Facebook Will Share Copies of Political Ads Purchased by Russian Sources With the US Congress (recode.net) 234
An anonymous reader shares a report: Facebook will turn over copies of political ads purchased by Russian sources to congressional lawmakers, who are investigating the country's potential interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Initially, Facebook had only released those ads -- 3,000 of them, valued at about $100,000 -- to Robert Mueller, the former FBI director who is spearheading the government's probe into Russia's actions. Facebook had withheld those details from House and Senate leaders, citing privacy concerns. But the move drew sharp rebukes from the likes of Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who has charged in recent days that Facebook may not have done enough to scan its systems for potential Russian influence and to ensure that such foreign purchases -- otherwise illegal under U.S. law -- don't happen again. "After an extensive legal and policy review, today we are announcing that we will also share these ads with congressional investigators," wrote Colin Stretch, the company's general counsel. "We believe it is vitally important that government authorities have the information they need to deliver to the public a full assessment of what happened in the 2016 election."
Mark Zuckerberg (Score:3, Funny)
Is the most trustworthy person. I am sure he would never do anything underhanded.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There are a lot of reasons to bash FB, and you're free to bash the Zuck himself, but what are you worried about here? That FB might alter or withhold ads? Seems unlikely. This seems like a positive move and I can't think of a reason to hold it against FB.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg (Score:2)
Re: Mark Zuckerberg (Score:1)
you are absolutely right.
So I am sure that you agree with me in calling for Trumps tax returns to be publically disclosed prior to beginning debate on tax reform
Mod Parent Back Up Please (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you deplorables are like that. Covering up your support for a traitor with lame accusations against liberals.
Re: (Score:2)
Please name what crimes Clinton is guilty of, and how she operated in a demonstrably, as opposed to seemingly, corrupt manner. There were things she should have done and didn't do to avoid the appearance of corruption, but that isn't itself corrupt action.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. These were PUBLIC ads ostensibly purchased by Russians, that were shown to voters. Why is it we can't release them to anyone but Robert Mueller and maybe a select few congressman, when they were already public? What's the big secret here?
If NBC claimed they found out some of the ads they showed on TV during the election were paid for by Russians, but then wouldn't show them to us due to "privacy" concerns (when they'd already been plastered on TV), would you buy it? Why does anyone buy it when facebook says ads that were plastered on their site are too private to see?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Mark Zuckerberg (Score:4, Insightful)
But, if there are no Russian ads, what will the Democrats blame their next election loss on?
i think hillary trotted out a whole host of entities and people who can be blamed in her new book.
-
its ironic that these politicians think they get elected by amercans voters, who can be easily manipulated by alleged fake news from few macedonians, and $ 100,000 in facebook ads.
they have zero respect for voters who they claim to represent, and who, according to them, are unable to think for themselves, even when they have huge number of sources for information, from one sided legacy media to alternate media(like wikileaks), quite apart from ads and fakes.
voters, if they have any sense, should vote them out just for that attitude. and that seems to be happening , though more fundamentally for other elitist attitudes that are in conflict with voters' interests as well.
-
in reality, this russia probe is just the visible death pangs and hysteria of a mono cultural elite(am elite more exclusive than white males they rage against ) that has been in control of the levers of power for about 50 years, and are now starting to lose them, starting with narrative control.
hopefully they will restrict themselves to sanctimonious screams like the probe, and refrain from resorting to stuff other elites who ended up in the dust bin of history used when desperate . they will regret such tactics.
Re: (Score:3)
its ironic that these politicians think they get elected by amercans voters, who can be easily manipulated by alleged fake news from few macedonians, and $ 100,000 in facebook ads. they have zero respect for voters who they claim to represent, and who, according to them, are unable to think for themselves...
That's the current goal of the U.S. indoctrination/miseducation system. They want easily manipulated lemmings, but are shocked when someone else started leading them toward a different cliff.
