Computer Specialist Who Deleted Clinton Emails May Have Asked Reddit For Tips (usnews.com) 612
An anonymous reader quotes a report from U.S. News and World Report: An army of reddit users believes it has found evidence that former Hillary Clinton computer specialist Paul Combetta solicited free advice regarding Clinton's private email server from users of the popular web forum. A collaborative investigation showed a reddit user with the username stonetear requested help in relation to retaining and purging email messages after 60 days, and requested advice on how to remove a "VERY VIP" individual's email address from archived content. The requests match neatly with publicly known dates related to Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state. Stonetear has deleted the posts, but before doing so, the pages were archived by other individuals. "ARCHIVE EVERYTHING YOU CAN!!!!" a person wrote on a popular thread on the Donald Trump-supporting subreddit r/The_Donald, as the entries disappeared. There are several reasons to believe the reddit user is indeed Combetta, who was granted immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation of Clinton's private server after he deleted a large number of emails. The evidence connecting Combetta to the account is circumstantial, but also voluminous. The inactive website combetta.com is registered to the email address stonetear@gmail.com, a search of domain registration information using the service whois.com indicates. An account for a person named Paul Combetta on the web bazaar Etsy also has the username stonetear. And, perhaps most damningly, there are the dates. Stonetear posted to reddit on July 24, 2014: "Hello all- I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out..." U.S. News and World Reports adds: "On July 23, 2014, the House Select Committee on Benghazi had reached an agreement with the State Department on the production of records, according to an FBI report released earlier this month on the bureau's probe of her email use." Stonetear submitted an additional post to reddit on Dec. 10, 2014 that reads: "Hello- I have a client who wants to push out a 60 day email retention policy for certain users. However, they also want these users to have a 'Save Folder' in their Exchange folder list where the users can drop items that they want to hang onto longer than the 60 day window. All email in any other folder in the mailbox should purge anything older than 60 days (should not apply to calendar or contact items of course). How would I go about this? Some combination of retention and managed folder policy?"
UPDATE 9/19/2016: Slashdot reader NotInHere points out that there is a Slashdot user named "StoneTear" as well.
UPDATE 9/19/2016: Slashdot reader NotInHere points out that there is a Slashdot user named "StoneTear" as well.
just one thing to say (Score:4, Funny)
Whoop There it is!
Re: (Score:3)
For what purpose would they want to change the email address inside of an email?
Are we to believe they were so concerned about other peoples email addresses being exposed as part of a FOIA request? Or are they trying to make it harder to search for certain content and/or hide the actual identities of who they are corresponding with?
It's still tampering with federal records, which at last check used to be a federal crime... at least until the FBI & DOJ opted to let a whole lot of people walk.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This post from the exchange server subreddit might not answer all the questions, but helps me as someone not familiar with exchange to understand tools that are available for litigation and discovery, and maybe why and when they were or weren't used.
https://www.reddit.com/r/exchangeserver/comments/53ick9/remove_or_replace_tofrom_address_on_archived/d7tjg3v
To me it sounds like they wanted to tamper with the record before letting anyone else go over it with the normal tools.
Re:just one thing to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah I did. And I unlike you realize the following -
1. stripping the email address was almost certainly at a minimum an attempt to hide the fact that she was using a private server for government emails. (Something which would have gotten a "normal" person fired if not charged with multiple felonies)
2. stripping/altering the email address would have allowed them to cherry pick items - e.g. "well this email is potentially a problem, good thing it doesn't have clinton's email address on it!"
3. Later actions by the IT consultant (destroying evidence which was under subpoena) indicate the above was not simply "oooh we want to protect her private email address" rather it indicates they were looking at hiding or destroying the information.....
I dislike Trump but seriously just because he's the Republican candidate should not mean you are willing to overlook this kind of crap.
If the DNC wasn't corrupt at the core you probably would have had Sanders instead....
Re:just one thing to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah I did. And I unlike you realize the following -
1. stripping the email address was almost certainly at a minimum an attempt to hide the fact that she was using a private server for government emails. (Something which would have gotten a "normal" person fired if not charged with multiple felonies)
Except they already would have known she was using a private email address. That was the reason for the document request in the first place.
More likely it would be the case that they didn't want her email address on the thousands of pages of printouts they sent, maybe Clinton was hoping that the address wouldn't be published and she could keep using it.
It would be like a phone number, the moment it's published it's pretty much useless and you need to update everyone with your new contact info.
