Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday August 20 2016, @04:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-not-going-away dept.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-judge-emails.html?_r=0

A federal judge on Friday ordered Hillary Clinton to provide written testimony under oath about why she set up a private computer server to send and receive emails while secretary of state, ensuring that the issue will continue to dog her presidential campaign until the eve of the election.

In a brief ruling issued on Friday afternoon, the judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court in Washington, approved a motion by the conservative advocacy organization Judicial Watch to pursue its vigorous campaign to expose Mrs. Clinton's use of the private server. In addition to requiring her testimony in writing, the judge allowed the group to depose a senior State Department aide who had warned two subordinates not to question her email practices.

Only six weeks ago, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey Jr., declined to recommend prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, saying that while her actions had been careless, they did not amount to a crime. Yet the controversy refuses to dissipate. This week, the bureau turned over to Congress the documents it compiled in the case, including a three-and-a-half hour interview with Mrs. Clinton, even as Republicans in Congress pressed their public case for her to be charged with perjury.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dmbasso on Saturday August 20 2016, @06:46PM

    by dmbasso (3237) on Saturday August 20 2016, @06:46PM (#390656)

    Now, which do you consider to be more dangerous?

    I consider Trump more dangerous, by far, no doubt about that. Fortunately he's clearly going to lose. He could do a public service and withdraw his candidacy so either Cave Johnson [I wish] or Jill Stein could have a shot. Certainly lots of people who are being coerced by the lunacy of the situation would flock to both, given a chance.

    --
    `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 20 2016, @06:59PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 20 2016, @06:59PM (#390665) Journal

    Neither the Libertarians nor the Greens has a shot at the White House. Realistically, they don't have a chance. The best that we can hope for by voting third party is to get them federal funding for the next go-around.

    I'm 60 years old. There is almost no chance in hell that I will live long enough to see a third party in the White House. If things go well for Johnson and/or Stein this go around, people who are 40 now MIGHT live long enough to see a third party candidate win the presidential election. The possibility is remote, but it is a possibility.

    • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 21 2016, @05:41AM

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday August 21 2016, @05:41AM (#390912) Journal

      Neither the Libertarians nor the Greens has a shot at the White House. Realistically, they don't have a chance. The best that we can hope for by voting third party is to get them federal funding for the next go-around.

      Actually, there's more one could hope for. Allowing debates and giving attention to other parties would bring more attention in the public to alternatives. The Libertarians and Greens don't just run for President -- they have candidates for a lot of federal, state, and local elections too. And when people start seeing letters other than (R) or (D) behind the names of other public officials, they might start wondering about other offices too.

      I'm 60 years old. There is almost no chance in hell that I will live long enough to see a third party in the White House. If things go well for Johnson and/or Stein this go around, people who are 40 now MIGHT live long enough to see a third party candidate win the presidential election. The possibility is remote, but it is a possibility.

      I understand why the focus of third-parties is on the Presidency. They know they won't win, but it's the biggest platform to get public attention. Nevertheless, there are literally hundreds of third-party office holders at local and state levels across the U.S. already. If the other parties really want to compete for the Presidency, those smaller elections matter in the long run, since they will get people used to thinking outside of the duopoly.

      Thus, getting other parties involved in the debates, for example, could bring much greater repercussions that just a failed presidential candidate. It could get voters thinking, "Hey, those R/D people are wackos, but I like what the L/G person had to say. When I go to the polls, maybe I should look at some of the non-R/D people for other offices too!" In areas with particularly large numbers of folks fed up with the major parties, this could lead to some upsets... but only if the public actually realizes there are alternatives.

  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday August 20 2016, @10:16PM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday August 20 2016, @10:16PM (#390744) Journal

    Someone I know (a Trump supporter) characterized it like this: We can choose Darth Vader (D) or Yosemite Sam (R).