Republicans want IT bloke to take fall for Clinton email brouhaha US House Republicans are demanding prosecutors bring charges against the IT chap who hosted Hillary Clinton's private email service. The chairman of the House of Reps' Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Lamar Smith (R‑TX), today sent a formal letter [PDF] to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, asking that charges be filed …
Big John : I honestly dont know what Hillary got up to, if anything. I'm guessing that you don't stay in american politics for that long without picking up a few brown stubborn under stains. I'm less than impressed with the current president though, struggling to see how she could have been worse. That must be one of the big negatives of a 2 party system. If both the candidates are twats, you end up with a fairly high probability that you are going to elect a twat. Over here, we seemingly have a one party system at the moment.
Big John, you make Hillary sound like quite an improvement over what we ended up with.
Course not. If he did he'd pass it on to the feebs and in one of their many investigations into Clinton, using his wonderful trustworthy evidence, they would've arrested, charged, and seen her convicted.
Strange how even with an all-refudlian government, none of this has happened. Guess that means bj's et al oft-repeated claims of illegal activity by HC are made of the same substance that Ol' McDonald's bull left on the ground.
(And yet another broken campaign promise for CMIC - promises to have HC "locked up")
> "If you're going to lie, at least pick some that aren't so easily falsifiable."
I would give you the same advice. Your source (CharityWatch) certainly looks definitive at first glance, but I dug up this site which points out that not only does CharityWatch charge $50 just to see their ratings data, but the dude who seems to run it single-handedly has been banned by Wikipedia for lack of neutrality in responding to criticism of his little site.
So I stand by my statements. Okay, maybe Hillary didn't get paid directly from her slush fund, but it sure made her financial health a lot better over the years of its operation, which BTW ended as soon as she lost the election.
I guess those wealthy foreign potentates didn't feel like throwing good money after bad, eh? ;-/
Since you weren't following closely, know that Mrs. Clinton sold her influence as Secretary of State to many foreign leaders and organizations for world record sums, and pathetically attempted to claim they were 'donations' to her charity, the one that had 80-90% overhead costs.
Complete BS. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf
Hillary received $0 from the foundation, and Let's not even compare that to Trump's fake charity that just passed on money other people put in it
I doubt anyone seriously claimed that any of the Clintons made money on the Clinton Foundation other, possibly, than a trustee fee of the sort usually payable but sometimes declined.
The question some people have raised is whether some of the gifts to the foundation were made anticipating possible benefits after Ms. Clinton's election to the presidency, especially gifts from foreign sources, some of which were governments or otherwise government-connected. Reports of significant declines in donations since the election, although mostly not from sources I think highly reputable, suggest some of them were so motivated,
Remember that even before the primary campaign starts, the majority of voters have already decided who to vote for: The D or the R. Party loyalties go back generations. They are part of cultural identity, and they are largely unshakable.
That's why a key part of any campaign isn't just to win the undecided voters to your side, it's also to make sure those who already support your party are sufficiently enthused to actually go down to the polling station and do the vote thing.
Plus, as should never be forgotten, Trump actually got fewer votes than Hillary. He won only because of the electoral collage, a system which was established for the sole purpose of ensuring that certain states (ie, mostly southern states with lower population density) would have an influence upon the election disproportionate to their number of voters. He won according to the rules that constitution lays out, but those rules are arcane relics from a time long-past.
> "Trump actually got fewer votes than Hillary."
That's a falsehood the Left constantly attempts to use to delegitimize President Trump. There was NO popular vote, only 50 separate state votes.
Also the Left doesn't mention all the millions of Trump supporters residing in states like California and New York that didn't bother to vote, knowing their votes would have no effect against all the libs in those highly populated states. If there HAD been a true popular vote that meant something, the results would be very different. Sure Trump might have lost that way, but the point is we don't know, so saying "Trump lost the popular vote" is pure BS.
Basically Hillary lost, period.
Further, it seems likely that at least 1-2 million 'migrants' were able to illegally vote in those states, given how the Dems in control there made sure no picture ID was required to vote while at the same time providing driver's licenses to the illegals. Apparently having to prove you're a citizen to vote is racist or something...
