SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Even as a European*, I find this of interest, because of the level of corruption it shows.
Headline: "Clinton Was 'Extremely Careless' With Email But Should Not Be Charged".
In his statement, Comey said that the FBI's investigation had found 110 emails on Clinton's servers that had contained classified information when they were sent or received, of which eight contained material at the highest classification level of "top secret." Noting that this information was being stored on "unclassified personal servers" less secure even than commercial services like Gmail and that Clinton's use of the private account was widely known, Comey said it was "possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." Said Comey: "Any reasonable person should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that kind of information."
So: The FBI knows that she mishandled classified information. When you receive your security clearance, you are informed of the rules and the penalties for breaking them. Storing Secret, much less Top Secret information on a civilian server outside the control of the government violates those rules.
Yet, she will not be prosecuted. She was just "careless", no big deal. Laws are for the little people.
*Full disclosure: I used to be American, but turned in my passport some years ago. Various reasons, not least of which are the US tax policies. But the politics (The Shrub, Obama, and now...possibly Hillary!) - it's like a banana republic, only with nukes.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:01PM
Yup, laws are for the little people.
I note Comey said there was no intention to break the law, so that's fine then.
Can any Americans here let us know how that defence goes for you the next time you're defending a speeding fine?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:05PM
I was called cynical for saying this would be the outcome. Unfortunatly I am still cynical.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:31AM
You're also not wrong, so you've got that going for you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:07PM
I note Comey said there was no intention to break the law, so that's fine then.
§1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
I'd stick with lack of intent, if intent was explicitly required by the law in question.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:17PM
Did not Trump predict this all along [breitbart.com]
There were also allegedly several high level FBI agents ready to resign if this outcome occurred.
There you have it folks...
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:57PM
I believe Trump also predicted a future terrorist attack a few months ago, and then the Orlando shooting happened. Captain Obvious ≠ Nostradamus.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @09:16AM
Writing vague shit that could be interpreted in a million different ways isn't too impressive either.
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:33PM
There were also allegedly several high level FBI agents ready to resign
Well then. Now we'll see how accurate "allegedly" is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:43AM
Clarification... there was no intent to remain employed.
(Score: 2) by aclarke on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:31PM
I'm not a Trump fan, but maybe the best thing for the US is if Bernie Sanders re-enters the race as an independent. Then Trump will surely win, and Hillary can go to jail. Maybe all that will send the United States to rock bottom a little faster and they can then get on with rebuilding a country they can be proud of again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @08:01PM
Trump can "go over it" all he wants to, to the extent that the law allows him to do so. HE still cannot bring charges himself against her. Best he could do would be to appoint an AG who as quid-pro-quo of being nominated will go after her.
Oh, and do we really want officials appointed who have quid-pro-quo understandings, or would we rather have an appointment where it is promised that the case will be studied again?
(And, BTW, I'm still in the camp saying this is corruption at its' finest. I just see no need to stack corruption on top of corruption.)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:28PM
Intent is something that is supposed to be decided by a jury, or by a judge if she waives the right to a jury.
Saying she had no intent is pretty crazy.
While her daughter's husband was running a hedge fund betting on Greece, Hillary sent him info about Greece that came from spying on German leadership. That very obviously puts sources at risk. How can you not see that this is intentional transfer of classified materials to an unauthorized person?
Getting info about near-future drone strikes, and then approving or denying them, is pretty obviously classified. Are we supposed to believe she didn't intend to regularly perform this activity via her personal server and Blackberry? Perhaps she approved drone strikes by accident.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:57PM
It looks like they're gutting that regulation as well. Recently the former governer of Virginia was let off the hook for accepting massive bribes because rolexes, expensive cars and paying off credit card debt aren't bribes.
Apparently, this statute doesn't apply if you're rich either. This isn't a case where a few emails got accidentally forwarded to a non-work account or a 3rd party moved the server someplace that it wasn't supposed to be. If any of that had happened, I'd at least understand them opting not to seek an indictment, but we already have more than enough evidence about the situation to know that she's guilty. The top secret documents on that unapproved server alone numbered nearly 2 dozen, not to mention the thousands and thousands of other classified documents.
