Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Friday June 09, @12:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the merging-the-swamps dept.

We had three different political stories submitted. In the interest of trying to keep political discussions from spilling over into other stories, I have merged them all into this one story. If you are not interested in politics, you are free to ignore this story — another story will be along presently. --martyb

Tories Turned Over in UK General Election

FTFA:

Theresa May will visit Buckingham Palace at 12:30 BST to seek permission to form a new UK government, despite losing her Commons majority.

She is seeking to stay in office on the understanding that the Democratic Unionists of Northern Ireland will support her minority administration.

With one seat left to declare, the Tories are eight seats short of the 326 figure needed to command a majority.

BBC
The Guardian
Telegraph (beware awful ads, but it's a Tory broadsheet)

In other news:
* The UK stock market is up but the pound is down
* European leaders react with a mix of incredulity, conciliatory statements; Brexit plans in tatters
* Record number of female MPs returned; overall high turnout

Fired FBI Director James Comey Lays out the Case That President Trump Obstructed Justice

Former FBI director James B. Comey on Thursday essentially laid out an obstruction of justice case against President Trump and suggested senior leaders in the bureau might have actually contemplated the matter before Trump removed him as director.

Comey did not explicitly draw any legal conclusions. Whether justice was obstructed, he said, was a question for recently appointed special counsel Robert Mueller. But he said Trump’s request to terminate the FBI’s investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn left him “stunned,” and senior FBI officials considered it to be of “investigative interest.”

Of particular concern, Comey said, was that Trump asked other officials to leave him alone with his FBI director in the Oval Office before saying of Flynn: “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

“Why did he kick everybody out of the Oval Office?” Comey said. “That, to me as an investigator, is a very significant fact.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/james-b-comey-lays-out-the-case-that-president-trump-obstructed-justice/2017/06/08/e7f49a42-4c4d-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?utm_term=.e1e154c39312

President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Christopher A. Wray to be Director of FBI

June 7, 2017 at 7:05 PM ET by The White House

Today, President Donald J. Trump announced he will nominate Christopher Asher Wray as the new Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Wray graduated cum laude from Yale University in 1989, then continued on to receive his law degree from Yale Law School in 1992. He started his legal career as a clerk to Judge J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals.

In 1997, Wray began his extensive public service career as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. In May 2001, Wray became the Associate Deputy Attorney General of the Department of Justice and within five months he was appointed the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General. He was a vital member of the DOJ’s operations during and following the 9/11 attacks.

Wray was appointed to serve as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the U.S. DOJ’s Criminal Division by President George W. Bush and was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. He led federal criminal law investigations in areas, including: securities fraud, healthcare fraud, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and trade sanctions violations, bank secrecy and money laundering offenses, public corruption, and intellectual property piracy and cybercrime. While he was head of the Criminal Division from 2003 to 2005, Wray worked tirelessly to counteract the wave of corporate fraud scandals and to restore trust in the U.S. financial system. At the end of his term, Wray was given the Edmund J. Randolph Award, which is the DOJ’s most prestigious award for leadership and public service.

Since leaving the DOJ in 2005, Wray has worked as a litigation partner at King & Spalding. He chairs the King & Spalding Special Matters and Government Investigations Practice Group, which specializes in white-collar crimes and regulatory enforcement. He has represented Fortune 100 companies and ranked as a leading litigator by Chambers USA, Best Lawyers in America, and Legal 500. Wray has performed successful oral arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

His wealth of experience in government enforcement and jurisprudence makes Christopher A. Wray an outstanding choice as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2Original Submission #3

Related Stories

Acting FBI Director Contradicts White House, Will Maintain Russia Probe 202 comments

The new, temporary FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe says that employees loved Comey:

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe Thursday rejected assertions by the White House that FBI employees had lost faith in James Comey and that the bureau's probe into Russian election meddling was one of its most minor concerns. "I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity," McCabe told members of the Senate intelligence committee. He said Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump on Tuesday, enjoyed "broad support within the FBI and still does to this day." He added, "The majority, the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep, positive connection to Director Comey."

Furthermore, he will inform the Senate of any interference with the Russia investigation:

Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe vowed Thursday that he would tell the Senate Intelligence Committee if the White House tried to interfere with the bureau's probe of possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election — though he asserted that there had "been no effort to impede our investigation to date."

Meanwhile, President Trump has undermined the White House's messaging on Comey's firing, saying that he planned to fire "showboat" and "grandstander" James Comey regardless of any recommendation from Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein. The President also insists that he is not under FBI investigation.


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Reply to Article

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @01:10PM (41 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @01:10PM (#523026)

    Are you for example going to lump technical things into another thread too? Heck, all we need is one thread that lumps everything together, journals included...

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by kaszz on Friday June 09, @01:18PM (22 children)

      by kaszz (4211) on Friday June 09, @01:18PM (#523032) Journal

      It is a site about technology, not politics. So politics should only be involved as far as it touches are affects the use of technology. But if Washington would disappear into a sinkhole that would.. not matter. But if New York disappeared into a sinkhole that would matter and be news because all those switches and servers along with techs would be missing. ;)
       

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 09, @01:28PM (7 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @01:28PM (#523038)

        It is a site about technology, not politics.

        1. Soylentnews is people - read the logo
        2. people are political monkeys - Aristotle used some other words (he didn't have the chance to share a bottle or two with Darwin); I believe our aristarchus was a close friend of 'Totle, maybe he can provide a better quote.

        So, where your impression SN is about technology came from?

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @01:34PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @01:34PM (#523043)
          http://slashdot.com
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by zocalo on Friday June 09, @02:22PM (1 child)

            by zocalo (302) on Friday June 09, @02:22PM (#523070)
            Slashdot dumped the "News for Nerds" tag ages ago, before "Fuck Beta" and the creation of Soylent IIRC, and currently runs far more stories without a specific tech angle than Soylent does. That's particularly noticeable not only in their politics coverage, but also of every single legal spat that Uber - and to a lesser extent AirBnB - seem to get themselves mired in. The latter despite the fact that, when you get right down to it, other than being disruptive in their markets both companies are not really any different to any other non-tech company that happens to have an App and a DB; Wallmart and many others probably have more customer data than both combined, yet you don't get anything like as many stories about them.

            I'll give you Uber's self driving car development programme though; that saga would make for some absolutely hilarious car crash TV (pun absolutely intended).
            --
            UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @03:46PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @03:46PM (#523117)

              I'll give you Uber's self driving car development programme though;

              Would you mind to keep it for yourself?
              It's more than useless for me.