2. stripping/altering the email address would have allowed them to cherry pick items - e.g. "well this email is potentially a problem, good thing it doesn't have clinton's email address on it!"
3. Later actions by the IT consultant (destroying evidence which was under subpoena) indicate the above was not simply "oooh we want to protect her private email address" rather it indicates they were looking at hiding or destroying the information.....
Possibly, thou
Re:just one thing to say (Score:5, Interesting)
I dislike Trump but seriously just because he's the Republican candidate should not mean you are willing to overlook this kind of crap.
I can't stand that attitude, c'mon. "The second most disliked candidate in presidential polling history is corrupt as hell, so I guess we have to vote for the single most disliked candidate in presidential polling history."
No, you do not have to settle for someone you hate. Instead you can cast a vote for a smaller party, there is at least one on the ballet in all 50 states, and count your vote as a protest vote against the two-party system if you really don't believe someone in the smaller parties actually does represent your beliefs better (there's an argument to be made that a large percentage of Americans agree with the platform of the Libertarian party without knowing it).
You don't have to choose between Shitty and Shittier, vote against the entire system which would force you to choose between one of those two options while keeping the rest of the system in power.
Re:just one thing to say (Score:5, Funny)
Without direct knowledge what was in those emails
Man, if only we had direct knowledge of what was in those emails. Oh well, it was probably nothing, right? They were probably just low on disk space or something. We can take her on her word, right?
Deleting emails seems trivial in that light.
But, how can you say that without direct knowledge of what was in the emails?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh I read your post. I'm not denying anything you said. My point is that when considering the facts we do know about Clinton and about Trump, the facts about Trump are worse.
VIP (Score:5, Funny)
Very VIP, and I mean, Very, Very, Very VIP.
To Paraphrase Captain Bligh . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
To me that's the number one reason it seems completely faked. Who talks like that, as if somehow that means you will get a better quality of help?
Hes either a retard tech or its manufactured somehow. I am not a donal trump fan, but if someone were to find similar posts on technet then i might be more inclined to believe this. However the timing is just too convenient for trump.
There is a lot at stake here for the entire world to base solely on reddit "evidence".
Someone could have known his handle before han
Re: (Score:2)
Kato Kaelin?
Re:VIP (Score:5, Funny)
Brian Boitano?
Sounds like a job for regex (Score:2)
Of course, pointing out that email archival and retention guidelines apply to everyone regardless of so called "VIP" status is clearly not going to be well received. The VIPs never get treated like normal users. Cause of the specialness of their nature, being magical and all.
So, obviously they need more protection, so they can evade the purpose of the archival copies for legal proceedings. This is not destruction or tampering with evidence, this is all about the danger of libel, and the need for anonymity
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even need a regex because you're looking for a fixed string. All it takes is to rename the file and use one line of sed, outputting a file with the original name. Trivial, especially if you have it run
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think psts do, but don't quote me on that. Just export one, mangle it real good, then see if it imports.
If not, try something else.
After the cloth didn't wipe it... (Score:2)
Reminds me of a joke in the early 90s after Bill Clinton got elected and Hilary was suspected of being the real power running things:
What is the Bill Clinton's email address?
president@whitehouse.gov
What is Al Gore's email address?
vicepresident@whitehouse.gov
What is Hilary Clinton's email address?
root@whitehouse.gov
Ooh boy (Score:2)
"Secretary Clinton never directly instructed Mr. Combetta to delete her emails."
"Secretary Clinton had no knowledge about the day-to-day management of her IT systems"
"Secretary Clinton never even read her own emails"
"Secretary Clinton was too busy dodging bullets in Kosovo to be deleting her emails"
"Secretary Clinton relied on Secretary Powell's judgement in drafting her team's procedures on use and retention of email"
"I'd rath
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking pathetic. To anyone who still doesn't realize that Trump and Hillary have the exact same MO down to the micron, explain this.
I think in terms of their lying there's a difference in degree. Clinton has said what she said. Trump would claim that he had never used email. Or that email doesn't actually exist. And no one would actually call him on it.
I would love it but (Score:5, Insightful)
I would love if this will be the thing that stops Hillary, but she's as slippery as a greased weasel. She's already got the FBI and the Attorney General in her pocket so there's really no one left to prosecute her.
If this story gets any traction at all, watch how quickly she will throw this guy and anyone else standing near him under the bus without a second thought.