Re:Mark Zuckerberg (Score:5, Insightful)
Death pangs of an elite? Are you seriously saying that Trump is not himself part of that very elite himself?
This idea that a millionaire who appointed numerous wall street people to his cabinet, and is doing his best to help the rich get tax cuts and further the benefit of large corporations is baffling to me. And before you start bashing me as a Hillary supporter, I'm not even American, and I think Hillary was an awful candidates that the democrats should have never ran. But honestly, the fact that this idea that Trump is somehow separate from, or against 'the elites' is without any basis in reality. He's a different breed of elite than Washington has typically seen in power, but he is still most certainly a member of the elite himself.
Look at how oligarchies are born. It doesn't matter if they're right-wing oligarchies like in Russia, or left-wing oligarchies like in Venezuela, the basic formula is always pretty much the same: a political movement is born, lead by a strongman who most often is a part of the wealthy elite himself. This man then declares to everyone that corruption and greed have ruined everything and that he and only he can save the people from these corrupt elites. This is then used as a reason to purge the major institutions of ideological opponents who're then replaced with a more loyal group of people, often from the close circle of the man himself. This is usually followed by the stripping of the parliament of any de-facto power, and the manning of all relevant courts with judges loyal to the party.
The end result of such movements is pretty much always worse off for the people because of course they never wanted to get rid of the elites, or the corruption, they just wanted to overthrow the elites and take their place. Venezuela has more oil than saudi-arabia but its economy is now below Zimbabwe because what Chavez created and what Maduro has continued is a system so thoroughly corrupt that billions and billions have been shoveled into the back pockets of the elites while the people are now starving. Yet they still claim that they're 'continuing the revolution for the Venezuelan people', and who do they blame on this issue that's entirely of their own creation? 'The elites' of the US and EU, without whom, according to Maduro Venezuela would be prosperous.
As I said this is not a left-right -thing. This is a liberal vs. authoritarian thing. Russia has exactly the same deal going on, where Putin has consolidated all the power to himself and his close group of allies and divided the massive fortunes of his country's raw materials to the select few and shut down any and all opposition by painting it as just malicious 'western propaganda' that seeks to destroy Russia.
What's scary to me is that traditionally Americans have been good at spotting this development when it happens in other countries, even at times supporting it covertly or openly when the new oligarchy is more pro-US than the old. But now that it looks like the exact same deal is staring in your own country, out in broad daylight, somehow myopia sets in and people fall right for it just because they dislike the status quo so much. Traditionally the thing that has kept the US resilient against such movements is the strength of American institutions and the separation of powers that has been able to keep the president in check but Trump is already hard at work at discrediting and attacking all of those institutions: the courts, the media, the FBI and so on. I still personally want to believe that the institutions will withstand these blows and america will not turn the way of Russia or Turkey because I believe there's a large enough segment of intelligent Americans who will
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, I think the last election demonstrated that voters are easily manipulated and not that intelligent, as Winston Churchill pointed out decades ago ("The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.").
Forget democrats for a moment. Let's just look at the republicans. You had a whole host of at least somewhat viable candidates. Then you had a narcissistic sociopath with the mental capacity of a rotting melon who has decades of history of demonstrable behavior that wo
Re:Mark Zuckerberg (Score:4, Interesting)
so you think, without any legally admissible evidence, but with lots of speculations based on other speculations, with no known and discernible direct technique for changing the minds of hundreds of thousands of voters(at least), russians, and pro immigrant globalist zuckerberg, stole the election, for benefit of anti immigrant militaristic nationalist trump, through fake news and online ads worth $100000("lot of money")?
all the while, several fold more well funded (not counting the money from saudi arabia, qatar, israel, ukraine, etc), hillray, had the support of legacy media, big tech and social media corps(including almost every top leader at facebook, google, etc), big banks, hollywood, state apparatus(from president obama down), overt moral support(at least) of european and asian leaders(do i have to mention mexico and canada? ), and tacit support of republican establishment (and open support of never trumper neocons).
lol.
who did you say "can't think for (himself)"?
feel free. lol.