          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday June 09, @02:39PM (2 children)

            by tangomargarine (667) on Friday June 09, @02:39PM (#523083)

            It's actually slashdot.org, but .com apparently redirects to there.

            --
            "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 June 09, @03:39PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @03:39PM (#523116)

              It's actually a commercial site, and has been for years.

              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday June 09, @04:02PM

                by tangomargarine (667) on Friday June 09, @04:02PM (#523129)

                Not that that really matters one way or the other. You still end up on the .org domain.

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Friday June 09, @07:32PM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Friday June 09, @07:32PM (#523228) Journal

          Aristotle was just a bit before my time, but:

          Aristotle used some other words

          The words are "ζῷον πολιτικόν", or political animals.

          Doesn't excuse this mis-mash of an article, however.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday June 09, @01:31PM (2 children)

        by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @01:31PM (#523040) Homepage Journal

        I think political topics are - within limits - important on Soylent. Like it or not, politics is the backdrop against which we operate technology.

        - Theresa May's election is relevant, because it affect Brexit, which will affect technology companies throughout Europe. Also, she's sufficiently deluded to think that human rights don't matter, and encryption should be the first technological casualty.

        - US national politics are relevant, because the US is the source of an awful lot of the technology that we all use daily.

        Finally, technical people have a different take on politics. I like reading what other techies think. For better or for worse, I value your/our opinions more than the opinions of most other groups.

        Political stories go into their own nexus; they are easily identifiable. I've never tested it, but I assume the setting to hide stories on unwanted nexuses (nexii?) works, so people who dislike political stories can ignore them.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday June 10, @03:33AM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 10, @03:33AM (#523370) Journal

          stories on unwanted nexuses (nexii?)

          It's "nexuses." The English plural with -s or -es is almost always a valid option. Despite the fact that I'm familiar with classical languages, I've never understood the bizarre desire of English speakers to attempt to form plurals in a non-native way. Just add -s or -es if you're uncertain and be done with it.

          For the record, nexus is fourth declension; hence the Latin plural of nexus is nexūs.

        • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday June 10, @11:08AM

          because the US is the source of an awful lot of the awful technology that we all use daily

          Just thinking of my car I had to fix it.

          --
          It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Friday June 09, @01:35PM (8 children)

        by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday June 09, @01:35PM (#523045)

        So I live in the UK. Next time there is a US presidential election, you wanna lump that in with a story about some innards of how GCHQ works?

        There's quite a few non-US folks here.

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by Webweasel on Friday June 09, @01:39PM (7 children)

          by Webweasel (567) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @01:39PM (#523051) Homepage Journal

          /me waves the union flag in a half-hearted were all fucked manner.

          --
          Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @02:04PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @02:04PM (#523063)

            /me waves the union flag in a half-hearted were all fucked manner.

            Nice, positive, can-do attitude you have there. A major portion of the UKIP vote went to Labour, firmly dispelling the hysterical "racist rightwing bigot" style slander that has plagued and retarded political discourse for far too long. Theresa May's tone-deaf domestic Manifesto was roundly rejected by the electorate -- and rightly so. The DUP... even Northern Irish republicans will be on side with them when it comes to maintaining an open border with Ireland. Democracy has a way...

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Webweasel on Friday June 09, @02:47PM (3 children)

              by Webweasel (567) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @02:47PM (#523091) Homepage Journal

              Not sure what point your trying to make there?

              As for a positive can do attitude, that's impossible under first past the post.

              So what were my options for voting yesterday?

              A) Conservative. Who want to spy on our interwebz. Nope.
              B) Labour, with a leader who won't press the nuclear button and thinks ideology is more important than pragmatism? Nope
              C) Lib dems. With a gay hating leader. Nope
              D) Independent candidate, some Christian guy. Nope. Got 800 votes
              E) Independent candidate, some Women, never even heard of her before let alone seeing a manifesto. Nope (140 votes)

              I live in a safe conservative seat. The winning conservative candidate won by over 10,000 votes. No one else was even worth considering voting for due to their political positions not matching mine.

              And now we have the DUP being the tail wagging the dog. Great.

              So how, pray tell kind anonymous coward would you suggest I could have a can do attitude? No one represents me. New political parties take generations to come to power. Proportional representation was rejected by the UK people years ago. Nothing I could have done would have made a difference. All I can really do is look after me and mine and occasionally shit post on the internet. I don't even have political views anymore, I am widely read enough to convince myself of both sides of the argument for about any topic leaving me with middle of the road attitude that is not represented by anyone.

              The only real concern I have about this result is that Brexit is fucked now. WTO rules here we come. Wait... tariffs are limited to 2.6% and a lot of goods will now be cheaper as a result? Bring on no deal thanks!

              --
              Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @03:05PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @03:05PM (#523101)

                As you say, first-past-the-post does a bad job of representing voters' interests. And because the voting reform referendum failed in the UK not that long ago, getting voting reform in the UK any time soon is unlikely, but still worth making noise about.

                Unfortunately, of those bad choices, someone is going to get elected, so it's still in your interest to vote tactically either to (1) minimize the chances of the worst outcomes in your view or (2) to signal to the winner approximately what platform they should look at to get more voters in the future (matters more if the vote has tight margins, of course).

                There's the additional point, which I think is overlooked far too often in excuses for voter apathy, that who votes is recorded and important independent of what they vote for. You have a lot more voice in polls and directly contacting your representatives if you are a voter (even if you leave the ballot blank): politicians have no reason to care at all about what non-voters think and the received wisdom, at least for pollsters in the US, is that if you didn't vote in the last election, you won't vote in the next one, either.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @03:14PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @03:14PM (#523103)

                Proportional representation was rejected by the UK people years ago.

                True, unfortunately.

                So how, pray tell kind anonymous coward would you suggest I could have a can do attitude?

                This is 2017, people no longer vote for a candidate, they vote tactically against the party they dislike most. I expect you are familiar with the Hegelian dialectic?

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @03:35PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @03:35PM (#523113)

                Lord Sutch, your country needs you.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Pax on Friday June 09, @02:09PM (1 child)

            by Pax (5056) on Friday June 09, @02:09PM (#523066)

            /me waves the union flag in a half-hearted were all fucked manner.

