The FBI's year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.
Justice Department lawyers said last week that the State Department would review and turn over Clinton's work-related emails to a conservative legal group. The records are among "tens of thousands" of documents found by the FBI in its probe and turned over to the State Department, Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said Monday in court.
The 14,900 Clinton documents are nearly 50 percent more than the roughly 30,000 emails that Clinton's lawyers deemed work-related and returned to the department in December 2014.
Lawyers for the State Department and Judicial Watch, the legal group, are negotiating a plan for the release of the emails in a civil public records lawsuit before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington.
In a statement after a hearing at the U.S. district courthouse in Washington, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the group was pleased that Boasberg rejected the department's proposal to begin releasing documents weekly on Oct. 14, ordering it instead to prioritize Clinton's emails and to return to court Sept. 22 with a new plan.
"We're pleased the court accelerated the State Department's timing," Fitton said. "We're trying to work with the State Department here, but let's be clear: They have slow-walked and stonewalled the release of these records. They've had many of them since July 25 ... and not one record has yet been released, and we don't understand why that's the case."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:05AM
Holy crap these morons really do love their chain letters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:00AM
Did anyone check the return addresses? Chances are fairly good they'll know where they came from if they just look.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 26 2016, @05:55PM
People so tired of the email thing they're arguing about Jill Stein's vaccine stance suits my agenda just fine. But, to post something on-topic, this headline is quite the clickbait (attribute that to the source article)
They are implying very heavily that these are 14k new emails. In reality, these emails have been in the possession of the FBI and State Dept for about a year and were evaluated while making the determination to press charges.
A more accurate headline would be: "14k emails from the FBI Clinton investigation to be released slightly ahead of schedule."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday August 26 2016, @05:06AM
Anyone want to get some action going on whether any of this material sees daylight before the election?
Not that it matters, we already KNOW (not think, not believe, not debate, know) she committed multiple felonies regarding the proper handling of classified material and I seriously doubt more than 1% of her supporters care or ever will regardless of any possible disclosure. They want their free shit, Hillary promises to keep it coming and that is that.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Friday August 26 2016, @05:13AM
Maybe it's better that they come out after the election. It seems like she would have a better chance of being impeached and thrown out of office than losing to Donald Trump.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:18AM
Hillary's going to win one for Feminists everywhere! Are you gonna vote Hillary or are you still a sexist?! Vote Hillary!!
After 8 years of Hillary you'll get your chance to vote for Gay. Don't be a homophobe in 2024!!!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @06:03AM
Got no problem voting for a uterus, IF the uterus has a mind. I've never met either a uterus or a testicle with a mind though.
Want a woman in the White House? Vote Stein. Stein may or may not be the "best" woman for the job, but she'd damned good, and she's honest. No dead bodies, no scandals, no hundreds of millions of dollars from questionable donors - AND SHE HAS A MIND! Most people who hold a doctorate's degree have a mind. Funny how that works.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:16AM
We found the Green voter! Jill should totally invite you to her Mensa meeting to celebrate her defeat.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @06:42AM
Jill doesn't really expect to win. She knows that most ill-informed voters have been brainwashed by one or the other of the big parties.
Vote for her anyway. Or, vote for Johnson. Take votes away from the two major corrupt parties, that's all I ask.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Friday August 26 2016, @07:09AM
I'm voting for Stein personally. I don't REALLY expect her to win, but I hope if enough people stop voting against the wrong lizard, perhaps they'll realize that they could actually lose to a 3rd party one day.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Friday August 26 2016, @05:25PM
Vote for a uterus, or vote for a Johnson... funny choice! :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by RedBear on Friday August 26 2016, @06:51AM
Stein is an anti-vaxxer and believes Wi-Fi may be harming American schoolchildren. Two fringe conspiracy theorist ideas that have been soundly debunked repeatedly by numerous legitimate peer reviewed scientific studies.
Beg to differ. Are there many intelligent people who wind up with PhDs? Sure. But the main thing you need in order to acquire a PhD is not brains but perseverance (and money). The ability to slog through the years of insanity that is the PhD candidate process. Many people without functioning brains have managed to acquire PhDs.
Example: A current presidential candidate has a PhD and yet is an anti-vaxxer and believes Wi-Fi is medically harmful. See above. QED.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @06:58AM
Granted, some real idiots manage to get degrees.
Stein isn't an idiot though.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:03AM
Stein is an anti-vaxxer and believes Wi-Fi may be harming American schoolchildren.
http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/ [snopes.com]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by RedBear on Friday August 26 2016, @08:04AM
You should really read the entire Snopes link you posted, not just the giant "FALSE" at the top. She's a waffler on the subject and uses many lines commonly used by anti-vaxxers to imply that the vaccine process is corrupt and vaccines are just being used to line the pockets of Big Pharma. This is the equivalent of Trump constantly claiming to not be racist or support white supremacy while dog-whistling and using white supremacist arguments all day long and pretending that he's never heard of the KKK.
She is an anti-vaxxer. Do not be fooled. She's just not quite as open and dumb about revealing it as, say, Michele Bachmann.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Friday August 26 2016, @11:31AM
"""
I think there's no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases — smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication ... We have a real compelling need for vaccinations.
"""
Definitely anti-vax, yes-siree.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @12:12PM
Don't be coy. She plays both sides of the issue. Even if she is not anti-vax she courts anti-vaxxers by echoing their rhetoric. From a practical standpoint, that's the same thing. Its like Trump saying all that racist-friendly shit and then saying he's not a racist because he has hired some hispanics and amarosa.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @03:48PM
Alright, you've got ONE ISSUE which Stein appears to "waffle" on. Now, look at the competition, and count how many times they have "pivoted". FFS - in comparison, Stein is a glowing example of honesty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:52PM
Comparing waffling with changing a position is misleading.