Re: (Score:2)
It had apparently very little to do with politics but more an particular policy issue, everyone with half a brain can pretty much understand this because https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]. Ohhh look the corporate whore had a something like one thousand million dollars to spend and $100,000 buys you pretty much fuck all but propaganda must be served and the corrupt democrats must not be held accountable, otherwise all the other corrupt politicians will also fall. So how much did Israel spend on the elections
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but why is it assumed that that money only went one way? Even if Russia tried to collude with Trump, they didn't do it for Trump. They did it for Russia. Because it's in Russia's best interest to have the person in power have a favorable opinion of Russia, because that benefits Russia in a whole host of ways.
That being the case, what seems a lot more likely is that Russia would pl
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe, but why is it assumed that that money only went one way?"
Because that's what our intelligence agencies have found out. There was a decision made to support Trump. Our agencies did not infer this from detected actions, but have direct evidence of this. Maybe they are lying!
"Even if Russia tried to collude with Trump, they didn't do it for Trump."
There isn't any possibility Russia would do this if it weren't in there interest.
The only reason they would try to play the field is if they thoug
Why the hypocrisy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Didn't the Obama administration do something similar [washingtontimes.com] to the Israelis?
How come I never heard any kind of investigation? And by the way, it was to the legitimate government of a sovereign state. An ally of ours if I may add.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be the Israelis job. There _should_ be an investigation. For all I know there was/is and our news choses to ignore it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The US' job is to figure out how much the Obama Administration was spying on its own citizens.
The Obama Administration wasn't just spying on citizens of interest, they were spying on presidential candidate of an opposing party. Even if you hate "The Orange Orangutans's" guts, this should be deeply troubling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where do I get it?
CNN,
Mother Jones
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you have no evidence that anyone was spying on Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well Trump certainly seemed to know that the electronic communications or "Wires" were being monitored. He never said his personal communication were being specifically monitored, just the building his offices are in was. The most likely reason He would know is because HRC said something that she would only be able to know if his wires had been trapped.
Now after months of denying the wiretaps, we find out nearly every major department head in the Obama administration told baldfaced lies to both the American
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Obama administration wasn't spying on the candidate of the opposing political party, they were monitoring someone engaging in illegal activity who was also communicating with the candidate of the opposing political party.
Except that they gave up on that investigation due to lack of evidence, then re-started it a year later, as soon as he became the campaign manager for a political opponent of the sitting president.
I don't know how often secret investigations get re-started after they are dropped due to not finding anything, but the timing on this seems very suspicious to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Coincidently. This will happen to all non (incumbent/appointed successor) presidential candidates in the future.
Bet your opinion about it changes when it's Warren whose phones are bugged by Trump. But nobody will give a shit, because at that point you're just a hypocrite.
Re: Why the hypocrisy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We even have a photo of Donald Trump pointing out his accomplishments.
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/as... [theatlantic.com]
Re:Why the hypocrisy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Investigators also said OneVoice didn’t turn explicitly political until days after the grant period ended.
Evidently there was an investigation, hence investigators, at least according to the source you linked. Maybe you should stop rushing to post first and, you know, read.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Or you could read a different, more accurate report from a real newspaper. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/07/12/ngo-connected-to-obamas-2008-campaign-used-u-s-tax-dollars-trying-to-oust-netanyahu/
US money was used in a campaign because the state department fucked up a contract, not because of nefarious dealings by Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a credible source? Or is this right wing propaganda from Alex Jones or Briebart news?
Aren't you even concerned at all a foreign unfriendly power altered an election? If this were HIllary and she won would you even write such a post or would you be in the PUT HER IN JAIL NOW group because she doesn't have an R next to her name?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a credible source? Or is this right wing propaganda from Alex Jones or Briebart news?
I'm not sure what part of my post you're referring to, but I don't usually read those sites.