            /me waves a Saltire in a manner that suggest i just took a whole bottle of "fukitol"

            • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 09, @03:53PM

              by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @03:53PM (#523118) Homepage Journal

              Whoooa: you can afford 'fukitol'?

              Can you spare a dime, Richy Rich?

              I'm stuck with 'fukitol max-lite-zero'. :(

              --
              --- I wish i had a cig for every sig i've ever had: i'd have cancer and wouldn't you feel bad for looking here. ---
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Friday June 09, @02:31PM

        by DannyB (5839) on Friday June 09, @02:31PM (#523075)

        if New York disappeared into a sinkhole that would matter and be news because all those switches and servers along with techs would be missing

        If New York were to disappear into New Jersey, as I infer, the ping times might be a bit longer. The techs would all demand to work remotely.

      • (Score: 2) by NCommander on Saturday June 10, @04:23AM

        by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <mcasadevall@soylentnews.org> on Saturday June 10, @04:23AM (#523381) Homepage Journal

        Technically, all our servers are hosted in Dallas except the off site storage, so the loss of New York City would only affect me personally.

        --
        Still always moving
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 09, @01:32PM (11 children)

      +1 Insightful to kaszz

      Last I heard, the eds attempt to run no more than one Politics story a day. It just so happens three were relevant and timely news this morning, which is quite uncommon.

      The politics nexus is not there because we want more political stories; it's there so people who don't can set their preferences to not have to see it even once a day.

      --
      ( o Y o ) <---- Look, boobies!
      • (Score: 5, Funny) by c0lo on Friday June 09, @01:46PM (6 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @01:46PM (#523056)

        Since it is possible for those who do not want politics to avoid them, what is the justification to lump 3 politics stories into one?
        Punish soylenters who like politics or what?

        You can defend your editor minions as much as you like, that doesn't make screw-ups right!

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 09, @05:02PM (3 children)

          Mostly the 20:1 ratio of ACs to registered users we have. ACs can't turn Politics off.

          --
          ( o Y o ) <---- Look, boobies!
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @07:55PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @07:55PM (#523234)

            Mostly the 20:1 ratio of ACs to registered users we have. ACs can't turn Politics off.

            Well that doesn't sound like a problem... It can encourage people to register if they don't like seeing political stories.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Friday June 09, @09:57PM (1 child)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @09:57PM (#523294)

            Yeah, Ok, I get it; you favour 20 AC against a subscriber/donor.
            Lemme sleep on this for a while.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday June 09, @09:59PM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @09:59PM (#523297) Journal

          Punish soylenters who like politics or what?

          Is there a problem here? Is there not enough lashings? Add fines? More public humiliation? Torture? There's thousands of years of creative punishment and whatnot. We should be able to come up with a mix that meets your standards while not loading the server down too much.

          More seriously, there has been a lot of DRAMA about the inclusion of political stories. I'm sure some of our more delicate ACs would flip out if there were to be three political stories on the front page about populist politics gone awry. It'd be an alt-right apocalypse or something.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10, @06:43AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10, @06:43AM (#523416)

            Sorry to inform our alt-right special snowflakes but the world doesn't stop turning when you close your eyes.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by edIII on Friday June 09, @08:17PM

        by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @08:17PM (#523240)

        I guess I'm one of the few that find it reasonable what the editors did.... It represents reality. Create a big room, label it politics, and get Tina Turner on a mic to be the sportscaster :)

        Ohh, and you definitely have to be part of Master Blaster. Not sure which end though ;)

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Friday June 09, @10:35PM (2 children)

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Friday June 09, @10:35PM (#523309)

        Not sure what your rules are on submissions, do you simply publish them in order as submitted or can you hold them back for a time before releasing them into the newsfeed? This experiment of lumping three together apparently does not work, it just turned into a whinefest about the articles being joined together. It might have been better to spread them out into three different submissions.
        As for those who complain this is supposed to be a tech site, why is it that hardcore tech articles generally only have a very few comments, sometimes in the single digits, while the political articles invariably get far more comments?

        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday June 10, @03:45AM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 10, @03:45AM (#523371) Journal

          As for those who complain this is supposed to be a tech site, why is it that hardcore tech articles generally only have a very few comments, sometimes in the single digits, while the political articles invariably get far more comments?

          I don't think it's the norm for "tech" articles to get single digits (though it sometimes happens). Science articles, maybe. I suspect science articles get few comments because to actually comment meaningfully, you'd have to, well, RTFA. And perhaps even read the original study. Even back on Slashdot in olden times, science articles that got lots of comments weren't debating science -- they generally accumulated some sort of random debate that was only tangentially connected if not completely OT.

          But yes, politics gets more comments. It's easier to have an opinion, easier to troll, and more likely to spur ongoing discussion because of the opinion-based nature. A hard science or tech article can accumulate comments that pose questions or offer additional information. But those sorts of things may not create ongoing debate.

          I'd like to think (though I have no proof of this) that the lower comment count for science/tech articles isn't because people aren't interested or don't at least glance at the summaries and articles posted here -- it's just that it takes more effort to discuss technical stuff. Nonetheless, I try to make an effort to read the original sources and post comments on some "neglected" science and tech articles, in hopes of generating more interest.

        • (Score: 2) by NCommander on Saturday June 10, @04:25AM

          by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <mcasadevall@soylentnews.org> on Saturday June 10, @04:25AM (#523383) Homepage Journal

          To answer this question: The short version is yes.

          The longer version is it depends. If we're dealing with a story drought, we might hold some articles that aren't time sensitive for another day to help pad things out over the weekend. Usually though, if its something we like, it goes in a FIFO queue. Breaking news can also bump another story later in the day. Meta articles also will bump something based on an event if its sudden (i.e., emergency maintence, etc).

          --
          Still always moving
    • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday June 09, @01:34PM

      by zocalo (302) on Friday June 09, @01:34PM (#523044)
      Agreed. You can just ignore the Politics nexus if you are not interested in discussions on the topic, but lumping three issues with only a single tenuous connection between the latter two, and which are each quite likely to produce a lively debate, into a single thread is likely to just result in a mess. That serves no one, especially since lack of story submissions is still an issue from time to time.
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday June 09, @01:44PM (2 children)

      by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @01:44PM (#523055) Homepage Journal

      - 3 political articles in a row: ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE... too much politics! This is a tech site!!!

      - 3 political articles in one: ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE... too much politics in one article! Should be 3 separate articles!!!