Waffling is about playing both sides simultaneously, not fully committing to any one position. That's Trump in a nutshell, he plays all sides of every issue so that in the future he can say he was "right."
Changing a position is about correcting an error and should be encouraged. If you told us you have never changed your mind in your life, I doubt anyone would believe you.
Saying that Stein has never changed a position is kinda simplistic. Anyone with such little public exposure hasn't really had their opinions tested. Its easy to stick to an opinion, no matter how poorly conceived, if you never have to face the consequences of that opinion.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 27 2016, @01:28AM
You've entirely missed the point. Hillary, and to a lesser degee, Trump, changes position with each new audience she addresses. Hillary even has a different accent ready for each audience.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday August 26 2016, @04:54PM
You just got a direct quote which unequivocally paints her as a principled vaxxer. Are you going to give us a Jill Stein quote that disses vaccines (not the testing/approval process, but the vaccinations themselves), or are you going to admit you are astroturfing for Clinton campaign? Saying this nonsense over and over again, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, clearly betrays your desire to dump some shit on her, just as Assange predicted.
BTW, I'll give you WIFI: she does seem to doubt the current research. Although her infamous "wifi bad for kids' brains" comment is not that straightforward either: she may be talking about the internet via WIFI, not the WIFI proper (hear it in context).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:44PM
Her use of anti-vax adjacent rhetoric is documented in the cited snopes article.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by frojack on Friday August 26 2016, @08:08AM
How does that get modded informative?
Snopes came down squarely on the fence, and the fence appears to run down the middle of the road.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Frost on Saturday August 27 2016, @03:28PM
She's definitely not anti-vax (take that, RedBear), but she's not strongly anti-anti-vax either. So she's a carnivorous lizard just like all other politicians. But she's less awful than the other lizards so she gets my vote!
Giant Carnivorous Lizard 2016! Rah! Rah! Raaaaaaawr!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:05AM
No she's not. [snopes.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday August 26 2016, @08:10AM
Stein is an anti-vaxxer
For those too lazy to click on the Snopes link:
As a medical doctor of course I support vaccinations. I have a problem with the FDA being controlled by drug companies.
- Jill Stein, July 29, 2016
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @03:20PM
As a medical doctor of course I support vaccinations.
I find that way of phrasing it very disingenuous :/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:31PM
Why?
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday August 26 2016, @08:26AM
Nonsense. As far as I can tell by reading about her, she is entirely for vaccinations. She objects to the approval process being bought and paid for, which happens to also be an argument that the anti-vaxxers make. The thing is: she's right:
The approval boards for drugs and vaccines theoretically include plenty of "neutral" people, like professors from universities. However, if one follows the money trail, one finds out that those professors generally run research labs, and those labs are often financed by generation donations from...the companies that submit drugs to the board for approval.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1) by stretch611 on Friday August 26 2016, @08:26AM
Stein is an anti-vaxxer and believes Wi-Fi may be harming American schoolchildren. Two fringe conspiracy theorist ideas that have been soundly debunked repeatedly by numerous legitimate peer reviewed scientific studies
I read this as well. I'm not sure how true it is, but even if she is bonkers enough to believe this, Stein is still a much better choice the either Trump or Hillary.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday August 26 2016, @10:31AM
*sigh*
another propaganda victim...
i don't carry any water for stein, but she is not an anti-vaxxer, MORE lies from cliton droids...
myself, i am going to do what i did last time: write in snowden/manning...
again, i make my point: since the present system nets us a gummint which will vote against our intersests 99% of the time, a COIN FLIP for president where we get 50% of the decisions fall our way would be a MASSIVE improvement...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @03:22PM
They would just do what they always do and submit the same legislation again and again and wail until the coin comes up right.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 26 2016, @08:50PM
Just wanted to put this [wikipedia.org] here for general information. Not sure where the error started.
In 1973, Stein graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, where she studied psychology, sociology, and anthropology. She then attended Harvard Medical School and graduated in 1979. After graduating from Harvard Medical School, Stein practiced internal medicine for 25 years at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Simmons College Health Center, and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and also served as an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. She retired from practicing and teaching medicine in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
Disclaimer: I will be voting for Johnson.
(Score: 1) by Type44Q on Friday August 26 2016, @04:01PM
Most people who hold a doctorate's degree have a mind.
I know nothing of the individual you speak of but considering that today's Doctors of Philosophy is little better than yesterday's Bachelor's degree, I'd say you're too easily impressed.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 26 2016, @06:04AM
The establishment of his own party has split between damage control (Koch cash to Senate races, but not Trump [npr.org]) or outright opposition to his candidacy. The guy is flip-flopping all the time (even on his core issue [nytimes.com]), alienating on-the-fence supporters with his prideful pettiness (the Khans as well as his petty non-endorsement of Paul Ryan using his own words against him), and generally making a fool of himself.
All Hillary needs to do is stick to the script and avoid answering hard questions. Then she has to put up a decent performance in 3 debates, which she probably can.
Some states that normally vote Republican are currently polling like battleground states [fivethirtyeight.com]. Trump needs better-than-expected debate performances and maybe an October surprise or two to even have a 50% chance of victory.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday August 26 2016, @07:33AM
Most important and highly unlikely, he'll need to wag a civil tongue in those debates and keep his foot out of his mouth.
While I don't support Clinton, her two attack adds asking if he can be trusted with "the button" and if parents want their children emulating him are spot on.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 26 2016, @10:37AM
Have you seen her debate? She'd do better pleading the fifth. No, not that kind. The kind where she drank one and is too drunk to debate. Trump, on the other hand, killed at his debates.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 26 2016, @10:57AM
He killed at his debates when there were a lot less policy specifics from his campaign, and there were several Republican contenders on the stage with him (9-10 during some). That environment was conducive to the one-liners and zingers he specializes in.
