decide, whether or not I happen to agree with their decision. I'm afraid that could slip away if we turn a blind eye.
You start to wonder what Huma Abedin might have said to her husband.
Once she wins, she will then either short circuit the investigation by forcing Comey and anyone else associated with it to resign, or she will actually be indicted and then she will pardon herself. For the record I believe that both of the candidates are despicable human beings and either one will make the worst President I have ever had in my lifetime, but we are almost certainly stuck with Clinton for at least the next four years.
Has any poll looked into this ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/31/a-...
"Clinton Voters Aren’t Just Voting Against Trump"
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters-arent-jus...
But please, let's get real. For all her numerous faults, her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of our free society.
Honestly, I hate to say this, but we are past the point of laws here and the fairy tale than ANY sufficiently powerful person will be held accountable for their misdeeds. I've never been one to buy the two-party lesser of evils narrative, but we are really and truly at the edge of the cliff right now. Do we let righteous indignation push us over the edge? Or do we live to fight another day?
Let me get this straight. Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs, which again is highly illegal and subverting our democratic process. She has shady and inappropriate meetings with people responsible for running the voting process. She's sponsored by people who own the voting machines. And not to mention that she has inarguably done highly illegal things with her private email server and got off without charges, showing the injustice of our two-tier criminal justice system.
edit: removed argument I rescind and check out this recording of Hillary that came out today: http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-cl...
"That troubled me deeply. I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And...if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."
And Trump is the one threatening our democracy?
He has stated that if elected, he'll spend the first 100 days suing his accusers.
He believes the press has too much freedom of speech.
He has claimed the election is rigged against him, and has all but told his supporters to engage in vote suppression.
He has said he will attempt to force all Muslims to register into a database.
He has said he will ban all Muslims from entering the nation.
Would you like me to go? If you listen to his words at campaign rallies, they bear a striking resemblance to fascist dictators on the rise.
Clinton may fit the mold of the "crooked Washington politician", but at the least, she has a basic respect for democracy. Trump, on the other hand, would attempt to utterly plow his way through our legal system for his own gain.
We have a real problem with the press in this country... great example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVsnMuaFjhE
Additionally, all major media publications have come out in support of Trump for the simple fact he has, in no way shape or form, demonstrated any leadership capabilities. He tweeted at 3 am for days following the first campaign about the Miss USA issue. How does demonstrate a steady hand and patience?
Pathetic.
I for one hope our president isn't concerned about how much models weigh. And if they are, I hope they don't respond to criticism by slut-shaming that person, especially for something they didn't do. So, no suggesting at 3 am that people investigate the sex life of someone who attacked him isn't very presidential.
This is so blindly obvious to me and anyone else who's capable of a rational thought. I cannot believe you are seriously try to suggest he meant that in the sense that he wants to subvert the election process.
How about his claims of voter fraud despite the fact that no evidence has been found?
>This is so blindly obvious to me and anyone else who's capable of a rational thought.
Ad hominen attack, but I suspect you support Trump.
Despite all this, I am fucking sick and tired at the outright lies, slander, and disingenuous arguments against Trump. There is plenty to attack him on without all the bullshit. And I'm sick of the Hillary reality distortion that is, from what I can tell, the absolute epitome of everything wrong with politics today.
Does anyone REALLY think that someone who was sexually assaulted by a BILLIONAIRE wouldn't have cashed in already?
No actually, they all decided together an hour before the the email leaks were about to be released to the public about things that happened decades ago and to release a tape of him. That clearly has no political motivation what-so-ever and how dare you question it.
Just a point, this is normal with the sitting President campaigning either for themselves for their second term or their parties nominee. Both Trump and Hilary have plenty of valid points against them, so there is no need to muddy the water with points that don't really matter.
> Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders.
Getting elected is a process of building key supporters, including within your own party.
> We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs
All candidates do, and use some level of indirection to stay within the regulation. The regulation is toothless for campaign finance reform, so why get worked up about it.
> She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her
Outgoing presidents always campaign on behalf of their party's nominee.
If the election is close, I think the loser has a duty to contest the loss. Trump contesting the election would be every bit as right as Gore contesting the election.
What is so bad about this? The reaction people are having is strange. It's as if people are purposely misinterpreting Trump's words as implying that he will march on Washington D.C. with a militia. The realistic assumption is a Gore-style lawsuit, and there is nothing wrong with that.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
"Ok Donald, are you really going to claim to the nation that the elections are rigged, and that you won't accept their results?"