I live in Califiornia, John. I travel, and have friends, all over the state. The only person I know who voted for the current idiot-in-chief is my FIL[0]. Of the people who didn't vote, not one claims they would have voted for Trump. I have no idea where all these supposed "Trump supporters from California who didn't bother to vote" are hiding. I've never met one. Perhaps it is ::whisper it:: FakeNews?
If you have proof of illegal voting anywhere, post it or retract your statement. It just makes you sound like more of a sycophant than usual. And a paranoid one, to boot. It's unbecoming.
As a side note, traditionally the "migrant" population, when naturalized, vote Republican here in California. It's a Catholic thing. So if there WAS any illegal voting on the kind of scale you are suggesting, it would have probably been in Trump's favo(u)r.
[0] And he regrets it deeply.
BigJohn's hypotheticals are beside the point, as well as generally incorrect.
- Trump did, indeed, get fewer votes than Clinton. There is no rational basis to doubt that. Yet Clinton won a majority of the vote in 13 states and the District of Columbia, and a plurality in 7 more. Trump won a majority of the votes in 23 states - nearly half - and a plurality in 7 more, and a clear majority of the presidential electors. That makes him the President. Legitimately, by the only standard that applies.
- Any suggestion of discouraged Trump voters in California and New York (and a number of others) has to meet the opposing suggestion of discouraged Clinton voters in a number of other states. But in any case, hypothetical votes do not count.
- The claim that more than a few handfuls of aliens or othewise unqualified people voted has no reliable support. It is pure fake news.
@ S-Raven - The electoral college was sewn into the framework for US elections not only because in that day you actually had to pay taxes to vote, but because there were so many parties to choose from. The forefathers wisely came up with the college to prevent just what happened to the Weimar Republic when they had too many parties to make a quorum possible during a national election. This made Hitler's rise to power possible. The US wisely avoided that, even though you folks across the pond probably see Trump as just another Hitler. There is no saying Hillary could not have been just as powerful had she won, and she did have a penchant for going after enemies with more than just Tweets and riotous speech. So who is to say whether the college is obsolete or not - only history will tell. The college was conceived long before there was a North and South identity, and even the North had slaves at the time, so I'm not sure your reasoning applied to the birth of the US nation.
It could be argued - however - that the college did delay the civil war; however once Lincoln was elected, all bets were off.
So as Secretary of state she signs and acknowledges her responsibilities, regarding the safe keeping of the information she has at her fingertips on a day to day basis. A document that unlike a software license agreement someone actually sits down and explains the responsibilities and the penalties involved breaching them.
She then has a private email server setup, no protection, easily hacked. Multiple devices are used to send and receive said highly classified information via that private email server. Once she is caught devices are destroyed, the email server wiped cleaned. Lies about it to everyone that asks. Stated that a black guy said she could. Then stone walled any investigation into her wrong doing using her political clout.
But it is the guy that setup the email server that will be charged. The rich and powerful go free while the worker bee that was doing as asked is left holding the bag.
Others in the US have been locked up for a lot longer for doing a lot less in releasing classified information. Yep that's U.S. justice for you.
The emails have already been gone over. She never sent or received anything classified at the time. There were a few things which were later retroactively classified, but that's about it. A bit of government business discussed, but only at the very vague level of making appointments and directing people to contact her through official channels.
Some of it might technically be illegal, but it's not the treasonable offense that her opponents keep claiming.
"She [said] she never sent or received anything classified at the time." - Fixed.
According to the FBI report after the investigation, she did. A few of them were top secret and some of those were further restricted to those with access to specific programs.
Repeating untrue statements, especially those made by political office seekers, will not make them true, and on sites like this one, where quite a few of the commenters are well informed, often will elicit a correction.
Funny how the power of the Office of the President isn't always what a candidate thinks it is.
Yes, but Trump's the only one I can remember whining on about how hard it is.
[Paraphrasing:]
"Who thought health care could be so complex?"
"I actually work more now than I did before".....
or like so many election promises, it has been quietly forgotten
Any claims of promises made by President Elect Trump are FAKE NEWS!. If you believe you've seen videos apparently showing President Trump making such promises, then either those videos have been faked or you are a victim of the mind control technologies funded by Hillary Clinton. I post this annonymously because as we all know Hillary also has had dozens of her enemies killed, along with 100,000,000,000,000,000 of their closest relatives.
Isn't that how it goes Big J? Deny the existence of material that was promoted by the Republicans only days before, because it turns out such things (eg drumpf threatening/promoting violence) aren't popular after all.