When he debates Hillary, the conditions will be very different. More speaking time with less breaks, and much more sustained attacks than what he got in previous debates. There will be many more tests of Trump's knowledge, and I'll be shocked if Hillary can't school him on foreign policy. Hillary's campaign staff also isn't in turmoil every few weeks.
I'd be willing to bet a few Intranets that Hillary does better in debate polling for at least 2 of the 3 debates. Have they decided when these debates will take place yet? Apparently yes. [usatoday.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Friday August 26 2016, @02:48PM
Same goes for Clinton, she was the zero substance candidate for low information voting Democrats.
To this point, I'm still not eve sure about anything other than the fact that she's a felon that bribed her way out of an indictment. She's got more waffles than an IHOP and is significantly less popular.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @03:54PM
You give to much credit to Hillary. Without handlers, teleprompters, and/or rehearsed questions, she's awash. To many fifths, I think. He gray matter was burnt out years ago.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday August 26 2016, @05:08PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @01:46PM
Trump doesn't debate he rants.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 26 2016, @06:12PM
And it works.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @02:07PM
Trump was also berating people from his far far right position. It played well to the crowd. The crowd that a republican debate would draw. Not to mention he was on the stage with people who have a difficult time thinking in a straight line.
He will rant and rave in these debates but your just being foolish if you think it will have the same result with a different crowd, and with someone who is more knowledgeable then him sharing the stage.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a HRC fan and won't be voting for her. But you can't think straight if you think he is going to do well.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday August 26 2016, @02:54PM
He's up against the velcro candidate. He'll do well, he might even win. The fact that coming into the conventions Clinton was only 5% up on him speaks volumes about how incompetent and narcissistic she is. She should have been killing him by then. Bernie was killing it, but we couldn't have that because the elitists in the Beltway Bubble thought that running the ultimate insider during an anti-establishment cycle was a brilliant move.
And then to skip over Biden for somebody who isn't even remotely qualified to be President is astonishing. The woman is too stupid to figure out how to secure her emails, and we want to let her be President?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:07PM
> The fact that coming into the conventions Clinton was only 5% up on him speaks volumes about how incompetent and narcissistic she is.
Or... it speaks volumes about the kind of people who care about elections before the conventions. If you've been paying attention over the many election cycles you've been alive for, you know that primary voters are, to put it mildly, opinionated. But I'm thinking you might be a little too ... opinionated ... to be particularly observant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @03:02PM
Have you seen her debate? She'd do better pleading the fifth. No, not that kind. The kind where she drank one and is too drunk to debate. Trump, on the other hand, killed at his debates.
Raise your hands. Is anyone surprised that buzzard is impressed by empty, insulting rhetoric?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @03:56PM
Well, answer the question - have you seen her debate? Instead of answering the question, you provide your own empty rhetoric. Imagine that . . . and you're an AC at that. You could anonymously CONTRIBUTE something to this discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @04:18PM
> Well, answer the question - have you seen her debate?
Oh look, runaway doesn't know what a rhetorical question is.
Another checkin from the braintrust of brilliance!
You guys are the best clinton collaborators because you so vividly illustrate the deep insight required to oppose her..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:03PM
You just ignored a rhetorical question in order to complain that the poster ignored a rhetorical question.
LOL. Tell me that was deliberately meant to be ironic!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 26 2016, @06:10PM
I wasn't talking about me, sweety. I was talking about The Public. Trump kills with them while Clinton blows goats no matter who's listening.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:56PM
Yeah "blows goats" is totally not a personal judgment.
Your attempts to portray yourself as unbiased are hilariously transparent. You are so full of yourself you can't tell the difference between your own opinion and facts.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 26 2016, @09:15PM
Oh I'm not unbiased. I totally hate Hillary slightly more than I hate Trump. That's no secret. She still smokes pole at debating though. If she'd had anyone halfway competent and charismatic challenging her, she would have lost the nomination. Likewise if she hadn't had acres and acres of political clout.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:07PM
> Oh I'm not unbiased.
Wooosh!
I'll spell it out for you: Even when you think you are being unbiased you are obviously not being unbiased.
> Likewise if she hadn't had acres and acres of political clout.
Yeah, a politician who is good at politics, obviously she's unqualified.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 27 2016, @02:02PM
Whoosh yourself. You think I'm all right-biased? Bzzzzt! Wrong. I'm not even on your left-right axis at all. That whole thing is a scam to give you the illusion of choice while. Your only real choice in the two major parties is which flavor of oppression you prefer. If I seem to hate the left more than the right it's only because the left are up to more oppressive fuckwadery lately.
P.S. "A politician who is good at politics." - A crooked piece of shit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday August 26 2016, @02:11PM
All Hillary needs to do is stick to the script and avoid answering hard questions.
That this is really being said is a sad commentary on our political system. Politicians being honest and open is bad for them? Ugh.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:41PM
Its particularly bad for a wonk like clinton. She doesn't do simple. But all anybody wants are sound-bite indictments. The more she tries to speak in depth on a topic, the more she gives persecutors fodder to take out of context. Given that her more recent woes are something I have in depth knowledge of (handling of classified materials) the whole circus has changed me from a lukewarm "At least she's not Trump" to "If this is the worst they've got, she's practically a saint."
The argument that using her own server was an egregious attempt to avoid entering her comms into a permanent historical record would hold so much more water than the red herring about classified materials. But nobody wants to dig in on that. Seems like it was not illegal, just against policy. But any reporter who finds a smoking gun where she says she did it to deliberately hide the record would deserve a Pulitzer.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:28AM
> Maybe it's better that they come out after the election.
They will be yet another non-story. They were collected off the email servers at State and other parts of the government so she explicitly wasn't responsible for preserving them. But Benghazi! or whatever....