      - No political articles at all: ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE... don't you know that significant things are happening outside the tech world? There should be articles!!!

      - Political articles not marked as BREAKING NEWS and released non-immediately: ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE... this should have been marked BREAKING NEWS and released IMMEDIATELY!!!

      I say we stop writing and publishing articles at all and just let all the past work and effort and money paid be for nothing.

      Or, should i say:

      "Hookers and blow, hookers and blow: i just want hookers and blow!"

      --
      --- I wish i had a cig for every sig i've ever had: i'd have cancer and wouldn't you feel bad for looking here. ---
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @04:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @04:21PM (#523137)

        Or, should i say:

        "Hookers and blow, hookers and blow: i just want hookers and blow!"

        Well, it would be more honest. At least that is what I came here for. As always, though, YMMV.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 09, @10:18PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Friday June 09, @10:18PM (#523307)

        > "Hookers and blow, hookers and blow: i just want hookers and blow!"

        I only have Blackjack and Chocolate. Go Fish!

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 09, @02:35PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @02:35PM (#523079) Journal

      Are you for example going to lump technical things into another thread too? Heck, all we need is one thread that lumps everything together, journals included...

      It might make sense to lump the two Trump stories together but lumping US & UK politics just means the UK stuff probably won't be discussed.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @11:18PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @11:18PM (#523318)

        I say we have one long megathread for all stories and every post can have infinite moderation. The discussion never ends and of course only the BEST will rise to the top!

  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by realDonaldTrump on Friday June 09, @01:19PM (8 children)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday June 09, @01:19PM (#523033) Journal

    Very disappointed in what happened. Very sad day! My heartfelt condolences to Paul Nuttall and the UKIP. #BritainTogether

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @01:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @01:37PM (#523049)

      Trump! Trump! Trump!

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Friday June 09, @01:55PM (6 children)

      by zocalo (302) on Friday June 09, @01:55PM (#523058)
      Why would Trump be disappointed? As far as the EU is concerned, he's clearly only interested in sowing as much discord as possible to try and Make America Great Again, and the more chaos that results from Brexit the better.

      Besides, we've finally got an answer of sorts to the question that should have been asked and answered before the referendum (or at the very least *in* the referendum); what kind of Brexit do the Brexiteer's want? Theresa May offered a hard option, Jeremy Corbyn a soft option, and it split UKIP right down the middle, just as many in the Remain camp thought it would. So, given that democracy is *supposedly* about finding the best compromise for all viewpoints, we now we have to figure out how to rationalise something that probably isn't too far away from this:

      ~48% don't want to leave the EU in the first place.
      ~26% want to leave, but with a soft exit.
      ~26% want to leave, but with a hard exit.

      Not only that, we've got to do so when the leader of the next government clearly backed the option that is going to mean the most people getting a result they are probably not going to be happy with - as was also pointed out during the two campaigns - and trying to hold together a fractious political party that is likely to turn on her as soon as she loses one too many votes in the Commons. How much more discord do you want?
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday June 09, @02:36PM

        by DannyB (5839) on Friday June 09, @02:36PM (#523080)

        Trump doesn't really understand geopolitics. Not even a little bit. Putin would clearly be interested in sowing as much discord as possible. Since that has been successfully done in the US already, Trump the puppet could be used to sow discord in the EU. It's not like Trump has any understanding of what he's doing. He'll say whatever gets the right people to stroke his ego.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @02:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @02:49PM (#523094)
      • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday June 09, @10:08PM (2 children)

        by theluggage (1797) on Friday June 09, @10:08PM (#523302)

        Besides, we've finally got an answer of sorts to the question that should have been asked and answered before the referendum (or at the very least *in* the referendum); what kind of Brexit do the Brexiteer's want?

        No. Seriously.

        The only questions that have been answered are:

        1. Do young people like Jeremy Corbyn? Ans: Yes.
        2. Do old people get scared when you threaten to charge them more for care? Ans: Yes. FFS, May, if you're going to try to sell people on a "stealth death tax" then at least try to make it stealthy.
        • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday June 10, @09:47AM (1 child)

          by zocalo (302) on Saturday June 10, @09:47AM (#523445)
          Perhaps, which is why I caveated it with "of sorts" - it was a fairly firm rejection of a Hard Brexit, but beyond that it's shades of grey and multiple issues are obviously at play, which does indeed include how the electorate feels about the person who is likely to lead as well as their policies, but I'm not sure that's as big a factor as the media is spinning it in Corbyn's case - heaven forbid the Conservative media should have to admit voters agreed with Labour policies! I do think he surprised a lot of people with his campaigning, but that's also going to be bolstered by the fact that younger voters tend to be more optimistic and less cynical, an outlook which generally tends to align more closely with Labour / LibDem policies than the Convervatives'. Once you've been around the block a few times the flaws generally become more obvious and you hopefully realise that *none* of the party's manifestos add up and you're really trying to choose the one that is the least unworkable. There's also the "I've got mine, so screw you!" attitude, of course.

          Put all that together with May's disasterous campaign strategy, failure to appear on the debates, and a manifesto that included hard Brexit, stealth taxes, more austerity (needed, but people are still fed up with it), proposed scrapping of human privacy and rights (seriously, WTF!?), and there's not many core Conservative demographics left she's not alienated in some form. The only thing they successfully managed to do in all that was render UKIP defunct by promising a hard Brexit. The LibDems are still out in the weeds, the Greens are not a realistic prospect, and unless you are in Wales, Northern Ireland or are an independance seeking Scot, there's only one viable option left. That their leader turned out to be surprisingly charismatic what it counted absolutely played a part, but I *really* hope that there's a lot more to it than just a cult of personality because that's absolutely the last thing that should be a major factor in a national election.
          --
          UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
          • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday June 10, @01:23PM

            by theluggage (1797) on Saturday June 10, @01:23PM (#523480)

            The only thing they successfully managed to do in all that was render UKIP defunct by promising a hard Brexit.

            Actually, no - I suspect that was the tories' big misjudgement - assuming that the UKIP votes would come back to them. People really don't seem to have gotten their head around the fact that there was a lot of support for Brexit from traditional labour voters. Labour helped nail UKIP just as much by accepting Brexit ("don't throw me into the briar patch" for Corbyn, but a harder pill to swallow for the rest of the party). Mostly, though, UKIP are a busted flush anyway now that Brexit is pretty much inevitable.