Sounds a bit like a witch hunt...
We can't go after Clinton because she's an influential politician, so let's go after the IT guy/company.
No question whoever set up the email server screwed up, but Clinton sent Classified information through it breaking the law.
If the decision Clinton is untouchable, stop wasting everyone's time. Personally I think she should be banned from holding public office, because she willfully circumvented the security systems put in place.
But, I'm more disturbed that Classified commutations was allowed to flow outward to unsecured systems and no one noticed for a long time. Why isn't outgoing emails scanned flagging documents containing the "top secret" watermark?
It is a witch hunt, just as the Republican's multiple investigations of Benghazi, and all the other investigations of "Clinton wrongdoing" were witch hunts which never found a single trace of wrong doing. The Republicans want to hang someone out to dry and if they cannot get Hillary, then they will get someone else.
The IT company's guy (a) wiped the disks thoroughly and (b) had the backups deleted and destroyed. This at a time when it was perfectly clear to anyone smarter than a pet rock that there would be a demand for their production for an investigation. As such behavior plainly hints at obstruction, the committee may be interested in whether orders were given to do that, by whom, and whether there is documentation of that. So far, it appears that the administrator copped to doing it on his own - I believe after a grant of immunity. That may be the end of it, unless they have evidence that it is not so, in which case both he and whoever gave the order could be in trouble.
As to scanning outgoing mail for classification marks: there were reports in generally reliable media that in some cases Secretary Clinton or one of her aides ordered "sanitization" before transmission by insecure fax. Some of the classified email material may have been included by copy/paste and omitted classification information. While either represents significant mishandling of classified material, and certainly would not declassify it, doing so would make it orders of magnitude harder to filter it. It should be noted, too, that nothing classified secret or above is permitted to be stored on a network interconnected with the public Internet.
This often repeated analogy is a false equivalence attempt. Those emails were "lost" owing to a backup failure, but later were found (in other backups, as I recall). There was no particular evidence in that case of more than operations sloppiness in a commercial entity.
The Hillary Clinton Email Scandal, In Two-and-a-Half Minutes
Whois Treve Suazo - letter from Congress - Linkedin Profile
Given they've said he was refusing to produce things via his lawyer, I'm curious what the other side of this argument is. From the letter, they first claim that no justification was given for refusing them, but then they say that his lawyer insisted requests were made in writing (which doesn't seem unreasonable for legal documents) and that they claimed not to have anything to provide based on their reading of the supoena. Doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong, but it does suggest there might be more to this than just "we're not telling you nothing!"
I thought it was standard practise for US government officials to have multiple opaque email accounts and even off-site accounts for the purposes of attempting to avoid the records act?
In my opinion, each government office should have a published address and official business should be directed there rather than to the individual, whatever fake name they're using for their current email.
We also need to crack down on officials claiming not to use email, as first that is ridiculous in this day and age, and secondly a strong pointer that they're up to no good if they're trying to keep stuff off the official record.
The Clintons had been despicable, dishonest, selfish people, criminals and disloyal for several decades (even when earlier working in the legal profession), and still are, and a lot of other politicians are similar, so they will want to deflect deserved punishment for the Clintons to their underlings!
If you don't like this, then you could work to undermine bad politicians support bases by identifying and repeatedly deliberately "triggering" many r-types (liberals,Left), to eventually switch their brains to default human K-type behaviour, so that they start to value merit more, and fake superiority, bribes, and fake virtuous actions less.
two problems ignored by Clinton fans:
1) Clinton when first approached about the existence of the server explicitly denied it's existence. Straight up lie.
2) as a government employee she was provided with a secure, official, and AUDITABLE email system to conduct business with. And chose to ignore it without any sort of series of complaints about the system or official reasons to demand repairs or configuration changes before then going off the reservation. WHY does a Highly Placed Federal Government Official want to conduct business away from any auditable or employer monitored channels? We all know the answer to that, but seem to only remember it when one Party uses that excuse.
but the law does apply to everyone, which is one of its redeeming features
Funny that it didn't seem to apply to Dubya then and his 22 MILLION missing emails. Yes Scooter Libby did get convicted but he landed on Community Chest and picked up a presidential Get Out Of Jail card. Really not much of a punishment for such an egregious crime , eh.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