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:31AM
Amazingly incorrect. These are emails from and to Clinton and never made it past the scrubbing before being turned over to the State.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @12:07PM
>> They were collected off the email servers at State and other parts of the government so she explicitly wasn't responsible for preserving them.
>
> Amazingly incorrect. These are emails from and to Clinton and never made it past the scrubbing before being turned over to the State.
You say that like you are disputing the original statement. But what you actually claim is exactly the same thing. She scrubbed them from her server, ergo they were "recovered" by the FBI from other systems. Namely the servers on the other end of the email conversations.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by captain normal on Friday August 26 2016, @05:49AM
If she gets anywhere near the ratio of spam to real messages that I get, those ~15K could easily be nothing but spam. Though I'm sure Judicial Watch could parse a few to cast a bad light on Hillary.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @02:33PM
You need a better spam filter.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Friday August 26 2016, @02:50PM
You make it sound like Judicial Watch is the bad guy in all of this. I don't generally like them or agree with their politics, but they're absolutely right in going after these emails. She broke the law in an unprecedented fashion and should go to prison.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday August 26 2016, @05:36PM
It's not unprecedented. That she broke the law, however, appears clear...but that's based on a collection of slanted news stories which are all slanted either to achieve a political goal or to increase the number of readers (or clicks), so I don't know how trustworthy that appearance is.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday August 26 2016, @09:06PM
Nope, if you actually look at what she's done without the bias, it's pretty freaking clear that she's a felon.
The continual discovery of emails that weren't handed over to law enforcement is more than ample evidence of obstruction of justice. But, I have no faith in them actually bringing the appropriate charges as they already set precedence by refusing to prosecute her over her mishandling of classified documents.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday August 27 2016, @04:40AM
She's not a felon, because she hasn't been convicted. And there are precedents...which were also illegal.
Saying that it's unprecedented is as false as denying that it was illegal.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday August 27 2016, @05:12AM
She's a felon, she already admitted to doing things that constitute felonies, so the whole bit about the trial is moot.
We know that she stored and retained classified documents on an unsecured and unapproved of server. That right there is a felony, as is the obstruction of justice that stems from her destroying thousands of unreviewed emails.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday August 26 2016, @07:28AM
Obama will "clear the air" and wipe the slate clean with a full presidential pardon, not only for this matter but all other sins over her lifetime. Wait and see. She will be the only candidate in history that is known for a fact to not be guilty of any crime what so ever.
The election is pre-rigged. Donald has that much right.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday August 26 2016, @02:13PM
A pardon is taken as a tacit admission of guilt, if the person accepts it. If they were innocent, they wouldn't need the pardon to begin with, right?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:01PM
In theory - yes.
How 'bout Snowden? If he were offered a pardon for any and all crimes, real or imagined, do you think he would accept it? Someone wrote a line once that really resonated with me. "An exile may be happy, but he never forgets that he is an exile." Words to that effect. I THINK it was Marion Zimmer Bradley, but don't hold me to that.
Anyway, if offered a pardon, I think Snowden would be back home in the USA just as fast as he could light a fire under the pilot's ass.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:18AM
Anyone want to get some action going on whether any of this material sees daylight before the election?
Does release by Wikileaks count?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday August 26 2016, @06:32AM
Yes. That is the only reason there is even any suspense. I think we all know the government can and will delay past the election. But people who cross the Clintons have a nasty habit of dying under questionable circumstances.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @09:10AM
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/767544307003772928 [twitter.com]
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/703084/Julian-Assange-Ecuador-embassy-police-two-hour-response [express.co.uk]
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ecuador-blasts-british-security-forces-8688626 [mirror.co.uk]
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ecuador-accuses-police-inaction-over-attempted-break-london-embassy-housing-julian-assange-1577585 [ibtimes.co.uk]
http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/investigation-after-man-caught-trying-to-climb-up-wall-of-julian-assanges-embassy-home/news-story/864cb1cb355cc2b372aada782613b8d7 [news.com.au]
https://www.rt.com/news/356697-man-climbs-ecuadorian-embassy-assange/ [rt.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:26AM
> Not that it matters, we already KNOW (not think, not believe, not debate, know) she committed multiple felonies regarding the proper handling of classified material
Ah, the jmorris royal "we." Trying to give yourself legitimacy by argumentum ad populum.
> They want their free shit, Hillary promises to keep it coming and that is that.
You mean like home mortgage deductions, college tuition IRAs and cheap mineral rights leasing for fossil fuel extraction?
I wasn't aware that Trump had promised to cancel those.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:06AM
The female dog approved the sale of uranium to a Russian company - treason. Treason is a felony in almost anyone's books. The treasonous female dog is a good match for the treasonous dog it is married to. He sold tons of military secrets to China.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @01:37PM
Russia is not an enemy of the US, nor is China. They're trading partners, and trade was done.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:03PM
What a crock. "Trading partners" don't get military secrets. Those are reserved for countries with the status of "ally". I'd love to see you in a debate with a box of rocks.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:23AM
Nah, there's just little point in reposting the obvious AGAIN, unless to smack down the harpies who ignore facts they don't like.
Facts such as:
1a. FBI director James Comey stating that Hillary's unclassified email server(s) had 110 known-classified-when-sent emails [youtube.com]
1b. As a clearance-holder, Hillary committed a felony by not properly reporting the classified emails she received under 18 USC 793 (f) [cornell.edu]
2a. FBI director James Comey described Hillary's conduct as "extremely careless [youtube.com]", synonymous with "gross neglegence"
2b. "Gross negligence" is the legal term for the federal felony [cornell.edu] in regards to clearance holders mishandling classified info in an extremely careless manner
At this point, it's just a simple game of "Shillary's copy-and-paste whack-a-mole".
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Friday August 26 2016, @06:48AM
So she had 45,000 emails - unclear whether she wrote these or just received them though - and 110 were supposedly "classified".