            Watching the result, it seemed pretty clear that the UKIP deserters were going back to Con and Lab in pretty much equal quantities and, surprise surprise, its back to a hung parliament.

            Trouble is, I still see "Soft Brexit" as a fairy tale that was dreamed up by Boris and co on the basis that they'd never have to deliver it - and is being perpetuated by the Labour party because an embarrassingly large proportion of their turkeys voted for Christmas in the referrendum. The inconvenient truth is that we won't get full control over immigration (not my priority*, but it seems to be the Brexiteers' red line) and the right to grow bent cucumbers (joke) and access to the single market, because if Brussels let us have that, half the other EU states would demand the same thing and they might as well dissolve the entire EU.

            I'd have much preferred to remain, but since that ship seems to have sailed I'm very cautious about any "kludge" which leaves us mostly still subject to EU regulations (in order to stay in the single market and customs union) but without a seat at the table. The UK is not Switzerland and it isn't Norway. If we're going to have Brexit then the negotiators need to go in ready to play hardball, not fenced in by a maze of red lines that they can't even credibly threaten to cross.

            Point in case: the status of EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. It's very, very unlikely that it will end in mutually assured mass deportations, but there will be a lot of fine detail to be bargained over and, going by the history of every EU negotiation in history ever, it will be shaped by brinkmanship, posturing and counting coup. That will all be much harder for the UK negotiators if they go in with a legal obligation to allow EU citizens to stay in the UK. Anybody who doesn't like using human beings as bargaining chips should have thought of that before they either supported Brexit or meekly "accepted the democratic decision".

            Much as I dislike May and the tories, they've already won onemassive concession out of the EU that nobody seemed to notice: amongst all the mudslinging about the "divorce bill", expats and Gibraltar (of fucking course any agreement over that will have to have Spanish backing unless you want a war zone) was the statement that progress on those needed to be made before trade deals could be discussed. Previously, the official (and logical) line was that trade deals couldn't be discussed until after the 2-year Article 50 process was complete.

            Hopefully, unless the opposition parties are actually prepared and able to push through a "stop brexit" vote, they'll refrain from throwing token spanners into the brexit works and concentrate on stopping the tories from trying to turn the UK into a tax haven through their policies at home. Many of Corbyn's state-supported-industry dreams would be impossible under either EU membership or "soft brexit", anyway (probably why he kept his head down during the referendum).

            (* So we move the "soft" EU/UK border, and all its problems, from France to the potential powder keg that is the N. Ireland/Eire border... absolutely fucking brilliant plan! Why the weren't Cameron and Osbourne screaming about this sort of thing during the referendum campaign instead of waving around iffy accountants' reports?)

             

      • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday June 10, @06:24AM

        by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Saturday June 10, @06:24AM (#523411) Journal

        I was really rooting for the UKIP. Paul understands what the U.K. must do to end the terror attacks against your country. He knows that torture works. Smart guy. Not like Theresa or Sadiq. But the UKIP lost its seat in the Commons. And Paul quit as party leader. He's still a winner in my book.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Friday June 09, @01:20PM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @01:20PM (#523034)

    In the interest of trying to keep political discussions from spilling over into other stories,

    The only rational decision this world can take to keep the political comments from spilling over in other SN stories would be:
    1. Trump nominating Theresa May for FBI directorship - she has her own credentials, Theresa Submarine, she has them
    2. Comey joining Corbyn (the Jeremy one, bot Dallas multi-pass) in an effort to reunite the two Ireland and avoid a passport being necessary when travelling the island. As a stretch goal, they may even pull the ropes and bring the whole Ireland closer to Wales.
    3. Christopher Asher Wray should go into a proper investigation of Assange's rapes... for too long that bastard avoided Swedish prosecution, USA can't wait for that extradition so long, the USians pay taxes to retain that grand jury and America needs that money for MAGA.

    Of course, there's still the Russian connection and the resignation of Jeff Sessions, but if we merge these too into the present story, we'll get nothing to post in the next days.

    So... world, are you gonna behave rational or should we (again... for how many thousand time?) accept that reality doesn't quite fit in a single... ummm... story, no matter how much some editors think it should?

    'cause... what's next? Are we gonna mix stories about 128 NAND memory with a Milky Way being an island in a vast void? Ar least we'd have a justification: the two stories occupy more storage space themselves than the comments they generated.

    (grin)

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday June 09, @01:24PM (31 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @01:24PM (#523035) Homepage Journal

    The information is largely circumstantial, but there is a non-zero chance that Comey is a suave, well-dressed weasel. He has been in the orbit of the Clinton Foundation for a long time, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not. [ijr.com] Many people (including many of us who hold, or once held high-level clearances) thought it clear that Hillary should have been prosecuted for her handling of classified information - and Comey is the one who let her off the hook.

    Now, suppose that Trump thinks Comey is, in fact, a Clinton weasel. But there are all these rumors around about Trump and Russia that Comey's FBI may be investigating. Firing him might look like obstructionism, so you have to choose the right moment. The rumors won't die, but there's nothing substantiating them either, and that is finally becoming obvious to anyone other than a devout Trump-hater. So he decides that the time has come, and fires Comey at what seems like a reasonably opportune moment.

    At the Senate hearing, Comey's phrasing is veeerrrrry careful. Nothing provable,, no accusations, but lots of innuendo. Frankly, I think the guy is a smooth operator, who's doing his damnedest to sabotage Trump. Doesn't matter what you think of Trump, fact is, he was Comey's boss. From Trump's point of view, it's good riddance.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by PiMuNu on Friday June 09, @01:32PM (12 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday June 09, @01:32PM (#523042)

      > But there are all these rumors around about Trump and Russia that Comey's FBI may be investigating

      I thought at least one senior political aide in the Trump campaign resigned for being in bed with Putin. It rather puts weight to the rumours.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @01:44PM (11 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @01:44PM (#523053)

        Looks like McCarthyism is back in a big way. Look, Russia is a big country that does big business. Some on the shady side, but for good or ill they're major players.

        Is everybody who ever talked to a Russian now part of some vast global conspiracy? That would render about 99% of official Washington suspect. Or is it, "Oh no! The Russkies have taken over everything! Call John Birch!"

        Good grief.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday June 09, @02:41PM (9 children)

          by DannyB (5839) on Friday June 09, @02:41PM (#523085)

          It's not McCarthyism. It's Trump's big mouth. Suggesting during the campaign that Russia hack the DNC, combined with having significant business ties in Russia that could compromise one, and refusing to divest oneself, naturally lead to suspicion. Who would have thought.