How can we even pretend like we have a right to prosecute Snowden when such a blatant violation is ignored because the person being investigated is powerful? Snowden is a hero and ought to have the charges dropped. Not to mention Assange that's likely only being persecuted because the US leaned on the Swedes to do something about it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:48AM
More to the point, if Hillary is being let off the hook for this, then why the fuck is Snowden being crucified?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:39AM
Ruling class vs working class. That's the only reason we'll never get.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:12PM
Well, for one, Snowden violated the statute (because he acted with intent), and according to the FBI, Clinton didn't. That said, I hope Snowden is pardoned.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by quintessence on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:09AM
Intent is something that is supposed to be decided by a jury, or by a judge if she waives the right to a jury.
Not exactly.
Mens rea is, at least by my reading, was she aware of the law beyond a reasonable doubt. And then did she intend to subvert it.
Love her or hate her, this particular aspect of law is worth fighting for as there are thousands sent to prison for violation where mens rea isn't present, and it is a miscarriage of justice.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:13AM
If she wasn't aware of the law, then as Secretary of State she was criminally negligent. There's all sorts of regulations about training on exactly this subject that you have to go through to hold any kind of security clearance, much less something at that level.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quintessence on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:38AM
Maybe true enough, but then those points should be brought up and argued instead of blithely stating she broke the law and that's the end of it.
What I'm saying is the full extent of due process should be afforded to even Clinton, otherwise clamoring for justice in this instance is just hollow.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:01AM
Maybe true enough, but then those points should be brought up and argued instead of blithely stating she broke the law and that's the end of it.
What I'm saying is the full extent of due process should be afforded to even Clinton, otherwise clamoring for justice in this instance is just hollow.
The full extent of due process is not being used because these crimes are being brushed off. This is the other side of injustice, letting the guilty go free on spurious basis that they wouldn't use for anyone who wasn't part of the political elite.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:54AM
We know she's guilty, the evidence is already out there that she broke the law.
She hasn't been afforded due process here, they skipped the process where they air the evidence they're using because they didn't feel like prosecuting her. There's ample evidence in reports already public that she retained dozens of top secret emails on an unsecured, insecure, unauthorized and secret server. That alone would have ensured that they'd at least go for an indictment if she weren't so well connected.
Now that they've opted to not go for an indictment, I'd be very surprised if private files don't start getting leaked to the press and that's not even including the ones that Assange has already announced he was going to leak.
There's something inherently fishy when they start handing out immunity deals and dedicating that many agents to an investigation and then decide that they don't have enough to go on.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:42AM
Incompetence becomes a crime, at some point. There are plenty of officers who have been charged with incompetence, and had their careers ruined, even if they didn't go to prison.
In this case, we are going to reward an incompetent nitwit by sending her to the White House? Preposterous.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @07:49PM
No. No. No. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse for a crime, nor is actual knowledge of a law ever a requirement for a violation to be found. The mens rea (intent requirement) refers either to the conduct elements of the crime or to some explicitly stated "specific intent" element given in the statute.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:45AM
Exactly right. The executive branch is now judge, jury, and exhonerator.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:30AM
Oops, meant to swipe right.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:23AM
She doesn't want to waive the right to a jury, but nobody could find any peers to make one
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Francis on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:52PM
She chose the location of the server knowing that there would be classified materials sent to it and she was repeatedly warned that she couldn't do that. I'm not sure how much more intent they could have.
I'm not willing to vote for somebody that doesn't know or care about securing classified documents. I can't imagine that I'm the only one that refuses to vote for a known felon. Not to mention all the other things that are wrong with her as a candidate, the violations of retention policy on work related emails. The massive destruction of evidence and the inability to win an open primary.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:13AM
She chose the location of the server knowing that there would be classified materials sent to it and she was repeatedly warned that she couldn't do that. I'm not sure how much more intent they could have.