Aside from people looking for a political assassination, is there evidence that any of these actually contained information that was
likely to do actual harm? Governments have a tendency to use the term "classified" for all sorts of stuff, like
canteen menus, and this MIGHT represent quotes of headers of documents whose contents was not even there.
It also MIGHT present stuff sent to her.
45,000 emails is about 110 a day for a year - she might have read all of them, maybe, but she sure did not send them.
Could you send 110 emails a day?
I am not American, and dont know anything about her, but as an outsider, this looks like a load of bull. If she actually sent
an email endangering the military or something, the charge would be "endangering lives" or something, not "accidentally
pressing [send] without deleting the auto-inserted quote" - and if she was sent something classified to her personal email,
then the person who sent it should be charged with "being a moron in high office" - that should be a good way of purging
the civil service of idiots (might lead to a lack of staff though).
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:05AM
... you don't know even the basics about the segregation of US classified computer networks, you have no knowledge of the US bureaucracy's love for copious amounts of email, and you didn't bother to read my fairly short post [soylentnews.org]. *whack!*
Laws in the USA are a schizoid mess, though in this case there isn't any realistic wiggle room based on FBI Director James Comey's own words (which I'd helpfully linked for you using the youtube links prepped to start playing right at the appropriate point in time), and the appropriate law on the books (which was also directly linked to).
The US normies have said among themselves for years that there is no longer any Rule of Law in the USA, but now we're getting our faces rubbed in hard evidence. The same was true of the NSA/fedgov mass spying until Edward Snowden decided someone needed to do something about all the illegal fedgov activity - and that he had to be the specific someone.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday August 26 2016, @11:57AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Pherenikos on Friday August 26 2016, @03:01PM
Considering she was Secretary of State for 4 years, that's about 31 emails a day, which really isn't that much, many of us get at least this many if not more. And 110 classified emails is one every two weeks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:08PM
It only takes mishandling ONE classified document to make you GUILTY.
Her server, her responsibility. If classified documents crossed her server, she is responsible. That pretty much ends the debate.
Now, if you want a scenario in which classified emails crossed her server, and she WAS NOT GUILTY, I've got it.
An associate mailed the classified document TO HER, and she promptly reported him for violating security protocols. That is pretty much the only case in which SHE WOULD NOT BE CULPABLE!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:27AM
Clearly, you are not a lawyer. If you were, you might grasp that the entire classification system and the rules for handling classified information is entirely under the discretion and authority of the President. While Federal laws can and do prescribe punishments for breaking the rules, the rules themselves are flexible and are often updated by executive order from the President. Here's the tricky part -- As Secretary of State, Clinton was acting under the authority of the President with the power to classify and de-classify any documents that originated within the office of the Secretary of State. She's also receiving documents from other Secretaries who also have the authority to de-classify information originating within their own departments before sending to her private e-mail server. This classifying/de-classifying doesn't have to be a formal process -- it can be on a whim. Presidents have disclosed classified information on LIVE TV before, but can't be prosecuted b/c clearly they gave themselves the authority to disclose the information -- and that authority sits solely with their office.
The reason the FBI didn't choose to prosecute is because the criteria for successful prosecution is so high as to be practically impossible. They'd have to find something that was either sent by her that was classified by a separate office and have that office confirm it was classified at the time, or they'd have to nail down specifically which classified documents were received by her, prove she knew they existed and not reported. Anyone they put on the stand to corroborate that info could easily lie and the case thrown out.
There are lengthy legal opinions online that delve into the precedents of the requirements of the allegations you make, and the bar is set very high to begin with -- but especially so for a member of the President's Cabinet who has delegated authority from the President regarding the very creation, handling, and de-classifying of information. Any average Joe would be screwed, but her authority as Secretary makes it very difficult to prosecute as she or any other Secretary could simply explain they de-classified info immediately before sending it. As it wasn't classified at the time, there was no need to report the transgression. As Secretary of State, nearly all the classified intel would have been from her office and/or the Secretary of Defense. I'd be willing to bet former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta (who served as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff), would be willing to go to bat for Clinton and say whatever might have come from his office to Hillary's server was de-classified by himself personally before sending. Likewise for others. It'd be like trying to nail jello to the wall. Not going to happen.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday August 26 2016, @02:18PM
So let me get this straight. You're saying...
A) Anybody in the executive branch who screws up in regards to classified communications can have it swept under the rug by Obama saying "eh, whatever." (although I suppose this is technically true of anybody committing any crime via pardon)
B) It's too much work to prove Hillary screwed up so forget the whole thing.
I'm getting real tired of hearing people in positions of authority claiming it's too much effort to do the job they're elected/paid for.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Informative) by DECbot on Friday August 26 2016, @02:47PM
I completely agree with your assessment. Clinton cannot be nailed for having classified material as she has the authority to determine what is classified and the connections to ensure she won't be caught with classified materials.
However, where she might be in hot water is the Federal Records Act. She has a responsibility to Congress to keep documents created during her tenure and turn over those documents to Congress. This of course includes email. Using a private email address for official government business is in direct violation of that act. Hillary argues that precedence allowed her to use a private email address as previous Secretaries of the State used private corporate addresses. However, my thought differs on a few counts.
Americans feel that she has violated the law in regards to classified records. If she had less authority than Secretary of State, she would be breaking the law. Comely is correct that you can prosecute as she has the authority to declassify any State department document on her server, and has the friends to declassify any non-State department document on her server. However, there should be a probe into how she complied with the Records Act. Turning over documents at the end of her tenure does not ensure that she is in compliance. Where are the logs of the emails received? There should be a count of the number of incoming emails and the number of out going emails. Do these numbers remotely match the number of emails turned over to Congress? And was there audits of the server during her tenure to ensure that logs aren't being tampered and emails are periodically and adequately archived? If she had an exception to use a private server for government work, these metrics would need to be in place during her tenure to ensure compliance to the law. Anything less is gross or willful negligence of the law and should be easily prosecuted.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:11PM
You entirely skip over one important detail. Not all those classified documents originated from the State Department. State has no authority to declassify documents that originate from Justice, Army, Navy, or any other agency with authority to classify documents.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @12:26PM
> FBI director James Comey stating that Hillary's unclassified email server(s) had 110 known-classified-when-sent emails
That's misleading as fuck. The information in the emails was classified. None of it was marked classified. She didn't originate it, she received it from unclassified sources. Where's the investigation of who leaked it to the people outside of the government that sent it to her?