          Short version: Trump brought this on himself. Maybe unwittingly because he's just that stupid. But he could have avoided it at multiple points.

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by jmorris on Friday June 09, @06:08PM (8 children)

            Not really, just proves you are an idiot.

            1. Trump didn't ask Russia to hack the DNC.

            2. It wasn't the Russians. Seth Rich leaked the DNC email to WikiLeaks and was killed for his trouble. Wait for it.

            3. Trump made a joke about Hillary Clinton's email, which the government was pretending it couldn't get. But since we all knew it had been sitting on a exposed Windows Exchange Server, everyone pretty much assumes every Intel agency has it, including our own NSA. And Russia. Which was the point of his joke, that if our own government couldn't/wouldn't turn them over perhaps Russia could do us a solid and give us a copy from their files. And the way that one joke drove home the damage Clinton had done to our national security drove you guys utterly insane with rage.

            4. Now we get to dismantle the whole "Russia! Russia! Russia!" mess. The worst accusation so far is that Russia released the DNC leaks. They didn't, see above, but so what? That is it? All this shock and horror that Putin might have stooped so low as to commit Journalism without a license?

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday June 09, @06:18PM (7 children)

              by DannyB (5839) on Friday June 09, @06:18PM (#523186)

              Trump could certainly have made things better for himself by avoiding the appearance of corruption. (Even if not the actual fact of it.)

              Other presidents have released their taxes, sometimes going way back, just to avoid accusations.

              I'm not saying all others do things perfectly, but when Trump does things under cover of darkness, it doesn't help. Then when he declares war on the media, that doesn't make him any friends. Then when he won't even release information to the press, that creates a vaccum.

              Even if it were to turn out that the smoke isn't from a fire, which I doubt, but if it turned out that way, then Trump largely created the circumstances that drove it to this point. He really is that much of an idiot. He won't take good advice. Seeks out bad advice. Can't be told No. Requires absolute loyalty. And more. So is it any wonder why this whole pooch skrew? I still think where there smoke there's fire. But we will all eventually find out together.

              • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 09, @06:44PM (6 children)

                Then when he declares war on the media, that doesn't make him any friends.

                Not true. At all. Make some of us overlook a lot of flaws and generally desire to build yuge statues of the guy. The media is utterly corrupt and one of the bases of the Cathedral's power. It must be destroyed. Pretty much all of it, FNC and WSJ included. Ok, eave Cavuto and the Idiotarian Libertarians at FBN alone, gotta leave a token survivor to propagate the warning.

                • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @07:15PM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @07:15PM (#523221)

                  I think Jmo is sliding into homegrown terrorist territory. Someone should probably report him.

                  • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday June 09, @09:37PM (1 child)

                    by NewNic (6420) on Friday June 09, @09:37PM (#523285)

                    I think Jmo is sliding into homegrown terrorist territory. Someone should probably report him.

                    No so. I think that he has been a living embodiment of Poe's law and it is only now obvious that his posts are sarcasm, I think.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @11:21PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @11:21PM (#523320)

                      Keep thinking...

                • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 09, @08:55PM (2 children)

                  by DannyB (5839) on Friday June 09, @08:55PM (#523257)

                  There has been yellow journalism since way back. Possibly even before the 21st century.

                  Now I agree that a lot of media has not done a good job. Because of ratings, money and political bias of their owners.

                  But what would be the alternative? A government run official news organization? Trump might actually love that idea, and if so it wouldn't surprise me one bit. But I suspect that would not work out so well for us.

                  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 09, @09:47PM (1 child)

                    I the days of old, we had honest media because it was openly partisan, every town having at least a Republican and a Democrat aligned paper. Our problem is mostly a result of the TV era's early days when three networks based in NYC and the NYT could, and did collude to set the Narrative for the whole country. And since now six companies own darned near everything you see on the boob tube it ain't any better now.

                    The solution is what is happening, destroy the credibility of the corrupt legacy media by exposure, allow new diverse media to gain influence. The big one is when they lose enough trust the current leak based model of journalism collapses. It only works because people still think that if Wolf Blitzer or some NYT hack says a 'senior government official' told them something that it is newsworthy based purely on their say so. When the NYT is reduced to "Carlos Slim's Blog" in enough minds that stops working. Who would take such an anonymous sourced claim by Drudge seriously?

                    Another step to dismantling the privileged media caste is ending the official pools. Let agencies use a staffer with a $1000 HD camera and post video under a public domain license. The day of broadcast quality video being an expensive thing that you needed to let the networks produce are long past. The current system where every public event is locked down where only members of the caste can buy the right to use the photos and video must end. Replace press conferences, that maintain the caste in special positions of being the ones who decide which questions may be asked and which must not be, with ask me anything style web affairs, websites that collect questions and answer the highest upvoted ones, etc.

                    The new media is open about its biases, which makes it honest. When you read Huffington Post you know exactly what you are reading, same for Breitbart.com. It is the NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS, that is dishonest in their claims of being objective in the face of the obvious.

                    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @11:35PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @11:35PM (#523326)

                      No we used to have the Fairness Doctrine, but like so many good things:

                      In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

                      God damn fucking Reagan and his goons. Such a massive piece of shit, but Republicans view him as the 2nd coming of Christ. I realize he is not directly responsible for this, but his tenure as president devastated this country and opened the gates to hell. Fuck that racist finger puppet douche who sold the US to a couple of rich pieces of crap so they could pursue even more ridiculous profits and concentrate power more easily. Nixon was like the midwife for Satan.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @04:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @04:05PM (#523130)

          Its not a typical witchhunt if you spot people flying by on brooms.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by tonyPick on Friday June 09, @02:25PM (8 children)

      by tonyPick (1237) on Friday June 09, @02:25PM (#523071) Homepage Journal

      Frankly, I think the guy is a smooth operator, who's doing his damnedest to sabotage Trump.

      Seriously? Despite Comey badly damaging the Clinton campaign with the letter about re-opening the email investigation, yet keeping quiet about the FBI's investigation into Trump and Russia that was running since July? And if he actually wanted to sabotage Trump just saying "Yes, I was directly ordered" would have given the committee an impeachable offence there and then?

      So, he's a Clinton Weasel, despite undermining the Clinton campaign, actively protecting the Trump campaign, and not actually saying anything to the committee that would actually indicate the president broke the law even though it would be trivial to do so? That's crazy. You get how crazy that is, right?