Facts not in evidence.
How in the world did you come to believe that she knew ahead of time that there would be classified material sent to it?
And if that was true, then she would have been just as 'guilty' regardless of what email system she used since both her server and the dept of state's servers are public facing systems because that's how email works.
99% of the arguments about this issue fail to rise above frothing of the mouth.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:48AM
You seem to have a poor grasp of the facts of life. She occupied an office which routinely processes classified data. Routinely - that means, all the time. And, she INSISTED that her work emails go to an unsecured server in her own possession. The reason given, that security was inconvenient for her.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:59AM
As Runaway said, by the nature of her job people were going to be sending sensitive and classified documents to the email she used for work. She opted to commingle personal and professional correspondence on an unapproved of computer. If she genuinely didn't expect to have any classified materials sent to that address, then she's the most incompetent individual to ever hold office in the US or anywhere else.
That's sort of like a Wall Street broker being shocked that people are sending sensitive trade information to his work address. It would be more shocking if nobody were sending it to there.
But, even worse is the fact that when those emails started to show up that she didn't remedy the situation. A genuine mistake is one thing, but this continued for quite some time and there are literally tens of thousands of emails that are unaccounted for because she deleted them and had the servers wiped.
Not to mention the fact that she apparently retained these emails for years after the point where she left office when she was supposed to surrender all of them upon leaving service.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:58AM
I came to believe that Hillary knew ahead of time that then-known classified material would be sent to her nonsecure system because Hillary herself demanded exactly that be done.
Check the facts for yourself: via wikileaks [wikileaks.org], tho feel free to browse the official gov release site as well:
Hillary wanted her "TPs" (presumably Talking Points), but folks trying to send the classified info were having trouble getting a secure FAX setup to work. Hillary's response?
That instruction is in direct contradiction with the Non-Disclosure Agreement required for access to classified information and also meets the criteria for violating the federal laws regarding the proper handling of such then-known classified information.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:59AM
>intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location
Wasn't she told off by one of the people she was emailing, that she was storing sensitive information in an insecure server? She clearly had intent to retain these materials at an unauthorized location.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @05:48AM
Not more than one year even if prosecuted? That's a slap on the wrist.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:20PM
laws have ALWAYS been for little people.
but its obvious that this witch hunt is 100% partisan, as the summary kind of implies. the repubs have nothing 'good' on her so they use this.
bush: he created wars and tortured people. he got off 100% scot free. he was a monster but everyone gave him a pass and nothing happened to him, after doing so many monstorous things.
if all you have is 'info sec' on hillary, that's damned weaksauce, guys. everyone who is not wearing red can see that.
give it up and find something real to hunt someone over. the more you attack someone for petty bullshit, the less we want to support you (I'm talking to you, red-shirts).
most of us just can't get worked up about email security, especially when there are so many OTHER MEANINGFUL things to go after someone for.
the pettiness of the R's is pathetic. but keep fucking that chicken. you won't increase your numbers with these petty attacks.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:38PM
While I agree with the general concept of Bush getting prison time, just like Clinton and hundreds of others, don't even pretend he started any of those things. He was just a figurehead for real powers influencing public opinion, performing psyops, and manipulating businesses and the military to their own eventual gains (whether financial or political or something else is an exercise for the reader.)
The real charges they should all be up on is treason, failure to uphold their sworn oath to the constitution and country, insider trading, corruption, corporate graft, leaking intelligence secrets (because lets be honest, they all have done it, directly or indirectly.) There might be others but those are enough to get them hanged or put in prison for the rest of their lives. But since both law enforcement and the judicial branch are in collusion, and both can be influenced by the legislative bodies, nothing will happen unless the people do something to remind them who they answer to, and what the consequences are of not fairly enforcing the laws against all. If the people are unwilling to do that, then it is their own fault when the people in charge consider themselves special, because the people are in that case tacitly implying they are through their inability to exert pressure upon their elected officials and legal enforcement bodies.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:43PM
You yourself are obviously 100% partisan.
