Assange: Wikileaks Will Publish 'Enough Evidence' To Indict Hillary Clinton (rt.com) 742
An anonymous reader writes from a report via RT: Julian Assange says Wikileaks will have "a very big year" as it will publish enough new information about Hillary Clinton to indict her. In an ITV interview about the Democratic presidential candidate, Assange said, "We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication." As it stands, about 32,000 emails from Clinton's private server have been leaked by Wikileaks. Assange has yet to comment on how many new emails will be released or when they will be published. While he thinks there will be enough to indict Clinton, he doesn't think it will happen under Attorney General Loretta Lynch. He does think "the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment." Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country." Clinton's email controversy came to light in 2013 after a hacker named Guccifer breached her personal server.
Link to Location for Reading (Score:5, Informative)
Might want to use TOR or your favorite hiding software.
America Gets What It Deserves (Score:5, Insightful)
First Woman President? Big deal. First pre-indicted President.
Not like she hasn't already built a throne of children's skulls, and a platform of war crimes, on from which to rule.
Re:America Gets What It Deserves (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought that's a requirement now to be eligible for election?
Re:America Gets What It Deserves (Score:5, Funny)
I thought that's a requirement now to be eligible for election?
The requirement has been reduced to skulls from any person regardless of age. I don't necessarily agree with it, but times change, you know.
Why? (Score:3)
Re:Link to Location for Reading (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I know, ISIS didn't really exist before 2003 - so how would the Pentagon have been worried about them pre-2011?
Apologies to all. I misread the dates - this is why I shouldn't post before morning coffee.
Re: (Score:3)
Because 2003 is before 2011?
Re: (Score:3)
" ISIS didn't really exist before 2003 - so how would the Pentagon have been worried about them pre-2011?" Because 2003 is before 2011?
You've cracked the code! Beware of knocks on your front door today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Groups of violent islamists surely existed regardless of brand.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country."
Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I know, ISIS didn't really exist before 2003 - so how would the Pentagon have been worried about them pre-2011?
Not only that, but ISIS is not taking over Libya. It currently only holds a small and shrinking portion of Sirte. Incidentally, the same place that Ghadaffi built his power base and made his last stand.
The essential ingredient that makes it possible for the population to resist ISIS in Libya but not in Syria is the absence of a strongman willing to employ ISIS to save his own skin.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean Erdogan?
It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if she personally drove each drone and murdered a bunch of people, I'd still vote for her over Trump.
An eery similarity to the 1932 Reichstag elections. People knew that Adolf Hitler was a violent demagogue (from his Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch in 1923), but they absolutely refused to vote for the alternatives because they thought they had done something worse.
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:5, Insightful)
When discussing politics and democracy and how they can be perverted through providing the electorate with a terrible choice, their comment was precisely apt. Invoking Godwin's law here makes no sense.
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:4, Funny)
Dog-cow's Law: the first to mention Godwin's Law deserves to be gassed.
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:5, Insightful)
From your link: "Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate"
I can't think of a more appropriate comparison since the 1930s.
Re: (Score:3)
Is the Department of State part of the legislative or judicial branch?
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah... I have lots of seriously concerns about Clinton... but I'd pick her over Trump because I'm a one-issue voter, and that issue is not opening the seventh seal and ushering in the apocalypse.
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a one-issue voter, and that issue is not opening the seventh seal and ushering in the apocalypse.
The funny thing is that I'm also a one-issue voter, but in my case it IS ushering in the apocalypse.
Let's face it; our grand experiment with representative democracy is done. It failed. Let's just burn it to the ground, salt the ashes, and hope the cockroaches do better than we did.
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:4, Interesting)
Jill Stien, Presidential Candidate for the Green party said "Trump says terrible things, but Clinton does terrible things." I tend to agree Trump is an unknown and we have no idea how much is bullshit and what he intend to try and accomplish; we know Clinton's record. I'm pretty sure this is going to be the election where a third party candidate is who I'll be voting for.
More than likely voting for either Trump or Clinton will really be vote for who is running for Vice-President.
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah... I have lots of seriously concerns about Clinton... but I'd pick her over Trump because I'm a one-issue voter, and that issue is not opening the seventh seal and ushering in the apocalypse.
Um, Hillary has already pretty conclusively demonstrated that she can't keep anything securely sealed.
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if she personally drove each drone and murdered a bunch of people, I'd still vote for her over Trump.