Re: (Score:3)
Get some evidence in your pocket, dear MindReader.
What the fuck happened to innocent-until-proven-guilty? Personal speculation is free and plentiful on the Webtubes; we have enough of that already.
bravery under fire (Score:3)
Oh, OK. It might as well be an "army of Anonymous Cowards from Slashdot". For a second, I thought this was real.
Oh that's not all (Score:5, Informative)
Once they tracked down his username they found out a few other things about him
Apparently email isn't the only thing he has trouble deleting https://archive.is/gIDN2 [archive.is]
Taste In Porn is interesting https://archive.is/Ct3eY [archive.is] https://archive.is/m78jo [archive.is]
I could see how working with Hillary could induce Bondage fantasies
Here's the rest of his stuff on Reddit
http://archive.is/KYaF0 [archive.is] http://archive.is/TCbPU [archive.is] http://archive.is/OoSMr [archive.is] http://archive.is/OoSMr [archive.is] http://archive.is/MjyK3 [archive.is] http://archive.is/lDzk0 [archive.is] http://archive.is/o4hrr [archive.is] http://archive.is/o4hrr [archive.is] http://archive.is/cfCeL [archive.is] http://archive.is/mYXp3 [archive.is] http://archive.is/kTDoF [archive.is] http://archive.is/iOjnh [archive.is] http://archive.is/TaYXV [archive.is] http://archive.is/EgZJR [archive.is] http://archive.is/MU0TL [archive.is] http://archive.is/WBG4m [archive.is] http://archive.is/HHHQi [archive.is] http://archive.is/Sq21A [archive.is] http://archive.is/zmpKK [archive.is]
Has slashdot comments too (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems there is a slashdot user named stonetear as well.
https://slashdot.org/~stonetea... [slashdot.org]
His comments:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
on Tuesday April 16, 2002 [slashdot.org], (archived link) [archive.fo]
The IIS patches aren't on liveupdate, you have to go get them
on Thursday January 24, 2002 [slashdot.org], (archived link) [archive.fo]
I'm contracted to a state government, and let me tell you, everyone here saves EVERYthing for cover-your-ass purposes.. it's really sad to see every little memo back to 1997 in someone's inbox taking up PHAT amounts of disk space on the GroupWise server ... sigh
Thursday July 19, 2001 [slashdot.org], (archived link) [archive.fo]
Gasbag Joe Liberman ... LOL right on! I just moved from Michigan, and he's one quack I'm not sorry to see gone. Well everyone knows that the liberal agenda includes removing any personal responsibility or blame for your actions from you, and putting them in the lap of big scary corporations and 'the internet' and such. Blah. ;) ST
Note: I do think clinton should win, but I'm still doing this, and if its just for transparency purposes.
Re:Has slashdot comments too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Has slashdot comments too (Score:4)
The no deletion policy of slashdot is part of why I prefer it over reddit. Everything slightly controversial gets deleted on that page. But better safe than sorry :)
Awesome that you stick with it!
Re: (Score:3)
Why do I think (Score:4, Insightful)
Get a DOJ not paired with the dems, and HRC's defenses fall apart. She's done too much, she either pardons herself or goes to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
That if HRC doesn't win in November, she'll be in jail a year from November?
No point wasting scandal-time on those without power.
Re: (Score:2)
That if HRC doesn't win in November, she'll be in jail a year from November?
You're assuming she'll survive her Parkinson's or whatever it is she's got.
Stonetear on slashdot? (Score:2)
Reddit? (Score:3)
The thing that caught my eye here was the mention of Reddit - is that a good forum to discuss techie things? Maybe I'll have to go and check it out - I always just dismissed it as yet another social media thing.
Oh, Clinton and Trump, yeah right, what's the fuss? Clinton is without doubt the most evil, criminal mastermind in history (based on hearsay on the gossip channels), and Trump is the spoiled son of a family that made it's fortune from brothels and gambling, apparently (if one can believe this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... [www.cbc.ca]). To be honest, I don't think it is only the political classes in the US that are sick - from the noises, it sounds like the whole nation is in the grip of severe, mental illness. I hope I'm wrong - I think any sane person would dismiss the more obviously stupid noises and look up fact for themselves, like what are the track records of the two candidates, what have they achieved that is relevant to the job they are applying for and so on. I mean, those things are in fact quite important, since the President holds real power, unlike some other heads of state. Has anybody of you guys with the loud voices even thought about what qualifications are desirable in a president? Or does it just boil down to "whatever seems to fit the description of our candidate"?