And his, answer was, "We'll see." Which means, yes! He's standing by the claim. So don't equivocate Trump's position. It's not media sensationalism.
This is not actually true. While he is forced to only use Airforce One when flying he is required by law to reimburse all costs related to campaigning for anyone. Typically though the president never pays for this and, instead, the candidate they are campaigning for foots the bill.
Every single president in the history of our democracy has done this. Every single one of them.
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/05/484817706/looking-back-at-a-ce...
McCain in 2008 and Gore in 2000 both sort of wanted the sitting president to stay out of the campaign. Bush was pretty unpopular and Clinton had a lot hanging over him (Bush left office with an approval rating around 30%, Clinton around 60%).
Reagan campaigned timidly for Bush I.
So in the last 40 years, it hasn't been very common for the sitting president to come out and campaign hard for their parties candidate. Of course they have generally campaigned for themselves, which has a similar issue of dealing with who pays for things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
"Because it was considered improper for a candidate to pursue the presidency actively, neither Tilden nor Hayes actively stumped as part of the campaign, leaving that job to surrogates."
Huh? There is only one president...what's the problem with campaigning for someone else that you support? I don't see the moral issue. If you're paying for it and you're obviously not doing it in lieu of your duty what's the issue here?
>Every single president in the history of our democracy has done this. Every single one of them.
This NPR article calls it "unusual" but maybe I am missing something since I only read it at a glance: http://www.npr.org/2016/07/07/485097272/fact-check-air-force...
Sanders was basically an independent running as a Dem. Even though I would have preferred him, it's ridiculous to expect the party not to be preferential towards the inside candidate who has decades of connections. Also primaries are not subject to the same level of protections or expectations of institutional impartiality as general elections, which sucks, but is simply the political reality. Also this is all moot because Hillary won by a significant margin.
> We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs, which again is highly illegal and subverting our democratic process.
Citation?
> She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her - while not illegal, is pretty morally bankrupt in my opinion.
It's completely normal for the outgoing president to campaign for his party. Only reason Bush didn't do it for McCain was because he was so unpopular at the time.
> She has shady and inappropriate meetings with people responsible for running the voting process. She's sponsored by people who own the voting machines.
Citations?? I haven't heard of any of this. Also - so what? Sounds like a Breitbart or Drudge invention.
> And not to mention that she has inarguably done highly illegal things with her private email server and got off without charges, showing the injustice of our two-tier criminal justice system.
"Inarguably"? If it was truly "inarguable" Comey would have recommended prosecution in the first place.
Trump, otoh, has expressed his desire to suppress the free press, to normalize relations with dictators, to jail his political opponents (not something the president has the authority to do, not that he understands that). He's encouraged violence at rallies and on election day. He's encouraged minority voter suppression and intimidation (which has been part of the republican platform for the past decade, so he's not exceptional in that regard, just in how nakedly he does it). The things HRC has done or been accused of are normal, if disappointing, qualities of a mainstream American politician. The things Trump has done and said he'll do are very clearly in the tradition of fascism.
Dang... a President who wants to follow the laws and not give special passes to those in power? We can't have that!
The fact that Hillary is able to get away with criminal behavior WHILE IN OFFICE is one thing, but why anyone would want her in office again is beyond me. Why would the democrats even want to risk that?
Go look at the reason he gives for not recommending prosecution. It has nothing to do with whether what she did was illegal.
Go Google the rest yourself, it's not hard to find and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who can't be convinced. My comments are targeted at people reading this who might not be aware of the bullshit going on.
Okay.
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."[1]
Potential violations of statues, without criminal intent ≠ "inarguably highly illegal things".
> Go Google the rest yourself, it's not hard to find and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who can't be convinced.
Okay! Lets see, sources in the first two pages of google results for "clinton voting machines": zerohedge, usapoliticstoday, thepoliticalinsider, conservativedailypost, breitbart, inforwars, wnd, libertywritersnews, quora (lol), snopes (for obvious reasons), proudcons, theconomiccollapseblog, counterpunch, thecommonsenseshow, thegatewaypundit, ajc. Not that the "MSM" is completely unbiased, but openly partisan publications don't really constitute news sources to my mind. If there were really such blatant attempts at election rigging going on, I have faith that an impartial journalist with integrity would be looking into it and/or an adjacent party would have sufficient incentive to blow the whistle. It would be huge news.
> My comments are targeted at people reading this who might not be aware of the bullshit going on.
Don't think you'll find too many of those on HN, but good luck fighting the good fight.
[1]https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-b...