This year is the perfect example of why we need to get rid of "first past the post" voting. It's too bad it couldn't happen because the two major parties have themselves "locked in" and control the system.
Both of the major parties are on track to nominate candidates who are hated by more Americans than they are liked. This has never happened in the history of modern polling.
Under a different and more fair voting system that is determined to select a winner that would be considered qualified by a majority of Americans, this election so far would be very likely to lead to a 3rd-party president.
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is only an issue if you live in a swing state where there's any uncertainty in the election. If you live in, say, California, it doesn't matter how you vote, the Democratic candidate is getting all your state's electors no matter what. So given that, what do you have to lose voting third party, if you actually prefer a third party? Nothing. What you have to gain, on the other hand, is the major parties looking at how their votes stack up compared to previous years and, if they lost some, who gained those votes instead; and if, say, the Democrats lose a (insignificant in the election but notable to their analysts) chunk of votes to the Greens, they will start adopting Green policies to court those Green voters.
If you live in a non-swing state, not voting for a third party is throwing your vote away, because you neither change the outcome of the election (which you weren't going to do anyway) nor do you influence policy at all, you just confirm for the major parties that they're on the right track as they are.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you a fucking retarded asshat??
Her huge crime is sending emails with a blackberry???!?!
Her predecessor Colin Powell used his own email server...
Her predecessor was Condoleezza Rice. The rules and regulations regarding electronic communications were firmed up before Clinton took office.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No he used a public email address for personal mail and the official email server for government business. There were two emails forwarded to his private email that were retroactively made classified. This is in the IG report under a Democrat and is a far different situation then having all emails on a private server which can be wiped (not with a rag) to avoid FOIA requests and criminal investigations.
Of course you know this. Your post is one of the official talking points that the Clinton campaign pays
Re: (Score:3)
DO NOT DO THAT if you don't want Trump to win.
Sanders has ZERO hope of winning as a write-in. All you'll do is fragment the Democratic vote.
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score:4, Insightful)
All you'll do is fragment the Democratic vote.
That's the entire point. If the democrats see that a 3rd party stole 30% of their vote and they lost because of it, they'll learn their lesson and run a better candidate next time (or implode completely and the 3rd party will take their spot). Same goes for the republicans if Johnson gets a significant fraction of the vote. Plus a Trump or Clinton presidency is hardly going to be world ending. Our system is designed to deal with bad presidents, we have the legislative and judicial branches to stop them if they try to do anything truly terrible.
why does everyone have "enough evidence"? (Score:5, Insightful)
The proof is in the pudding, princess. and my spoon is clean.
Re:why does everyone have "enough evidence"? (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. If you have evidence, fucking release it already! It's as if everybody (the FBI, and now Wikileaks) wants to wait until after the Democrat national convention just to fuck over Sanders (and the progressive movement).
That's okay (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld overrode the Pentagon's concerns about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. We were repeatedly told the war would be over very quickly, a matter of weeks, and that the Iraqis would pay for the reconstruction of their country through oil revenues. We were also told we would be welcomed with open arms by the entire Iraqi community.
Cheney continues to say he knows where the wmds are yet refuses to reveal their locations. Perhaps he should be waterboarded, since it's not torture, to reveal that information.
Still waiting on their indictments.
Re:That's okay (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld overrode the Pentagon's concerns about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. We were repeatedly told the war would be over very quickly, a matter of weeks, and that the Iraqis would pay for the reconstruction of their country through oil revenues. We were also told we would be welcomed with open arms by the entire Iraqi community.
And as bad and stupid as all this was, Trump's current recruitment drive for ISIS trumps (ahem) even this. It seems that his demagoguery is an attempt to inflame his fraidy-cat supporters and help radical Islam by pushing the moderates toward them. They're so frightened that they're willing to abandon traditional American ideals like religious tolerance and justice and they're so stupid that they can't figure out that this is exactly the wrong thing to do in terms of the real-life consequences.
This is not to defend Clinton's arrogant refusal to follow the rules but to point out that when there's a choice between bad and worse, we have to choose bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Religious tolerance in the US was based on the Westphalia system - essentially a cease-fire between Christians. You'll notice that the very first clause of the 1st Amendment forbids the Federal Congress from abolishing any of the State Churches in the colonies (an Establishment of Religion), which is also the core of the Westphalia treaties. We've been happy to extend that tolerance to other religions, so long as they were willing to work within the common framework.