The world is going through a very difficult time, and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Globalisation means that things like nations and capitalism are beginning to lose their relevance, and climate change means that we are going to see major conflics over mass migration, among other things. Terrorism is only a small symptom of what is likely to come, if we don't get some things sorted out rather urgently, so I would suggest that people take the issue of who governs the most powerful nation on the planet a little more seriously; this isn't a cheap "reality show".
Re:wow, completely clueless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:wow, completely clueless... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:wow, completely clueless... (Score:4, Interesting)
The Brits moved out of Benghazi 6 months earlier explicitly because the security situation in the town was completely fucked unless they wanted to invest a shitload more material, soldiers, and money. The ambassador requested more soldiers and a more secure embassy multiple times over the preceding 12 months. Anybody involved paying fucking attention knew damn well that the situation was untenable but either Hillary or the White House found it politically expedient to leave them to hang out to dry. Then they subsequently lied about it in the media.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. Where do I apply to get these high-end IT jobs that require so little actual knowledge?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, "be willing to lie to congress and the FBI to defend your employer" is under "preferred skills".
Re: (Score:2)
Additional qualifications: Never indicted.
FTFY (Score:2)
Additional qualifications: Hardly ever indicted.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you willing to put the survival of your employer above your own and will you do blatantly illegal things for them? Are you socially liberal but psychologically pathological? Have you misplaced your conscience so thoroughly you sometimes wonder if you ever had one? Have you kidnapped an albino child and sacrificed them to Yog-Sothoth over a deep ocean trench? If not, would you for the chance at $50k per year and mediocre benefits?
If so there is one of these jobs waiting for you! Just place the tatte
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you go to get one. But apparently you go to jail after you get it.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the official definition of a high end IT job is "little actual knowledge".
Re:wow, completely clueless... (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, no one knows how to manage Outlook. (Or any full-fledged email service.)
Email, calendaring, and contacts are a nightmare.
And when I say "no one", I'm including Microsoft and Google. Yes, I've used their professional, big contract big dollar solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is nothing to be fair about. This guy had no business managing Exchange if he's asking questions like this. A simple search on Google would have given him an answer. If he's asking these sorts of questions he's maybe only slightly above the average help desk person who is answering the main line and reading from scripts and I think that is pushing it.
Not to mention his unprofessional millennial speak "Very VIP, really VERY VIP". 1st rule of being a professional, you don't talk about your shit, es
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention his unprofessional millennial speak "Very VIP, really VERY VIP". 1st rule of being a professional, you don't talk about your shit, especially when you're up to no good. He's a dumbass from the ground up.
Either that, or it wasn't him, but someone who wanted it to look like him...
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like Jen's interview from The IT Crowd?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
She's been playing by Animal Farm -
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others....
I seem to remember when Americans were begin snooped on, the argument for doing so pretty much always devolved to -
"You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide."
Seems to me politicians should be held to that standard BEFORE the average citizen is.....
Full transparency for politicians before we have our rights violated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is finished. There's no way she wins the election, and I say that as one of her supporters.
Somehow I doubt this.
Here is clear evidence of trying to hide something. This leaves no room for doubt.
And that evidence is... that her IT guy used Reddit?
That he was looking into ways to sanitize sensitive information before sending it out?
That they changed the email retention policy on a private server a couple years after Clinton left the State Department?
Just because a story has the words "Clinton" and "email" doesn't mean it contains incriminating evidence.
Re:Stick a fork in.... (Score:5, Insightful)
She has a plan. It's the same plan that she always uses. As Peggy Noonan recently wrote, the Clinton Scandal Ritual is to:
Lie, deny, revise, claim not to remember specifics, stall for time. When it passes, call the story “old news” full of questions that have already been answered. “As I’ve repeatedly said . . .”
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stick a fork in.... (Score:5, Informative)
Just a quick list of scandals from which she has recovered (source: http://www.redstate.com/califo... [redstate.com]):
Re: (Score:3)
Watergate - Hillary was fired from the staff of the House Judiciary committee investigating the Nixon Watergate scandal in 1974 by her supervisor, Democrat Jerry Zeifman, because she was a liar [foxnews.com]. Hillary "conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
Except that Zeifman was not her supervisor, and she wasn't fired http://www.snopes.com/politics... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I just hope the old battle-axe doesn't croak before Trump has the opportunity to trounce her.