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 09, @02:28PM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @02:28PM (#523073)

        would have given the committee an impeachable offence there and then?

        I really doubt it. At most a game of he-said-she-said.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tonyPick on Friday June 09, @02:55PM

          by tonyPick (1237) on Friday June 09, @02:55PM (#523098) Homepage Journal

          It's the same offence that brought Nixon down, and while yes it wouldn't have supported a conviction by itself, but it wouldn't have to be anything other than he-said-she-said to be very politically difficult for Trump (Seriously, former US-DAG and FBI director with a track record under Repubs & Dems going back over a decade, versus the guy who stood speaking in the rain at his inauguration, then went inside and told everyone it was sunny? You want to bet how that would turn out?)

          Instead Comey actually confirmed it *wasn't* a direct order, however he may have interpreted it at the time.

          The OP accusation was that Comey is some secret Clinton plant, and in light of what Comey actually did that's nuts. As in the "Moon-Landings-Faked-Because-The Earth-Is Flat" level of nuts.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday June 09, @03:58PM (3 children)

        by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @03:58PM (#523125) Homepage

        The thing about impeachable offenses is that impeachable offenses are whatever Congress says they are. I mean, if you look at the two times a president was actually impeached, the offenses were:
        1. Andrew Johnson - Firing his Secretary of War when Congress had passed a law (overriding Johnson's veto), saying he wasn't allowed to do that. The Supreme Court later ruled that Congress didn't have the power to make that law in the first place.
        2. Bill Clinton - Lying about extramarital blowjobs.

        The constitution doesn't define "High crimes and misdemeanors", so basically it's an entirely political matter. With the current Congress, I doubt they'll go after Trump no matter how guilty he is.

        And Comey is definitely not a Clinton weasel. If he's following in the footsteps of most FBI directors, he's his own weasel happily blackmailing politicians on both sides of the aisle.

        --
        If you act on pie in the sky, you're likely to get pie in the face.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tonyPick on Friday June 09, @04:40PM

          by tonyPick (1237) on Friday June 09, @04:40PM (#523143) Homepage Journal

          Fair point - I was using impeach as shorthand for committed an actual crime (in this case specifically obstruction) which could fall under the whole "high Crimes and Misdemeanors", but you're absolutely right.

          (BTW: Good write up on opinions as to what actually counts as obstruction and why Comey's wording was important here: https://www.vox.com/2017/6/8/15742880/donald-trump-james-comey-fbi-russia-investigation) [vox.com]

          With the current Congress, I doubt they'll go after Trump no matter how guilty he is.

          That's possible, although my own suspicion is that the dumpster-fire we're seeing now can't last, and there'll be a tipping point when it becomes too much for a sizable chunk of the (R) side; If that happens I expect there'll be a stampede to distance the party from the Trump administration and they'll fall over themselves to stab him in the back and use the opportunity to portray themselves as taking a principled stand, or some similar crap. He's not exactly making that scenario a stretch at the moment.

            Although as someone looking at US politics from the outside, I am no longer surprised by anything...

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 09, @10:10PM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @10:10PM (#523303)

          With the current Congress, I doubt they'll go after Trump no matter how guilty he is.

          Oh, but they'll do it. The moment they decide they had enough of a Trump who doesn't play by the rules.

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 09, @11:32PM

            by bob_super (1357) on Friday June 09, @11:32PM (#523325)

            They've already decided that.
            What they're waiting for is the move so disgraceful that they can kick him without losing his base.
            So far, his base is letting everything slide, so they wait...

      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 09, @06:51PM (1 child)

        Despite Comey badly damaging the Clinton campaign with the letter about re-opening the email investigation..

        Ever heard of damage control? Once they seized the Weiner Laptop of Shame the odds of preventing a leak of the explosive contents was basically zero. So which option would Mrs. Clinton prefer? Wall to wall drudge sirens and FNC "Breaking News" about the latest leaks and the Obama Justice Dept coverup or a controlled disclosure that disclosed little and was followed up with an Officlal "nothing to see here, she is innocent, carry on" a couple of days later?

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday June 09, @10:13PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @10:13PM (#523304) Journal

          Ever heard of damage control? Once they seized the Weiner Laptop of Shame the odds of preventing a leak of the explosive contents was basically zero. So which option would Mrs. Clinton prefer? Wall to wall drudge sirens and FNC "Breaking News" about the latest leaks and the Obama Justice Dept coverup or a controlled disclosure that disclosed little and was followed up with an Officlal "nothing to see here, she is innocent, carry on" a couple of days later?

          Choice c): sit on it till after the election. Worked for Benghazi which was a far more public affair.

    • (Score: 1, Redundant) by c0lo on Friday June 09, @02:26PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @02:26PM (#523072)

      who's doing his damnedest to sabotage Trump

      You say it like Trump can't do it himself, even better than anyone else.
      So little faith in your leader, shame on you!

      (grin)

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 09, @02:44PM (2 children)

      by DannyB (5839) on Friday June 09, @02:44PM (#523089)

      Didn't Comey serve three different administrations?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @03:58PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @03:58PM (#523126)

        Only if you count the Trump administration.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 09, @06:22PM

          by DannyB (5839) on Friday June 09, @06:22PM (#523188)

          You got me there. :-)

          A three ring circus should have the following organization:
          1. executive
          2. legislative
          3. judicial

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday June 09, @03:54PM (2 children)

      by meustrus (4961) <meustrusNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday June 09, @03:54PM (#523120)

      Many people (including many of us who hold, or once held high-level clearances) thought it clear that Hillary should have been prosecuted for her handling of classified information - and Comey is the one who let her off the hook.

      Many people think a lot of people should be prosecuted for this kind of misconduct, but it never happens. Colin Powell did the same thing and actually advised Clinton on how to set it up, but he never came close to prosecution. You can (rightly) complain that Washington is a corrupt system that protects its own, but it's pretty clear that Clinton is not an exception in this regard.

      The whole idea that Clinton should be prosecuted for her email server is a clear example of partisanship. Republican politicians want it for political reasons, but can justify their politics with the law. Meanwhile, Democrats will ignore any legal wrongdoing, again for purely political reasons.

      The reason this is partisanship is because if the parties were reversed, we'd have the same people arguing for the opposite treatment. Democrats want Chris Christie in jail for manipulating traffic for political revenge, while Republicans are perfectly happy to claim he did nothing wrong.