One aspect of the ascendant alt-right,
Re: (Score:3)
In 2016, 8 years after he was no longer president, the "It's Bush's fault" is getting a little worn-thin, particularly when she was part of the government that sent us to war.
Oh, and Clinton's speech supporting her vote in favor:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/... [dailykos.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Even the accusation is not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Even the accusation is not enough (Score:4, Insightful)
But you know what is blatantly illegal and would get you or me thrown into jail for the rest of our lives if we did it?
Discussing classified matters, such as what we're telling the Pentagon to do, using private email.
Hillary Clinton was provided with methods to communicate securely. She refused to use them. Her decisions may not be illegal, but making them using classified information via a private email server?
You better believe that's illegal.
Re:Even the accusation is not enough (Score:4, Interesting)
Hillary Clinton was provided with methods to communicate securely. She refused to use them. Her decisions may not be illegal, but making them using classified information via a private email server?
Even worse. She choose to use the private server first. Looks to me like she intended to evade the Public Records act and Freedom of Information Act requests from the very beginning. That's evidence of crime BTW.
So wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country."
Points here:
Chain of custody? Forensics? Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
E-mails are just text files, and can be easily forged. Anyone who's ever gotten a spam message from themselves should realize this.
Collecting forensics evidence from a hard drive so that it's admissible in courts is not the same as just dumping files. Last I knew, you have to preserve the data in the original format, and provide access to the defense.
Unless these E-mails are signed by a private key known to be Clinton's, I don't really see how they're going to be admissible.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, no....
The defense asks, "where did you get these files?"
Prosecution replies, "Wikileaks."
Defense says, "motion to suppress."
Judge rules, "granted."
Re:Chain of custody? Forensics? Anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, no....
The defense asks, "where did you get these files?"
Prosecution replies, "Wikileaks."
Defense says, "motion to suppress."
Judge rules, "granted."
No, the judge would say "on what grounds?"
The tortuous route by which the messages arrived in front of the court gives the defense grounds to argue that they could be forged/altered/whatever, and the burden of proof that they're real and accurate is on the prosecution, not the defense, but the mere fact that evidence hasn't been carefully controlled and preserved at every step doesn't automatically disqualify it. Police are careful to control evidence, but that's not because failing to do so automatically excludes it, it's just because it opens an avenue for the defense to question it.
So Hillary wrongly backed Europe? (Score:3)
Facepalm (Score:3)
Clinton's email controversy came to light in 2013 after a hacker named Guccifer breached her personal server.
a) Guccifer exposed a handful of Clinton's emails by breaking into the email account of one of her friends and leaking the ones she sent him.
b) The email controversy came to light because the Republicans trying to lynch her for Benghazi realized she sent all her emails through the private server.
c) Guccifer's "hacking" involves guessing password reset questions and bragging about everything he finds. To think he not only "breached her personal server" but then kept his mouth shut about it and never dumped a thing is absurd.
This is a damn tech site, certainly people can show some basic critical thinking skills and not just repeat the wild-ass claims of every wannabe hacker looking for notoriety.
Re:Sources of Support (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, while we're at it, why not give the CIA information they can blackmail her on, too, so they can force her to authorize torture again. Give it to the NSA, too, so they can make her mandate sticking espionage chips in every orifice for everyone at birth.
Re: Sources of Support (Score:4, Insightful)
The FBI already have the leverage. This is more about the rest of us knowing about said leverage as it is being applied.
Re:Sources of Support (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I think he's saying that the FBI already has leverage if Hillary is the next President. It's not like the FBI doesn't already have the information he's threatening to release to the public (where do you think the leaks came from?). What he's threatening is to show the public that the FBI has (and, presumably is using) some leverage they have over the Pres.
Mind you, he's wrong about that. If Hillary is elected, she can pardon herself quite legally, and there is ZERO chance of the Senate impeaching her. Hell, the Senate wouldn't impeach her if she visited the Senate to make a speech carrying Bill's severed head....
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe he thinks that the only way to make things better is by making them ab
Re:Sources of Support (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr. Putin prefers Trump to be the next president, as it may fragment NATO and other US alliances. This is his ultimate and most desirable goal, it will make him strongest bully in his yard.
He certainly has plenty of influence in the circles of people like Assange and can subtly manipulate them pushing to the right direction without them having a clue that they are manipulated and used.
Re: (Score:3)
although it's difficult to imagine how they'd do that without looking stupid after Obama called her the 'most qualified candidate ever'.