Re: (Score:2)
This is finished.
This won't even be reported by most mainstream news, unless of course it gets so much attention they simply can't avoid it . Those that do will minimize it or repeat whatever response lines the Clinton campaign puts forth.
No sh!t they're trying to hide something (Score:2)
Re:No sh!t they're trying to hide something (Score:5, Insightful)
So far nobody's got any real dirt on Clinton.
Aside from the Obama administration who has an interest in protecting Clinton. And it's just national security felonies. No big deal.
Meanwhile Bush Jr deleted 22 million emails.
Because that's all the same once you ignore the differences such as Clinton's grossly negligent mishandling of classified information or intentional bypassing of State Department IT. And that Bush didn't do it, but rather the Republican National Committee.
I'm tired of people blowing off Clinton's long train of scandals and crimes with the same old rationalizations: "you can't prove it" and "Bush/some other Republican did it too".
Why would Clinton's supporters abandon her now? (Score:5, Funny)
When NY Times called her a "congenital liar" in 1996, the only question was, whether "congenital" was the right term [nytimes.com] — the "liar" was deemed quite apropos.
Fast forward 20 years to 2016, her loyal supporters — such as yourself — beg her to, please, stop lying [theatlantic.com].
So, her being a liar is well-known and perfectly established — and has been for many years. Presumably, all those lies have not been enough to dissuade her from supporting her until recently. Why are you abandoning her now, when she needs you most?
Re: (Score:3)
Very clever finding notorious hack Bill Saffire commenting on his own column [nytimes.com], and painting it as some sort of third party endorsement of his original column that history has shown is a pack of fail. Lest we forget The Starr Report. Lest we forget the final Travelgate report. Lest we forget the transparently political climate.
You need to troll much harder kid. I remember this shit.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
When Comey laid out all. of. the. elements. necessary for conviction of thousands of counts of espionage act violations
Um, no, that's not what happened. Is this a fever dream you had? Have you been drinking Trump wine?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Is it possible, somewhere behind the curtain, there's a cabal that's decided the power of the US Presidency must be reduced even if by ridicule?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
OTOH Trump doesn't hide that he's a flagrant racist and that's totally cool.
Found the SJW.
Because, wanting to control the borders and who/what enters like every other nation does is "racist".
Because, not allowing many thousands of unvetted (asking them "are you a terrorist?" is not vetting) Muslim military-aged men from Syria to be shipped into the US is "racist".
I won't be voting for either Trump or Hillary. Both, I'm certain, have more than earned prison cells & orange pantsuits if the legal system actually worked and Rule of Law was still a thing in the US.
Strat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Quotes? What did he say?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's wasting resources that could be spent on actually catching criminals and (more importantly) preventing crime.
United States, meet Robert Peel. Robert Peel, meet the United States. You have a lot to talk about. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see - if we look at [wikipedia.org]
Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....) (Score:4, Insightful)
FYI the media is lying to you. He never used racial profiling, he said profiling. [thehill.com] CNN started it, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, the papers(wapo, etc) all ran with it.
Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....) (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....) (Score:5, Informative)
Donald Trump does not hide it, that's true. That's because he, by all appearances, is not racist.
But, if you accuse him of racism, you have ample evidence, don't you? Let's see it, shall we? Be sure, though, to include only the things Trump actually said or did — not somebody else paraphrasing and otherwise engaging in hearsay...
Spent years suggesting that a black president wasn't born in the US, despite a ton of excellent evidence to the contrary.
Said a judge of Mexican heritage wasn't fit to judge him due to his heritage.
While speaking about illegal immigrants has focused pretty exclusively on those of Mexican ethnicity, has also engaged in broad (and inaccurate) generalizations about that group.
Has proposed banning members of a religion from the US (very similar to racism).
Regularly stereotypes blacks "you've got nothing to lose", suggesting that they're one monolithic underclass.
Extreme reluctance to reject or disavow David Duke or other white supremacists, same with racist memes he happens to retweet (accidental or not).
Now I don't know if he's personally racist or now, but many of the things he says and does are quite racist.
Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....) (Score:4, Informative)
How is that racism [princeton.edu]?
I did ask for actual quotes didn't I? And yet, you chose to paraphrase... What are you trying to slip here, uhm?