One does not need to intend to do something for it to be highly illegal. There is an absolute boat load of cases where people did 1/10th of what Hillary did, without any proven intent, and went to prison for it. Thousands of people are prosecuted every day by our criminal justice system without any intent.
And in the same quote: "potential violations". He completely dodged having to explicitly say that it was illegal, which anyone with a security clearance can plainly tell you. The only reason he didn't explicitly say she didn't break the law was because it would be a lie that he even couldn't pull off.
It is so blindingly obvious that this is a load of horse shit. He is being vague, misleading, and deliberately obtuse.
Is this your first election?
If you really care about things like democracy, human rights, civil liberties, and freedom of speech, handing the country to an egomaniacal authoritarian just to prove a point is the height of strategic stupidity.
Please clarify whom you're referencing here.
Enforcing immigration policy, even pausing immigration in certain cases, is not "closing" open society. It's recognizing that there's a dark side to allowing arbitrary numbers of immigrants and refugees bypassing the normal immigration process, and it's taking a step back and figuring out in advance, rationally, what policy we want to enforce, rather than not enforcing any meaningful policy and getting stuck with the results down the road.
The free speech threat from regulating big (and maybe not-so-big) media is troublesome, I agree. However, it's accepted, even more on the far left than on the far right, that pretty much all media, advertising, and entertainment is propaganda. What happens if we continue to fail to recognize this propaganda as a threat to the kind of democracy we hopefully want—a democracy built on rational inquiry, rather than one built on the crest of emotion, on propaganda-fueled mass hysteria?
You want democracy? This is what Hillary's "democracy" looks (sounds) like: http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-cl... (direct soundcloud link https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 )
The flip side of that is that there are pretty close to the same number of people that think a Clinton administration could do plenty of damage that would have ripple effects on society for decades to come.
I'm uneasy about judicial activism, in either direction. I wish that conservatism, of the Chestertonian, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" variety, was a requirement for such an august long-tenured position.
Didn't we get a list of these? In order, Trump will nominate his sister, Rudy Giuliani, and Chris Christie. He won't get more than three nominations, and Rudy can't end all civil rights for criminal defendants forever all by himself.
I've wondered about this but I don't think it would happen. Every single person but 3 that I know who is voting for Hillary or Trump is doing so with the upmost conviction that the candidate completely and entirely represents their values as belonging to the respective parties. It's as if the individual parties have become a religion.
And sure I know a few people who will vote for either party that represents their values and goals the most (I am one of them) but for every 1 person I know like that I know dozens of others who are as tied to their political party as their religion.
Yes this is all anecdotal. I have nothing else to go on. But now that he's the nominee I think more people than we might expect are going to fully support him.
Incorrect, they found no one who was "willing to prosecute"
Others could also argue that, despite his statements that have shown utter contempt for and ignorance of American law, history and political norms, he doesn't actually have a track record in one direction or another and is just saying those things to elicit support from his base. We can only hope...
In one breath, you express concern about the end of democracy, and in the next you disregard one of the vanguards of American government as if it's nothing. If we are indeed "past the point of laws here," then democracy has already ended.
Democracy is not getting the leader you want, it is not getting the best leader and it isn't pretty - it is a way to guarantee legitimacy by getting the leader most people vote for, no more, no less.
If it's before she takes office, Obama could pardon her. Would be a smear on the end of his legacy but might a Nixon/Ford style situation to take the personal hit and move the country forward.
If it's after she takes office, most likely impeachment or resignation. It'd be very difficult govern as the chief executive if the country and world sees you as a convicted criminal. Depending on how that plays out, Kaine would most likely take over.
Based on my take of Obama as a person, I'm pretty sure he'd require her stepping down as a condition of a pardon. Otherwise the public would question her legitimacy for four years.
I have no idea if the emails are related enough, as I don't have voting rights in the US I see no reason to care about them.
The Senate is only required to actually convict. It's pretty much a disaster simply to be impeached at all. No conviction is really necessary to permanently damage someone politically.
We've only got one recent example of a President getting impeached, and it worked out pretty well for him.
Or personal pardon!
That would be like Democrats impeaching Bush and getting Cheney instead.
Nothing explicitly prevents it. It doesn't really matter anyhow; Congress has the exclusive power to impeach. Impeachment is the mechanism the constitution provides deal with criminal presidents and the president can't block it.
Make no mistake; the last thing Comey and Clinton+Obama et al. wanted was to fill news cycles with "FBI investigation reopened" 11 days out. It's bad, whatever it is, and this is a CYA move; Comey believes he needs to be able to claim he notified Oversight and made this public prior to the election.