> As a clearance-holder, Hillary committed a felony by not properly reporting the classified emails she received under 18 USC 793 (f)
Key phrase from your own citation "has reason to believe." The information was not marked. It was sent to her by people outside of the government. She had no reason to believe it was classified.
> 2a. FBI director James Comey described Hillary's conduct as "extremely careless", synonymous with "gross neglegence"
> "Gross negligence" is the legal term for the federal felony
Puhlease! If he had meant gross negligence, he would have said it.
You are literally putting words in his mouth to suit your agenda.
> At this point, it's just a simple game of "Shillary's copy-and-paste whack-a-mole".
Wow. You actually admit to blindly copy-pasting something you don't even understand.
You know what? I am completely unsurprised.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 26 2016, @01:11PM
Key phrase from your own citation "has reason to believe." The information was not marked. It was sent to her by people outside of the government. She had no reason to believe it was classified.
Sad to see people excuse felony-level criminal negligence on such flimsy grounds. And there's still the matter of why Clinton used a private email server.
Puhlease! If he had meant gross negligence, he would have said it.
He did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @01:34PM
Colin Powell, the previous Secretary of State, advised her to. [nbcnews.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:20PM
Powell came out soon after, and said, "You're not pinning that on me!" Powell reminded us that the lying bitch lies.
http://www.drudge.com/news/202478/colin-powell-dont-pin-hillarys-email [drudge.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:05PM
That's a creative interpretation. Of course she is trying to pin it on him. He said "here's a bunch of reasons to do it" but he didn't literally tell her to do it. His own office confirmed that he did it. That's the kind of legalism practically everyone with power uses to avoid bad press - if you can't deny the accusation, deny some other accusation and hope nobody reads very carefully.
A spokeswoman for Powell's office issued a statement following the Times' story: "General Powell has no recollection of the dinner conversation. He did write former Secretary Clinton an email memo describing his use of his personal AOL email account for unclassified messages and how it vastly improved communications within the State Department."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:40PM
If I tell you to rob the Kwik-E-Mart and you do, then you are still the one responsible for the robbery. (I may be charged as an accessory to the crime, but that would be in addition to your own criminal charges.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:43PM
And if using a private email server were an actual crime and not just retrospective bad choice your analogy would mean something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @10:03PM
Using a private, unclassified email server to send, receive, and store classified information is a crime.
Thanks for playing, tho.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:09PM
> Thanks for playing, tho.
Proceed with your recursion. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @02:56PM
> Sad to see people excuse felony-level criminal negligence on such flimsy grounds.
WTF? Are you so blinded by partisanship that you choose to deny the language of the statute?
>> Puhlease! If he had meant gross negligence, he would have said it.
>
> He did.
If he actually said "gross negligence" why did the AC not quote that?
Tell you what, you can make a fool of me: just link to proof he actually said "gross negligence."
Come on man, you are so confident he said it, what's stopping you from rubbing it in my face?
Oh yeah... You don't live in the real world, that's why.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:02PM
The more I [soylentnews.org] have the misfortune to learn about the US legal system, the more I learn how far it departs from reality.
USian normies mostly operate on the basis of observable reality: the "sun comes up", work needs doing, bills need paying, etc. Hillary Clinton, like most high-level politicians and lawyers, appears to live life as if it were entirely contained within a courtroom, a courtroom where "reality" is whatever bullcrap the lawyer can get the judge to sign off on (assuming the judge(s) weren't already bought [wethepeoplefoundation.org]).
- Gross negligence defined: "carelessness in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others [...] [thefreedictionary.com]". Comey's exact words to describe Hillary Clinton and cronies' conduct in regards to their handling of classified information was "extremely careless [youtube.com]".
- SECRET classified information is defined as information whose improper release would cause "serious damage" to national security, and only gets more dire on the Top Secret and Special Access Program [youtube.com] classification levels (such as was found on Hillary's unclassfied email server(s).)
- Hillary Clinton was extremely careless in her mishandling of classified information that, at minimum, could cause "serious damage" to US national security. Ergo, Hillary Clinton feloniously violated federal law. It seems only proper to get her (and related parties) in front of a judge to have one of them swift, impartial trials.
In response to the previously tried-and-true "Baffle Them With Bullshit" approach continuously flung in our direction, we normies are, by and large, loudly echoing the old saying "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. [youtube.com]"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:09PM
> Comey's exact words to describe Hillary Clinton and cronies' conduct in regards to their handling of classified information was "extremely careless".
You wrote all that crap, trying to baffle us with bullshit but still all it boils down to is that comey deliberately avoided the term "gross negligence."
Comey didn't say what you wanted him to say, so he must have meant what you wanted him to say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @09:03PM
It's still not raining.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:53AM
but still all it boils down to is that comey deliberately avoided the term "gross negligence."
While simultaneously outlining the acts and behavior that constituted said gross negligence. It doesn't matter that Clinton committed multiple felonies. The FBI wouldn't get anywhere with the case in a hostile administration that would sabotage or destroy any such effort to bring Clinton to justice.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:18PM
Since you were never qualified to handle secret documents, it's easy for you to make excuses for someone who is incompetent to handle them.