What Trump actually said, was that the judge — a Mexican racist himself ("La Raza" member) — may have a conflict of interest. If it is Ok to suspect [washingtonpost.com], that an All-white jury [wikipedia.org] may be unfair to a Black defendant, why is it "racist" to suspect, a Mexican may be unfair to a White one?
Not racism. Stick to the topic.
Never heard of it. Actual quotes, please.
Why is every Republican supposed to "disavow" Duke — except to play into the opponents trap of accepting some guilt (sort of like disavowing beating of one's wife)?
Would Bernie Sanders disavow Lenin [salon.com]? Has Hillary Clinton disavowed Al Sharpton, who, unlike Duke, actually encouraged racial violence and is responsible for at least one Jew getting killed by a Black mob [nydailynews.com]? No, she not only didn't disavow the asshole, she actively sought his endorsement and attended a rally at his organization [observer.com].
So far, the number of actual racist quotes is a perfect zero... Keep trying...
Re: (Score:3)
How is that racism [princeton.edu]?
It's an example extra layer of scrutiny applied only when the candidate is black. One only needs see the relative disinterest with which the birthers treated the fact that the exact scenario they were speculating about applied directly to Cruz.
Nothing, I just don't want to waste time.
What Trump actually said, was that the judge — a Mexican racist himself ("La Raza" member) — may have a conflict of interest.
Which was dumb, despite the fact they
Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....) (Score:4, Informative)
False. The scrutiny comes from the candidate's father being a non-citizen and the murky accounts of the candidate's birth. Donald Trump has questioned Ted Cruz's eligibility too — right or wrong, the scrutiny is not racist. Fail.
Citations?
False. White judges are suspected of bias against non-White defendants all the time [google.com]. Whether the suspicions are grounded or "dumb", they aren't racist. Fail.
Sorry, I do not see a stream of negative stereotypes — maybe, you should've posted actual quotes, as requested.
Unlike Hillary's endorsement by Sharpton, Duke's endorsement of Trump was completely unsolicited. If you begin rejecting all such "endorsements", you may not have time to talk about anything else — it is a strategic mistake for a politician to hand off the initiative to the opponents this way.
It was not — he was talking about diamonds being sent from South Africa to Crown Heights, for example. He was not "for Blacks", he was "anti Jews" — and stirring up rioters. You give me an example of David Duke doing anything like it...
But even if it were "BLM" — that alone is as racist as it gets. It really is mind-boggling, that the same person in the same post would attack one politician for "stereotyping" Blacks and defend another doing the same (with murderous results too)...
However you spin it, Al Sharpton is certainly no lesser racist, than David Duke. And yet, Clinton actively sought his endorsement — but you still accuse Trump of racism over unsolicited endorsement by Duke? How do you walk around with so much hypocrisy on you — does it not interfere with regular bodily functions?
Re: (Score:2)
Donald Trump has been rich and active for decades. Suddenly he runs against the Democrats and he's a racist.
No, he's been accused of racism in various forms for decades. Displacing minority residents through the abuse of eminent domain, exploiting foreign undocumented workers... it's all there. Look it up.
You're only hearing about it now because the private sector and public sector are held to different standards. Oh, and because for the first time his lack of concern for anyone but himself might negatively affect middle-class white people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry. For the sake of brevity, I did not provide a detailed list of all the things Donald Trump has said or done that in my opinion make him a worse option. I will refrain from doing so now, but if you would like a list, I refer you to anything Trump has said, ever. Full stop.
I do not believe that voting for the only viable candidate that is not named Trump is "abject stupidity", merely the only rational choice in a very distressed election cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stick a fork in.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
as much as you might disagree with some of their stances, their candidates aren't morally bankrupt idiots
I think that's probably not true. If they attracted the focus of other candidates, you would quickly find them morally bankrupt also.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with most of the minor parties is that behind the occasional great ideal lives a world of incredible stupidity that would end society as we know it.
Well at least that's how it typically happens in most places.
Re:Stick a fork in.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You seriously would vote for someone to uphold the "rule of law" who it seems has no respect for the law???
Seriously amazing. So you are fine with one set of rules for the "elite" and one set for everyone else eh?
Trump may be slime, but at the moment I don't think there is any sort of definitive proof he's broken the law,. If there were it almost certainly would have come
out by now and be front page headlines for every news organization in the US....
Here's a thought how about the DNC replaces her with someone who has NOT attempted to break the law? Failing that how about someone who doesn't have a paper trail showing they tried??????