With all the other stupid stuff he has said (57 states, ISIS is like a JV team, etc), people have got to be used to it or just not care.
Re: (Score:3)
It certainly would have helped if he'd published it a couple of months ago.
Yes, that would have helped Bernie Sanders, who would be a different candidate. I am guessing, that is not who they wanted to see picked. Even now the Democrats are headed to a technically [realclearpolitics.com] open/contested convention. If Bernie would drop out (before) the convention, then we might see this kind of release of evidence to, "save the party." Without that concession, you run the risk of all the super delegates switching to Bernie and handing him the nomination. In most things timing is very important, politi
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sources of Support (Score:5, Informative)
Negotiating treaties is the sole purview of the executive branch. The constitution gives the Senate the right to RATIFY a treaty with a 2/3rds vote but not the power to negotiate them.
Re:Sources of Support (Score:5, Insightful)
True, the power to negotiate treaties belongs to the Executive and the power to ratify a treaty belongs to the Senate.
Of course, the Senate is free to proclaim its intention to not ratify a treaty based on the information at hand. Plus, there's the whole notion that Obama knew damn well that the Senate would not ratify any such "treaty". So he just proclaimed that he was not negotiating a treaty, but instead working on a "non-binding agreement with some plans for enforcement" in a shallow attempt to bypass the ratification power of the Senate. It would seem to me that if he says he was not negotiating a treaty, then claiming the power to negotiate a treaty is moot.
As CNN put it at the time:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/... [cnn.com]
If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it a treaty?
According to the White House, only if the President of the United States says it is.
That's infuriating Republicans and even some Democrats, who are demanding that the Obama administration submit any final nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for approval.
"This is clearly a treaty," Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday. "They can call it a banana, but it's a treaty."
The GOP position could jeopardize the long-term survival of any Iran deal, and it represents the party's newest clash with President Barack Obama over the limits of executive authority, as Republicans object to a pact they warn could eventually give Tehran a nuclear bomb.
It's that skepticism that has largely led the White House to define the deal as a "nonbinding agreement" rather than a "treaty," which the Constitution requires Senate "advice and consent" on.
The distinction -- and whether it can legitimately be used to shut out Congress -- turns on complicated and unresolved questions of constitutional law. While Republicans call foul, the administration defends the differentiation as perfectly sound, and no surprise.
Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.
"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing.
That doesn't sit well with Republicans, many of whom believe the Senate's constitutional role is being bypassed.
Idaho Sen. James Risch dismissed the administration's argument: "Let there be no mistake, this is a treaty that is being negotiated. It's a treaty and should be treated as such."
Re: Sources of Support (Score:3)
Ok, when did the deal get submitted to the Senate for ratification?
Re: Sources of Support (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I think that both major parties are a bunch of losers, but esp the GOP for starting this BS.
Re:Sources of Support (Score:4, Insightful)
Things aren't that black and white anymore. Our government has been usurped, and as such been infiltrated at the highest levels by people who wish to see America and all of Western Civilization as we know it taken down to the ground. This includes many high-level Democrats and Republicans. A majority of Trump and Sanders supporters see their candidate's success as the only way to have even a long shot at an outsider restoring the Republic back to some semblance of normalcy, of true justice and being a nation of laws. It's not anti-American glee when the system you're rooting against has become obviously and vehemently anti-American.
But it's OK, keep rooting for the occupied establishment if that's the side of history you want to be on. At this point the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Something has to be done to stop the spread of ISIS and other terrorist groups from advancing further on Western Civilization, with which they are wholly incompatible. That won't be happening with any establishment candidate, as they are they ones encouraging more of the same. If you want about 10 more Orlandos, each bigger than the last, keep trying to spread your propaganda that being against Clinton is being for the KGB. I hope you can sleep at night afterwards.
Re:Sources of Support (Score:5, Interesting)
You are a melodramatic fantasist.
The problem is, everything IS as dire as you portray - but it's not a Manichean fairytale of "high level conspirators against 'Western Civilization"."
This IS the natural fruit of your so-called "civilization". A cursory understanding of history of the "Western" world - from Phoenicia and Greece through Rome, all the Renaissance and "enlightenment" to today - all of it is hardly different from what is portrayed on "Game of Thrones". I can say that without hyperbole.
The idea of "Western Civilization" is just another chauvinism - another mythology by which you are crudely manipulated as a tool of those same forces you imagine to be in "betrayal".