      Of course at the end of the day, nobody goes to jail and corruption continues unhindered. Or did you think the politicians actually wanted to face the kind of scrutiny they put Clinton under?

      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 09, @06:33PM

        Colin Powell did the same thing and actually advised Clinton on how to set it up, but he never came close to prosecution.

        Stop. Stop pushing myths. Powell did no such thing, he used a commercial email provider for some email at a time when the State dept was still catching up to the rest of the world with tech. He most assuredly did NOT put a private server in his home with zero fulltime admin, he most certainly didn't use a provider running f*cking Microsoft Exchange Server (since no major provider does, at the time of Powell's use I don't even think HotMail was yet converted from FreeBSD.) which absolutely anyone with an Intel agency could read. He did not build, run and then destroy a server with the obvious goal of hiding billions of dollars of corruption from Congressional Oversight and FOIA requests. No. Just stop because you are embarrassing yourself.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 10, @01:02AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 10, @01:02AM (#523341) Journal

        The whole idea that Clinton should be prosecuted for her email server is a clear example of partisanship. Republican politicians want it for political reasons, but can justify their politics with the law. Meanwhile, Democrats will ignore any legal wrongdoing, again for purely political reasons.

        So what? Clinton's allies aren't going to do anything to help the cause of justice. And independent investigation won't get anywhere without support from the opposition to overcome her allies. That means that prosecution supported by Clinton's partisan enemies will be the only way she might ever see justice for these crimes.

        Colin Powell did the same thing and actually advised Clinton on how to set it up, but he never came close to prosecution.

        Here, we see why politicians will throw out many one-time excuses for why they did wrong. Because these excuses will stick to the gullible who are looking for any reason to continue to support their politician. This was just the throw-away excuse of the first week of September, 2016, yet here it is again.

        Of course at the end of the day, nobody goes to jail and corruption continues unhindered. Or did you think the politicians actually wanted to face the kind of scrutiny they put Clinton under?

        And that's fine, right? Because otherwise you would see a lot of partisan prosecution of criminals and that would be not fine.

    • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday June 09, @03:56PM (1 child)

      by art guerrilla (3082) on Friday June 09, @03:56PM (#523122)

      @ bradley, all true enough, comey is a deep state weasel, period...
      (you simply don't get to that level without being a deep-stater, or a total-tool boy scout fool, who is used like a condom but doesn't realize it because they are a twue bewiever...)
      .
      further, comey and mueller are joined at the hip, mueller is only there to put a patina of respectability on the snipe hunt du jour, which is the eee-vil pooooooootin, to try and hang that stinking albatross around t-rump's neck
      One.
      More.
      Time...
      ...but this whole (im)morality play is for the benefit of us 99%, richtig ? ? ?
      not internecine warfare among the puppet masters, is it ? ? ?
      surely not...
      um, goshies, *that* isn't how the world weally works, is it ? ? ?
      *gasp*

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @04:58PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @04:58PM (#523152)

        I can really appreciate how you start with a conclusion that you like and then work backwards from there to justify it.

  • (Score: 2) by GlennC on Friday June 09, @01:42PM

    by GlennC (3656) on Friday June 09, @01:42PM (#523052)

    Keep up the good work!

    --
    The only gods that have ever been truly worshipped are wealth and power. Others are just cover.
  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 09, @04:01PM (11 children)

    by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @04:01PM (#523128) Homepage Journal

    "I say we waterboard Trump, Comey, Hillary, etc until we get the truth."

    "I say we waterboard them, them HANG them."

    "I say we waterboard them, then we HANG them, then we KILL! them."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E88HEuwInno
    --
    --- I wish i had a cig for every sig i've ever had: i'd have cancer and wouldn't you feel bad for looking here. ---
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @05:42PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @05:42PM (#523172)

      You forgot about tattooing them!


      I have an excuse to use this tag finally!

      We should waterboard them, then we HANG them, then we KILL! them, and then we TATTOO!!eleven! them.


      Do these things nest?

      At the end of the scene, Comey does a dance number, impressing the Hell's DC Insiders, and he leaves with a new bike.


      Except he promptly crashes into a billboard after taking off.
      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 09, @09:26PM

        by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @09:26PM (#523271) Homepage Journal
        A billboard advertising Game of Thrones.... cause that's what ALL this is about

        Yes they do nest! :)

        --
        --- I wish i had a cig for every sig i've ever had: i'd have cancer and wouldn't you feel bad for looking here. ---
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 09, @06:27PM (2 children)

      by DannyB (5839) on Friday June 09, @06:27PM (#523193)

      We could KILL them first, THEN we could HANG them, and finally waterboard them. Sort of like how you BURN and PILLAGE. Oh, wait. Pillage THEN burn.

      (pull the electrical power cord, restart the computer, then save your documents.)

      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 09, @09:29PM (1 child)

        by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09, @09:29PM (#523273) Homepage Journal

        As long as you're not killing then RAPING them. That is, apparently, against God.

        God is fine with raping, just not killing THEN raping.

        I am against raping.

        --
        --- I wish i had a cig for every sig i've ever had: i'd have cancer and wouldn't you feel bad for looking here. ---
    • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday June 09, @10:44PM

      by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Friday June 09, @10:44PM (#523312)

      Have them hung, drawn, quartered, and whipped and boiled ... until ... until they've had enough!

    • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday June 09, @11:20PM (3 children)

      "... even if you're joking." -- Clint Eastwood in "The Line of Fire"

      A kuro5hin member speculated about putting a "covered person's" head on a pike in his front yard, then was visited by the Secret Service a few days later - at his place of work.

      --
      we have a ... crazy person (MDC), that regularly posts more coherent and interesting things than do these racist trolls
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @11:39PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @11:39PM (#523328)

        Our tax dollars a work. Yay freedom! Long live the king!

      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday June 10, @12:56AM (1 child)

        by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 10, @12:56AM (#523340) Homepage Journal

        They can come and get me, eh!
        Hosers.
        I. AM. CANADIAN.
        ;)

        --
        --- I wish i had a cig for every sig i've ever had: i'd have cancer and wouldn't you feel bad for looking here. ---
    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday June 11, @12:20AM

      by isostatic (365) on Sunday June 11, @12:20AM (#523626) Journal

      We hung parliament in the uk. Turns out it just means putting (ex?) terrorists in national government.

(1)