What character flaw in Hillary would convince you to vote for Trump? Would having a witness killed do the job? How about drone strikes?
I'm thinking there is nothing she could do that would make you vote for Trump. It doesn't matter if she eats raw brains right out of screaming little kids. You'd still fail to vote for Trump.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:54PM
So the only non-Hillary option in your eyes is to vote for Trump?
You might want to remove your partisan glasses when you visit this site. Either that or don't set-up a false dichotomy.
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:58AM
You forget that this is nothing more than a spectator sport to most, so all that matters is cheering on and eventually backing the winning team.
(Score: 4, Informative) by jmorris on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:33PM
You mean like this? U.N. Official 'Accidentally' Crushes Own Throat Right Before Testifying Against Hillary Clinton [zerohedge.com] Not to mention the long string of corpses under mysterious conditions from the first Clinton administration.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:54AM
Yeah, but, doesn't that happen all the time? I'm sure I've read of lots of people who crush their own throats. /sarcasm
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Newander on Wednesday July 06 2016, @02:58PM
Except that's not true. [snopes.com] The Republicans have been trying to smear the Clintons since '92 and the only thing that has stuck is that he had an affair.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @09:45PM
And lied about it. It must be contagious, or business as usual being a politician.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:44PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mth on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:55PM
but its obvious that this witch hunt is 100% partisan, as the summary kind of implies. the repubs have nothing 'good' on her so they use this.
FYI, I am not an American and I have no particular fondness for either major US party.
bush: he created wars and tortured people. he got off 100% scot free. he was a monster but everyone gave him a pass and nothing happened to him, after doing so many monstorous things.
True, but how is that relevant? Two wrongs don't make a right.
if all you have is 'info sec' on hillary, that's damned weaksauce, guys. everyone who is not wearing red can see that.
She shouldn't have used her own server for government e-mail even if it were the most secure server in the world. She either knew that or should have known that but did it anyway. The fact that the server was poorly secured only makes a bad situation worse.
Maybe what she did is not enough to send her to jail, but any party with integrity wouldn't pick someone like that as their candidate.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday July 06 2016, @05:53AM
but any party with integrity wouldn't pick someone like that as their candidate.
I'll pay you one bitcoin if you find me ONE poltician who is spotless and clean, to your 'integrity' standards.
I feel quite safe that my bitcoin is not going to land in your pocket.
save the 'integrity' bullshit, I'm not a spring chicken, I've lived more than 5 decades and I know how life works.
we elect politicans TO LIE AND DO BAD THINGS, hoping that it will land on our side on not the opposition. sorry if that ruins your disney tv storybook view of the world, but at the levels these people are at 100.0% of them are crooks. no one else could GET the job, much less keep it very long.
grow up, guys. we live in a highly corrupt world and the lone ranger ain't gonna come ridin' up to save the say. we have shit and we'll get shit. sometimes its red shit and sometimes its blue shit.
but if they are a politician with any amount of power, just one guess how they GOT that power. go ahead, look it up. its spelled with a C and ends with orruption. every single one of our 'elected leaders' is a sociopath. and we badly need a reboot since small tweaks are not going to get us to where we want.
when you have rich and powerful playing that ballgame, you seriously expect them to follow RULES?
again, when you were born? yesterday?
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:35AM
There are spots and there is Black Square.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:28AM
... but 3 lefts do.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by mechanicjay on Wednesday July 06 2016, @05:32PM
... but 3 lefts do.
Ironically, only if those three lefts are equivalent to 3 right angles.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 5, Funny) by linkdude64 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:47AM
Have you read any of those emails? They have recommendations from Hillary stating that the overthrow of Libyan and Syrian governments is in the best interests of Israel.
As our chief diplomat, Hillary used all of her power to:
1) Fund the little-known rebels who are now called ISIS
2) Destroy the stability of that region MUCH worse than Bush ever did...