No man in earth understands ANYTHING, until he has insightful awareness that EVERYTHING he knows is WRONG.
Then his eyes may see clearly. He has no solution, but surely understands the nature of things.
Re:Sources of Support (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree 100% AC. My question to the American "patriots" is what happens when the ideal America you are patriotic about, is not the America you live in? When do you recognize that the name itself does not warrant patriotism, but rather the ideals for which it actively works?
Notice I didn't say the ideals it claims to stand for, because saying you are for freedom and democracy is very different from actually allowing people to be free and have a functioning system of democracy. It seems to me (as a non-American) that America has been slipping further and further away from what the patriots claim America represents.
You don't live in the post-war 50's with an American dream available to all. You live in a country where the dictators all follow their name with a trademark symbol, and aren't breaking laws because they get to buy them from your "democratically elected" government. I use quotations because it seems odd to have a system where you are stuck with 1 of 2 possiblities, both of whom seem to be picked by the parties themselves more than voting, based on super-PAC funding and donations from the corporations.
So again I ask: What are you patriotic towards, the America of today, or the ideal of America?
Re:Sources of Support (Score:5, Interesting)
It isn't so much as wanting interference of a foreign body, it is about wanting the corruption to come to light. If Hillary hasn't done anything wrong, then she shouldn't have anything to fear and hide. Would you be less bothered if this was occurring to Trump perhaps? Personally if it happens to Obama, Trump or any politician, who has been behaving less than morally and arguably in direct violation of the Constitution it would be good for the country. The sooner people see that criminals in highest levels of the political spectrum are held unaccountable the better. People need to understand a criminal in your party of preference is no better than a criminal in the party you oppose. Let them be held accountable as the criminals they have become.
Re:Sources of Support (Score:5, Insightful)
Showing glee at the downfall of that corrupt, lying, incompetent woman doesn't make one a Trump or Sanders supporter.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe he was talking about Belarus or Transnistria - KGB still exists there. Besides, FSB would be the wrong intelligence agency in this case - they are responsible for internal security, so they are more like the FBI. SVR RF is the foreign intelligence counterpart. The mistake is pretty common because KGB used to be responsible for both federal crime investigation and also for foreign intelligence.
Re: He wants Trump? (Score:4, Informative)
Are you surprised? This is, after all, a guy who overrode the democratic vote of the Wikileaks party in Australia to preference with the fascist Australia First party over the Greens, describes himself as a "big admirer" of Rand Paul, opposes abortion, and supports both Putin and Assad. Who do you think he'd support in this election in the US?
Re: He wants Trump? (Score:5, Interesting)
The rank and file did not simply "not approve that", they explicitly voted against it. Assange and his representative controlled two seats of the council. His proposal got three votes for it (aka, only one other person), five opposed, and three obstained - it failed (this was the only of the 13 party meetings that Assange had actually bothered calling into). Yet somehow, not long after the vote, they ended up discovering that they were actually set up to preference with Australia First despite the vote. Assange blamed it on an "administrative error", and implied that it was the party's council's fault. The council fought and eventually got Assange to concede to allow an investigation into the issue of what happened. Only, they then subsequently discovered that he was only going to allow the investigation after the election and that he himself would personally run it. Eventually it emerged that Assange himself had ordered it. Four of the 11 council members resigned immediately. Four more council members joined in with a strong condemnation. There were mass waves of resignation from the party at lower levels. There was actually a statement posted on the Wikileaks party website apologizing for the subversion of democracy, encouraging people not to vote for them in NSW and to vote for Scott Ludlam instead.
This sort of stuff is really par for the course with the guy.
Re:He wants Trump? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: He wants Trump? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:He wants Trump? (Score:5, Informative)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Democratic national convention hasn't happened yet. She's just the presumptive nominee.
Re:He wants Trump? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So Assange wants us to end up with Trump?
Not particularly, but Clinton pushed hard for the prosecution of Assange for publishing the Classified leaks he got from Manning, this time it's personal.
Re: He wants Trump? (Score:4, Insightful)
What theory? that corporations fund election campaigns? That there are lobbiers sponsored by companies, whose entire job is to convince politicians. That senators get high paying executive jobs after they leave.
Companies don't do it out of the kindness of there heart they do it because it gets them political influence, which makes them money.
These aren't even secret. There are conspiracy theories that are probably nonsense, like the moon landing but this is not one of them.