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a thought how about the DNC replaces her with someone who has NOT attempted to break the law? Failing that how about someone who doesn't have a paper trail showing they tried??????
Too late. Ballot deadlines have passed. I believe early voting has started in some places. The DNC just can't call up 50 states and tell them to change the name on the ballots.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump may be slime, but at the moment I don't think there is any sort of definitive proof he's broken the law
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
And oh look, while trying to find details of that i found a whole list of other illegal things he's done/proposed doing:
http://www.pajiba.com/politics... [pajiba.com]
If there were it almost certainly would have come out by now and be front page headlines for every news organization in the US
These things do float to the top of the headlines every so often, but generally they're quickly forgotten about. I'm not sure why that is exactly. Because Trump's supporters don't
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, I cannot even imagine America with Trump in charge. I can't even think about it.
With Hillary, I can at least envision it. The usual political bullshit. Standard corrupt action and hubris. Bill dicking bimbos in the WH again. Mediocre government with the usual infighting.
I hate both of them, but Trump actually scares me, where Hillary only makes me angry and frustrated. And to be honest, I am not as much afraid of Trump himself, as I am that this country could actually elect someone like
Re: (Score:2)
The current system we have for voting in the United States is a first past the post election system. To understand why I (and others) mathematically can't
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you are in one of the battleground states, you do not have much of a voice. See how the electoral college works. If she's up 10-15% in the polls in your state on election day, your voice will be a tad louder voting for a candidate of your choice, rather than the "lesser of two evils".
For example: if you happen to live in California, you won't be blocking anybody. HRC is going to win unless we finally have that megaquake and all the costal cities fall into the ocean.
Re:Stick a fork in.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The "Birther" movement appeared during the primary season of 2008, when Obama was fighting Clinton for the nomination. It was pushed by Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, and Blumenthal, Clinton's long time friend, employee, and personal hatchetman. It was pushed so hard that a news agency actually sent a reporter to Kenya to investigate it.
The Clinton campaign also revealed a picture of Obama dressed up in "Kenyan" garb, as part of this effort, and Obama personally called Clinton out for this "disgusting" attack on him.
When interviewed, Clinton said she didn't know about his birth or religion. Not exactly shooting down the birther rumors her campaign spread, is it?
So while Trump may have not been correct when that she - to whit, Hillary Clinton - personally spoke those exact words. But since her CAMPAIGN did push those rumors, and she is well known as a micromanager, and a dirty and vindictive fighter, it is very hard to believe that she didn't know about the claims her campaign was making trying to get her elected.
Of course, the ACTUAL originator of the Birther claims was a guy that produced a book jacket biography for Obama's first book that was never written. That bio explicitly claimed that Obama was born in Kenya. The writer that produced that book jacket biography that was sent to the publishers? No one seens to know who it was, but it initials were B.O. and it's rumored he was last spotted at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC.
Re: (Score:2)
> Trump isn't winning shit.
Well, he's winning in some of the polls. And he won the nomination versus a field of over a dozen Republicans, some of whom spent all their money attacking him.
So... you SURE he won't win? I've been hearing everyone saying Trump was about to wash out since he announced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stick a fork in.... (Score:4, Informative)
I mean... he just fucking lied about Hillary making up the Birther argument right on camera. Lied. Straight lied his ass off. Not just the usual half-baked shit he throws off.
McClatchy: Clinton Advisor Sid Blumenthal Shopped Around Birther Rumors in 2008 [pjmedia.com]
Clinton’s 08 Campaign Manager Acknowledges Volunteer Sent Around Birther Email [dailycaller.com]
Former DC Bureau Chief: Clinton Surrogate Pitched Me ‘Birther’ Story In 2008 [dailycaller.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's why governments (counting police as part of the government) usually employ professionals who do this as their day jobs. The whole process is bound to certain rules, like the rule of no punishment without a court ruling, or the presumption of innocence, and it is usually better than an investigation done by an angry mob of laymen. But sometimes this system doesn't work, for example when it affects someone higher up. I can totally understand the government employees who refrain from investigating their
Re: (Score:2)
"Combetta, who was granted immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation of Clinton's private server after he deleted a large number of emails."
The guy is already telling the Justice Department what he knows in return for immunity. Reddit isn't accomplishing anything with their amateur-hour 'investigation' other than harassing and stalking stalk one of the key people who is actually helping the investigation.
But I suppose you forgot that part of the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)