Bottom line - whether or not she committed the felonies which we all know she committed, SHE IS INCOMPETENT!!
I use that word as a military person uses the word. She may grasp concepts, but she cannot apply them in an effective manner. "Effective" means, working as designed. In Shrillary's case, secret documents have become public knowledge. INCOMPETENT. Do you understand that word?
Now, do you want to vote for a president who has PROVEN HER INCOMPETENCE?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday August 26 2016, @05:46PM
That's misleading as fuck. The information in the emails was classified. None of it was marked classified.
That isn't what the Director of the FBI said in his testimony to Congress. He admitted under oath that Mrs. Clinton did send documents marked classified at the time she sent them. Which in a sane world would have lead to the followup question of "So tell us again why you choose not to recommend charges if you admit that you know beyond any doubt that a felony was committed?"
Bitch had stuff classified at Top Secret: SAP: NOFORN on that unsecured Microsoft Exchange Server. That level is so secret that no foreigner may see it, not even a friendly head of state like the British Prime Minister or French President. There are probably levels of secret above that but even the existence of it is secret. Basically the only secrets the bitch didn't have on that thing was fucking dead alien level stuff. This batch apparently has stuff so hot that State is 'releasing' some of them to Congress with the entire message body redacted. They are telling this to Congressmen with full clearances on Intelligence and other committees who are supposed to be in the oversight loop on the darkest most black bag stuff the government does.
To prevent FOIA requests that would expose her corruption with the Pay for Play between her, State and the Clinton Foundation she put our important secrets on a crappy Windows box and now Julian Assange gets to decide whether they get splashed around the world. She should get a fair trial, a blindfold, a cigarette and a brick wall. Instead we are waiting to see if half the country is so debased as to make her POTUS.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:27PM
That isn't what the Director of the FBI said in his testimony to Congress. He admitted under oath that Mrs. Clinton did send documents marked classified at the time she sent them.
Again with the misleading.
What he said was that there were three line items marked with marked (C) for confidential, the lowest level of classification. All three of which were appointments from her phone schedule, which are only classified for diplomatic reasons in case she ends up not actually making the phone call then nobody is embarrassed she bailed on a scheduled call with a foreign official. After the call is made, they are always declassified because the fact the call happened is not considered classified.
Comey said two of those items were mismarked, the calls had taken place, the appointments had been declassified, somebody just forgot to remove the (C). He made no comment on the 3rd item but given it that was her schedule, declassifying them was entirely her decision. And frankly, the fact the she was scheduled to make a phone call and didn't actually make it, is about the weakest tea imaginable.
> Bitch had stuff classified at Top Secret: SAP: NOFORN
Maybe so. But it was (a) unmarked (b) sent to her by someone from outside the government who did not have a clearance in the first place. She had no reason to believe it was classified in the first place.
BTW, your breathless enthusiasm reveals that you know nothing about classification. Its not "SAP: NOFORN." "NOFORN" is not a kind of SAP, its a modifier that can be applied to any level of classification, including confidential. FOUO (for official use only) is another frequently modifier.
But, lock that bitch up, amirite!?!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:46PM
This is one of the biggest reasons why Hillary is so disliked. She's acting like lawyer-speak is something which dictates reality, akin to a kid being told not to "be caught with her hand in the cookie jar", only to be caught using tongs to get a cookie and smugly stating, "I didn't use my HANDS!"
Normal people who operate on the principles of observable reality know that mishandling classified information and perjury are the key problems, not whether or not the mishandled classified info was marked as such on Hillary's unclassified email server. (Those of us who have handled classified data before know that its markings are irrelevant in terms of how to handle it when contrasted with the data's actual classification, and the strict marking instructions are meant precisely to help prevent accidents like disclosure. Quibbling about the markings is almost entirely irrelevant when the removal of said markings was done by Hillary and/or her pals, Hillary was still required to report said mishandled classified data, and her failure to do so was a federal crime.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @01:30PM
That makes it important that Comey didn't say "gross negligence" then. "Oh he meant 'gross negligence' when he said 'extremely careless', therefore..." is called a "straw man argument".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @03:51PM
Please name one person, literally one person, who was prosecuted for gross negligence with handling classified information.
We can find numerous people who (for better or worse) were prosecuted for intentional distribution of classified information. We can find numerous examples of people losing security clearances for gross negligence with handling classified information (and lost a job or whatever as a result).
However, to the best of my knowledge, it is unprecedented for somebody to be criminally prosecuted for a mistake with handling classified information... which is exactly like the FBI said.
If you know an example, I'd love to hear it. I dislike Hillary and would love to add criminal mishandling of classified information to her laundry list of problems... but I can't do so in good faith. Can you?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:06PM
Irrelevant. Even granting you your point for purposes of the argument, new laws would be pointless if they were not enforced due to such "enforcement being unprecidented", as new laws would be by definition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:26PM
J.J. Smith [politico.com]. Pled out to two other felonies.
If Clinton would accept a plea deal that included pleading guilty to a lesser felony in mishandling classified information, that would be fine by me. She wouldn't even have to serve prison time as far as I'm concerned, the admission of felony guilt would be sufficient for my purposes.
I'd love to know if we've ever had a President who was actually convicted of a felony before.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Marand on Friday August 26 2016, @02:27PM
Unrelated to the subject itself, I just wanted to congratulate you on (as of this comment being posted) receiving the coveted "Score: 5, Troll" moderation. It's a rare honour indeed, wear it with pride.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @03:04PM
> the coveted "Score: 5, Troll" moderation.
Also known as the Oscar of the alt-right.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday August 26 2016, @04:54PM
Anyone want to get some action going on whether any of this material sees daylight before the election?
Yeah, here's my proposal: I'll bet you a sig. The loser has to change their sig to the following before January, with no quotation block and the bold text replaced by the relevant usernames, and not change their sig after that until the next US President leaves office (on the strange off-chance that Obama steps down before handing over the office, the next next US President):
LOSER is often an idiot, and recognises the mental superiority of WINNER when it comes to predicting world events.