The theory people with money will use it to seek power, in not a conspiracy theory it is human nature.
Re: He wants Trump? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a friend who believes in a lot of conspiracy theories that don't have much evidence, like chemtrails for example. He'll try to convince me that they're true and he thinks it's funny when I continue to insist that there is no evidence and get angry or frustrated about his unsubstantive claims. Maybe 4 or 5 years ago he had a new one, that the NSA was recording every phone call in the US. I was telling him how much access they would need to do that, at every phone company, how much storage space they would need to save all of that data, even if it was just text and not even audio, all of the reasons why that shouldn't be possible and, if it was, someone would know something and would tell everyone.
yeah...
Re:then release it already (Score:4, Interesting)
They could release that Hillary is a serial killer with 50 people locked up in her basement, but if Obama is in office and pardons her, it's all for naught.
Supposedly the FBI is waiting for her to be President, or not be President, but as long as the current President has her back, any evidence against her can be signed away.
Re:then release it already (Score:4, Informative)
The number of people who have been murdered or committed suicide that were going to testify or being investigated in regards to a Clinton related investigation is astounding! 89 deaths, 59 in 12 Plane Crashes, 13 Murders , 10 Suicides, 4 Friendly Fire during the Waco Assault and 03 Accidents.
Re: (Score:3)
leaked data is always heavily politicized. Choices are made to publish the material. That in itself is a political act. Not controlling the information supplied to them, doesn't make them pro republican because they happen to get leaked data making a democrat look bad.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
The regular population doesn't realize she is a crook. To the unwashed masses anything about their candidate is propaganda by the competing party to make them look bad, it "isn't a thing".
People want to be lied to.
Re:Evidence? (Score:5, Funny)
You paraphrased Trump and your nickname is Cro Magnon.
This stuff writes itself.
Re:Evidence? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Evidence? (Score:5, Funny)
Stupid meteors... Coming to our planet and taking extinction level event causing jobs away from hard-working Earth-based calamities. Super Volcano would have the best eruptions. Fantastic. He's destroy the most people ever. He's getting tons of compliments for how much destruction he'd cause. He'll build a wall of smoke around the world and make us all pay for it... with our lives.
This November, Vote Super Volcano 2016!
Snopes says not true... (Score:5, Informative)
Truth or Fiction web site says not true. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Truth or Fiction web site says not true. (Score:4, Insightful)
But they're all dead nonetheless. Curiosity must not be strong here.
What is the point of curiosity if it lacks the intelligence to discern correlation from causation?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Indict? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't understand the law.
Send information that is required by law to be on secure communications and you have committed a crime.
Markings, intent, not classified at the time... all of that is immaterial.
If you do it, even "accidentally", you are usually in deep shit.
But not Hillary. Wonder why....
Re:Indict? (Score:5, Informative)
It's much, much more complicated than that. Just as one little wrinkle -- as Secretary of State (an official part of the executive branch), Hillary had the power to classify information or to de-classify already classified information IF the classification originated with her office. So, if she sent something that was classified by the Secretary of State office (which would be many things dealing with foreign intelligence), she could actually de-classify it, transmit it, then re-classify it later on a whim.
It's very, very hard to know what was and was not classified at the time she sent or received information and whether or not she had the power to de-classify anything that might have been sent or stored improperly.
The reason she's special is that she's a cabinet member, not some junior officer out at an army base. She has plenary power granted by the presidency to classify and un-classify documents herself that originate with her office. It absolutely DOES matter whether or not something was classified at the time it was sent or received, and if it is classified, it matters which department classified it.
As an aside, many things are "classified" just so certain people can get all of their e-mail through their classified-only e-mail account b/c they're too lazy to check 2 separate e-mails. I'm sure somewhere, there's a classified document on what pizza toppings a general wants at their upcoming office birthday party... b/c laziness.... not national security.
Hillary used the private e-mail server to intentionally control what information was available by the FOIA and federal records act, and she may be criminally indicted for improperly sending/receiving/storing classified info (though I doubt it.) The relevant laws do actually require knowledge and intent, not just the action... so, unless the DOJ gets Hillary's former underlings to roll on her (and assuming they aren't immediately reported to have suspiciously committed suicide), it's going to be a very difficult case to build against her.
Re:Indict? (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, the old Nixon defense:
In the context of American national security, Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Re:Indict? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it was illegal at the time.