In the current climate, unless a big group of Democrats in the house side with the Republicans on the charges, it can sloughed off as partisan BS.
We'd also probably need some pretty crazy info in those emails to warrant the sharpness of public invective necessary to have a clear political mandate to go through impeachment. It would have to include some of: large scale impact to national interests, beyond-the-pale vile political conspiracy, dick pics of Bill Clinton, or a clear statement of explicit, willfully avoiding public disclosure of the topic of discussion (of particular national interest).
I see the narrative being around "sour grapes losers" and "can't win, can't govern Republicans."
Maybe.... but do the Democrats really want a President that is constantly questioned in terms of her ethics?
I think the Democrats are prepared for that much, at least.
1. He used a personal, private email address--note a personal, private email server.
2. This was the norm to use a private address, yes. However, policies changed after Powell left and no longer permitted this kind of behavior.
3. Clinton and her staff blatantly ignored these policies and took it a step further by using her own personal, private email server.
4. Powell only used the email address to handle non-classified material. Clinton handled classified material on her email server.
This letter is the FBI covering their ass.
By all means, perform your investigation, but to announce it immediately before what's arguably one of the most important elections in modern US history? If I were a paranoid man, I'd say that this looks like an attempt by an unelected official to prejudice voters.
Under such circumstances, the exposure of a search for a smoking gun is suspect.
Waiting until after seems wrong, and I say this as someone who as it stands is voting for HRC.
I honestly don't view this as influence, and more covering his ass, which has me nervous for HRC.
Unfortunately, all we do know is that they might have found something that might be important enough to warrant an investigation that might result in an indictment recommendation, &c, &c. With this in mind, it's more than a little strange.
Unless I've misunderstood Comey's powers of discretion over FBI investigations (which is entirely possible), he has little to no need to "cover his ass."
Disclosure of a new investigation (or a new branch of the current investigation, as his letter apparently actually says) is prejudicial in all the same ways that perp walks are.
Podesta is on record saying that "we need to clean this up" when this discrepancy surfaced.
Obama is not Sherlock Holmes, and he can be unaware of something, even if there is evidence he could possibly have seen. You need a little more evidence than that to call somebody a liar.
They are not allowed to drive cars and the CIA makes sure they don't. So why are they not monitored to make sure their communications are secure and there is no risk to the nations information.
Bite it US Gov
But as a hacker I am interested in how the political system operates. So let's speculate that a candidate is elected to office and then is indicted on a felony. What happens? Obviously anybody can be elected president, so there's no legal problem. But Congress also is charged with certifying electors. Would they certify electors for a candidate that had legal issues? If they did, the candidate could just pardon themselves once in office.
It brings up some weird issues.
Regarding the self-pardoning, as discussed elsewhere, it wouldn't really matter, she could still be impeached. Impeachment is extra-judicial.
This leads me to believe that Congress really has to decide. Beats me whether they should decide before or after the person is sworn in.
(Of course this is just speculating about a generic case.)
Also, the emails in question are not from Clinton and were never withheld in the original investigation. They appear to come from the devices of Anthony Weinar and his ex-wife.
Also, as more than one person has reported, the case was never closed.
I am not sure why he did this, the timing is suspect.
Its pure speculation, but perhaps he is hedging his odds of keeping his job?
1. She used her official position as Secretary of State representing the United States to solicit $150M++ of dollars in foreign donations for her personal 501c3.
Imagine how this worked. Picture the scene at a US Embassy social function in some small corrupt country: "Oh sure El Presidente, I'd be happy to look into what's holding up your USAID payments. Sayyy, Bill would love to come and deliver a speech for you. By the way, his going rate is $500,000."
Having our Secretary of State asking foreign dignitaries for payments on-the-side irreparably damages our country's reputation in the world. This is some of the most egregious and blatant corruption we have ever seen in a public official.
3. She made copies of government information, which any reasonable person would agree qualifies as some level of classification, to a personal server in her home that was not authorized to store such information (and as a result the Russians stole it).
2. She conducted government business using an unauthorized private server, and did so specifically for the purpose of concealing her actions and correspondence from both internal and official oversight.
4. She set up some type of shadow internal review process to squash entirely legitimate FOIA requests that might reflect poorly on her department or herself.
Routinely, little people are vigorously prosecuted for far, far less. America explicitly rejects having a double standard for royalty, why shouldn't she be subject to the same rules?
(I know this because I over consume political news media and they have adopted it as a term; it's really horrifying, they talk about the campaigns attempting to manipulate them instead of doing real analysis)