Do these terms sound reasonable? Can I get a digital handshake from you?
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday August 26 2016, @10:34PM
I doubt they will get to them. There's a huge backlog of missing e-mails to find. They are still searching for the 22 million or so e-mails deleted by Karl Rove from private servers Bush, Cheney, Powell and others were using when the Valerie Plame and Attorney General firings scandals were being investigated. Those were real crimes that really hurt people and damaged national security, but they were conservatives so investigating that was clearly never as important as drumming up bogus felony claims for something that likely will never amount to any real consequence is now.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday August 26 2016, @01:24PM
There's a legal term for withholding evidence under subpoena: obstruction of justice [cornell.edu]. It's a federal crime punishable by up to 20 years in jail. Somebody, without question, committed that crime, and if they did so at Clinton's direction then Hillary Clinton committed that crime too. And if you think that's not a big deal, remember that Nixon resigned over the same charge.
I have to say, given that her campaign has been doing everything to argue that she's not corrupt or criminal and has nothing to hide, she's sure doing a good job of undermining her argument. I know some die-hard Clinton supporters who think it's unfair that she's investigated so much, and I counter with the very simple fact that she behaves like somebody who's guilty as all get-out and is either being protected from criminal prosecution for it or has simply done a very good job of covering her tracks.
Bernie Sanders has his flaws, but they are nothing remotely similar to this.
I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Clinton won, and then was forced out of office like Nixon was. Good thing Tim Kaine seems reasonable enough and not a crook like Spiro Agnew or an idiot like Dan Quayle. And I'll pretty much be forced to vote for Clinton, not because I support her at all, but because a Trump presidency would be extremely dangerous to me and mine - if non-governmental political violence becomes acceptable, and it sure seems like Trump is stoking that right now, I and most of my friends would likely be targets. I'd vote for Stein if I weren't in one of the minority of states where my vote actually could swing the election.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @01:50PM
Exactly how would You process that volume of email?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday August 26 2016, @02:47PM
If it was a government server then she wouldn't have had to process anything. Because she mixed her personal stuff in with official business she should have been forced to turn it all over. Just my opinion, obviously.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by goody on Friday August 26 2016, @06:41PM
Just cat it and pipe it to grep or more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:53PM
> Just cat it and pipe it to grep or more.
Apparently that is pretty much what they did - they searched for a bunch of keywords, any message that got a keyword hit was preserved, everything else was wiped.
It was a stupidly naive way to go about it. But clearly not uniquely stupid since you recommended and I know a lot of other geeks who aren't professional archivists who have suggested basically the same process.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @09:50PM
There's a term for that: "destruction of evidence".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:16PM
That might be your term. But it clearly is not the FBI's term, else she would have been charged with it.
Do you ever tire of this circular logic? The bitch is guilty so whenever the actual facts don't support her guilt, just refer to facts not in existence...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @06:36AM
Still not raining.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday August 26 2016, @02:47PM
No body cares. Times have changed since Nixon. We are already in the Brave New World. Even if Hillary is caught murdering someone personally everyone is going to vote for her because this election is not about whom to vote but whom not to vote. Trump has no support from republican party but a lot of support from hardcore conservatives, and Hillary has a lot of support from democratic party but no support from liberals. Those on fence are going to decide and the way Trump has mismanaged his campaign, HC is here for the worst of the world.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday August 26 2016, @02:59PM
Well, first off, Dan Quayle wasn't an idiot. I don't respect him politically, but he did have a rather high IQ, he just did a few stupid things like that Potatoe incident.
Secondly, Tim Kaine isn't an acceptable pick. He's a slighly less corrupt version of HRC. He supports all the same noxious policies that she does and would do absolutely nothing about our most pressing problems. He'd do nothing about climate change, getting money out of politics and his SCOTUS picks would be just as terrible as hers. He received large bribes while in office and nobody seems to think that those legal bribes aren't a problem.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday August 26 2016, @03:07PM
My attitude towards Tim Kaine is not "There's a Great Leader of the Free World", it's "There's a guy who has a decent chance of not messing things up much worse than they already are, and quietly fade away a la Gerald Ford". This is not an election where I'm now looking for "better", I'm looking for "not too much worse".
As for Dan Quayle, he certainly suffered worse than most from Foot-in-Mouth Disease. And there's absolutely zero question that he was no Jack Kennedy.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday August 26 2016, @09:10PM
I'd be more comfortable with Tim Kaine as the Presidential nominee than either Clinton or Trump, but it's deeply troubling that she thought he was an appropriate pick for somebody wanting to beat Trump. Trump has been attacking her from the left as well as the right, so a pick of somebody that's at the same point in the political spectrum makes little sense.
A better pick would have been somebody from the liberal or progressive wing of the party.
But, there is also the issue of corruption and choosing somebody who's also in bed with donors doesn't exactly buy much in the way of credibility when trying to convince voters that she hasn't been bought and paid for.
I hadn't really considered the possibility of him being a Ford, I guess it's better than nothing, but it was still a stupid pick.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:19PM
> so a pick of somebody that's at the same point in the political spectrum makes little sense.
And yet she's up a nearly unprecedented 6-10 points.
Sanders lost the primary by 4M votes and primary voters are way more extreme than general election voters.
So maybe she actually does know what's she doing.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:29AM
Except that neither of those "facts" are true. Last I checked the race between Trump and Clinton was much tighter than that and she won't have the benefit of elections fraud in November.
Also, Sanders didn't lose by 4M votes, that's never been true. That count selectively excludes states that she couldn't engage in elections fraud in. States like CA and NY combined account for several hundred thousands of Sanders' supporter votes being tossed for various questionable reasons.