First, the Clinton campaign tried to excuse the server by conflating retroactively marking documents classified with retroactively classifying documents. Problem is markings are not what makes a document classified.
Currently, the Clinton campaign is trying to push an argument that she lacked intent, and thus can not be indicted. The problem is the relevant statute does not require intent. She can be indicted based on either 1) intent or 2) gross negligence. And the email saying "we got hacked, so we turned the server off for a minute" demonstrates gross negligence pretty well.
Already did. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/st... [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Stripping the classification markings off a document without proper review is a problem. Whether it breaks "the rules" or "the law" depends on a lot of details about the circumstances.
We don't know what was or was not actually classified, since that part was redacted....which you'd know by reading the article.
Since there are redactions, either there was classified information,
Re:Indict? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to complicate things, not only is it up to the person writing a document to ensure the information is properly marked -- a process that is bound to be error prone, I believe that the Sec of State is one of the very numerous people who can legally change the classification of a piece of information. Not only is "I didn't think THAT was classified" often a legitimate defense, "I didn't think that SHOULD be classified" may well be a legitimate defense for the SecofState.
Re:Indict? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except it wasn't illegal at the time.
Sending and storing classified material insecurely has been illegal for a very long time. It was definitely illegal during her term a Secretary of State. Knowing that the material is classified is on the onus of the sender/possessor, and as SoS she is legally expected to know what is classified. While she can technically tap dance around Department of State material classification since as SoS theoretically she gets to set the rules (though within limits, some I have listed below, and my guess is she violated those), she doesn't get to change other department's/agency's material. Leaving off the markings doesn't change that she was insecurely sending and storing classified material that by law has handling requirements that she was violating. As jeff4747 said, she is acting like the material is being retroactively classified which is isn't; it is being retroactively marked. It was classified at the time and by not marking it then, she is now claiming ignorance. If she was that ignorant of the rules she was placed in the position to enforce, then she had no right being the Secretary of State. Telling a staffer in an email to strip off classification markings and send a classified document by insecure means just demonstrates how she thought the law didn't apply to her.
She had no 'intent' to harm the interests of the United States.
Knowingly violating the laws designed to provide protection of information "which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security" just for her own convenience, and so she can skirt FOIA issues, is legally considered a form of "intent", i.e. gross negligence. Think of a guy at the NSA taking top secret documents home at night to work on them. He doesn't intend to cause harm, but he can still go to jail.
Do you have some statute that you're not selectively reading?
I think 46 CFR 503, EO13526, 32 CFR 2001, 18 USC 798, DoDD 5200 et al, etc., don't need to be selectively read. They make the duties of people dealing with classified info very clear - and the mishandling very illegal.
Or are you just listening to the other misogynists?
Ahhh, invoking an ad hominem attack, and a bad one at that. So you label anyone who speaks against her as a misogynist? In your world it's not possible for a person to disagree with her based on the merit of the facts? Just to be clear, you are the one who has brought her gender into the discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
That's basically part of the problem with all this. It's not to say that it wasn't a terrible idea that was horribly insecure, but none of it was per se illegal at the time.
First, it is highly illegal. (The "at the time qualifier" makes no sense... it's been illegal for a long, long time.)
Really the only thing that she could possibly be indicted/convicted on related to this is an attempt to cover up or destroy evidence - and even then, you'd pretty much have to get a smoking gun in this day and age, like catching her emailing her staffers with direct instructions to violate the law. Good luck finding anything like that.
Every paragraph of those documents would begin with a classification code. It's not like it's metadata that can be lost in a file transfer. She would have had to have someone print and re-type the documents to remove the codes. Unless that guy comes forward and falls on his sword, she has no defense. She willingly and deliberately circumvented the classification system, then put the document
Re: (Score:3)
After the election.
Re: (Score:3)
Nixon was never impeached. The paperwork recommending the impeachment were drafted but never voted on. He resigned before they had a chance to vote. Since it was never approved he was never impeached.
Re: (Score:3)
Clinton pushed for a stronger response to Crimea and an invasion of Syria while she was SoS. And Trump is kind of an isolationist, at least when it comes to the parts of the world Russia wants to influence.
So between Clinton and Trump, Putin benefits most from Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the Daily Mail has more journalistic integrity than RT.
Re: (Score:3)
US Politics is a complete and total disaster, the US Govt is a mob of evil clowns, and Washington DC is their circus
This is what is known as a "vicious-cycle".
Re: (Score:3)