3) ...So much so, in fact, that it caused a global refugee crisis potentially leading to the destruction of the European Union.
Every woman raped in Cologne, and every women raped and molested by Bill who was silenced can give Hillary Clinton a big fat thank you.
"Just infosec bro. She had no criminal intent bro."
Try reading those emails sometime.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday July 06 2016, @05:57AM
I'll read the emails the minute the lincoln private communicatons are release, jefferson, washington, etc.
then go more modern and look at the last 20 or 30 years of politicians.
it sure would be interesting to read what THEIR private thoughts are!
you got one glimpse of the real world and now you're on a tirade. look around a bit more before you assume its just one person or party.
we have fundamental problems with authority and power figures in this country. and it happens to BOTH PARTIES.
that said, I still can't get worked up on emails that we see, since we don't have equiv 'private' emails from the other sons of bitches that we 'elected' (or who stole office).
show me a spotless record for bush and cheney and bush1. until you can show your guys are spotless, I could care less about your little 'we lost, waaaaah!' whining.
politicians lie and break rules and mostly get away with it. to think otherwise is to be a denialist (or troll).
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @07:25AM
Feh, I don't care about the private, i.e. non-governmental thoughts of politicians are. (The conduct of past politicians is also irrelevant when determining whether or not a crime has been committed.) I care about when the politicians commit crimes such as treason, fraud, etc., and then expect to go unpunished. Either we have the Rule of Law, where all are equally accountable, or we have Natural Law [constitution.org] which politicians and their supporters cannot seem to stomach.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @09:26AM
So your strategy is to make heavy use of red herrings? Nice try. I happen to think that pretty much all politicians should be in prison, including Clinton. But the fact that other politicians aren't going to prison doesn't mean Clinton shouldn't either.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday July 09 2016, @03:37AM
Bush committed war crimes and should be in jail.
Hillary Clinton committed war crimes and should be in jail.
Donald Trump has committed no felonies, funded no mass-murders, started no civil wars, provided no weapons to known war criminals, overthrown no 3rd world governments, and has destroyed no international commonwealths, in his life, ever. Unlike Hillary Clinton. PERIOD.
Who exactly do you want to be in power again???
(Score: 1) by Chrontius on Wednesday July 06 2016, @05:58AM
Strictly speaking, she funded the little-known rebels who were crushed by ISIS.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 06 2016, @04:02PM
but its obvious that this witch hunt is 100% partisan
You think her retinue of yes-(wo)men are going to do it instead? Most such prosecutions are going to be partisan because that's who has the incentive to do it. And really, if political enemies don't have the balls to take down someone who breaks the laws egregiously, then who will?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:26PM
I note Comey said there was no intention to break the law, so that's fine then.
Since there are people currently in prison who broke the same laws with no 'intent' it is pointless excuse making for why Mrs. Clinton is to be treated special. Most damning is the fact intent is not even an element in several of the crimes Comey stood there and told the world he was convinced she committed. Your intent does not matter, incompetence does not matter, being drunk doesn't matter, being under alien mind control beams does not matter. If you commit the act you are subject to the penalty. She sent information she knew to be classified across an insecure system. She ordered her subordinates to remove the classified markings and send documents to her insecure system. She retained classified information after leaving government service.
But yea, my posting history shows I knew there couldn't be any other decision, the only question was whether Comey recommended charges and Lynch decided against or if Comey would disgrace himself to save her for future service. Now we know.
We all knew there could never be charges filed because Obama would have been left with only bad options. He could swear under oath that his Sec State was a mere figurehead and all Foreign Policy was being done out of the White House by political hacks, thus he never once emailed his Secretary of State. Or he could admit he did communicate with her by email and so utterly incompetent that he couldn't figure out that clintonemail.com wasn't a government server. All of the valid addresses would have .gov or .mil endings but he was too dumb to realize that. That would have been his best defense. Could you imagine somebody with an ego the size of Obama, better speechwriter than his speechwriters, better at policy than his policy advisers, forced to swear under oath that he is an idiot? Actually telling the truth would not even be considered, of course. He is a Democrat and serves the Father of Lies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2016, @11:42PM
Yeshhhs, shssuck it downnnn!
(Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:26AM
I agree with your comment, there were never going to be charges filed, but then:
He is a Democrat and serves the Father of Lies.
I am of the view that it makes no difference whether Obama is a Democrat or a Republican, the point here is not partisan.
The US political system is controlled by an elite for their own purposes, and the Democrat and Republican flags are just for show. If it had been a Republican in this position, the outcome would have been the same.
In the unlikely event charges arise, and convictions are achieved the President will be pardoning people soon, so there's that, after all Bill pardoned his brother for cocaine possession and George HW pardoned pretty much everyone for the Iran contra thing.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:18AM
Yea, Scooter Libby having his life turned inside out was exactly like what happened to Clinton, Sandy "Pants Burgler" Berger, etc. The special council knew within days who leaked Plame's name because Richard Armitage confessed to him, but he was ordered to get Cheney and by damn he was going to get him or somebody close in a perp walk.
Both parties ARE corrupt and dealing dirty for their own benefit and their super rich class. But to say they are treated the same is simply a factual error.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:26AM
Damn it, I usually try to avoid flamewars on this site.
I should have known from your posting history.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday July 06 2016, @06:01AM
your comment bears repeating:
The US political system is controlled by an elite for their own purposes, and the Democrat and Republican flags are just for show.
the only thing I'd add to that is: the R guys are more 'christ-y', or think they are, than the rest. they think they have 'god' on their side and they won't listen to reason.
but when it comes to payoffs and lies, they both do equally 'well' since that's part of the JOB. there's a reason no good person gets that job. a good person would not last a week in any of those jobs.
and THAT is the problem!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 06 2016, @08:46PM
Is it possible that the Christ-y bits are just for show as well, to appeal to a particular group who will then vote that way, thinking that they will make a difference?
I don't know because I don't live in the US, but it looks like that from the outside.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @11:24AM
He is a Democrat and serves the Father of Lies.
This explains a lot about you. You're one of the dipshits who for some insane reason has decided that it's your religious duty to God that will get you in heaven to vote Republican.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @03:27PM
Actually telling the truth would not even be considered, of course. He is a Democrat and serves the Father of Lies.
Obama always tells the truth when you listen to him speak backwards. [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:39AM
Depends. Were you speeding while rich?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @01:19AM
I note Comey said there was no intention to break the law, so that's fine then.
Can any Americans here let us know how that defence goes for you the next time you're defending a speeding fine?
It doesn't apply to speeding fines since those are not criminal.
Reckless driving can be criminal but, as the name implies, requires intent.
FWIW, american law has two related concepts "mens rea" (guilty mind - aka intent) and "strict liability" (intent does not matter).
One example of mens rea is the different between murder and manslaughter.
One example of strict liability is the possession of child porn, it doesn't matter how you came to have it, simply having it is illegal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2016, @09:29AM
One example of strict liability is the possession of child porn, it doesn't matter how you came to have it, simply having it is illegal.
Which is highly unjust because:
1) Computers--especially ones connected to the Internet--are insecure, thereby allowing pretty much anyone to potentially plant data on your computer.
2) That is government censorship, which is always wrong and unconstitutional regardless of what our treacherous courts have ruled. Regardless of how disgusting the material itself is, government censorship is far worse.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday July 06 2016, @12:51PM
Possession of child porn does not appear to be a strict liability offense, though some sentencing enhancements are. See http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/201212-federal-child-pornography-offenses/Chapter_02.pdf [ussc.gov]
Strict liability offenses are supposed to be things like parking tickets. The 800-pound gorilla of an exception is statutory rape, which may be what confused you.
Additionally, strict liability offenses with penalties significantly more serious than parking tickets are absolutely terrifying for reasons that should be obvious, but that's neither here nor there.