Aren't you even concerned at all a foreign unfriendly power altered an election?
I would be if they did, but there's 0 evidence that altered the results. You can't point to a single vote that was changed because of "The Russians". The only election that was rigged in 2016 was the Democrat primary.
If this were HIllary and she won would you even write such a post or would you be in the PUT HER IN JAIL NOW group because she doesn't have an R next to her name?
Nice try, I don't vote Republican. I do think they should put her in jail now, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude how did they not?!
Russians broke into her email server and leaked classified information to Trump's son and fake Teaparty Facebook news sites. People got weary and voted for Trump. Putin wins.
You don't see that level of information about Trump from hacked sources Hillary used. Not to mention much of the news was faked AstroTurf used to motivate the gullible as well and to make legit news sources as the fake news.
I stand by my comment if it were the opposite you would call for impeachment
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want us doing it to other countries. However, they're responsible for defending their countries, and we're responsible for defending our country.
Continued collusion with the left (Score:1, Insightful)
Good: can we investigate continued collusion with foreign bodies on the left?
e.g. Iran, North Korea, China, Russia
Can we also investigate e.g. antifa?
Can we also investigate left-leaning media outlets like CNN promoting stories originating from Russia Today etc?
Re: (Score:2)
No, no we cannot.. (QED)
(waving hand) "This is not the hypocrisy you are looking for."
Re: (Score:2)
Good: can we investigate continued collusion with foreign bodies on the left?
As someone on the left - in fact rather far to the left of what Americans call "the left", since I am European - I agree fully; we could do with a lot more transparency in politics and government on all levels. And not just with China, Russia and N Korea, but with any foreign nation. Just because government and big business find it comfortable to snuggle up to some foreign nation, doesn't mean that the population agrees.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, we should investigate illegal collusion with foreign countries on the part of anyone, provided there's evidence to get an investigation going. Trump, for example, had extensive business dealings with Russia, and people around him have lied about the extent of meetings with Russians, so that's a good place to start.
Sure, investigate Antifa. They've done enough to justify it. This doesn't mean letting up on white supremacists, though, which Trump apparently wants.
Journalism is privileged in this
Hey Dems: Don't run Hillary again... (Score:2)
- The American People
</story title="US President Election 2016">
Re: (Score:1)
>implying Bernie will still be alive after Trump's second term wraps up
Re: (Score:2)
LOL... Good one...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and the football team gained way more yards and still lost, we should change the way the game is scored.
Yeah, and the baseball team had way more runners on base and still lost, we should change the way the game is scored.
Re: (Score:2)
http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2017/09/05/report-major-league-baseball-determines-red-sox-illegally-used-technology-to-steal-signs-from-the-yankees [nbcsports.com]
But wait, maybe they were using some 400 pound hacker sitting on his bed in his parent's basement. It could be. We don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Try a new argument. Hillary won by over 3 million votes. Trump is only president because the electoral college ignored the will of the American people.
If you don't like this result, you are not going to like the 2024 election at all, the fist one after the 2020 census. The adjustment in house seats is very likely to take electoral votes from many of the very blue states and give them to the solidly red ones.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the main point is that as the left continues to concentrate themselves more and more in a few very large urban areas, the electoral college will likely skew against them. Remember, every state gets two senators (and two electoral votes) regardless of size, so continued left wing migration into Silicon Valley, the Northwest and the Northeast does not help them to win national electio
Re: (Score:2)
Read the appropriate Federalist paper (58 or 68, I don't remember). It says that the main purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent people like Trump from being elected President. That's the best source document I've got for why it was designed, although I've seen convincing arguments that it was to give slave states more say in who became President.
Need to inform users who "liked" any propaganda (Score:1)
What they need to do is inform users who "liked" or shared anything that was Russian propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
What they need to do is inform users who "liked" or shared anything that was Russian propaganda.
Nobody should care if it's propaganda, what's important is if it's true.
media matters and david brock (Score:1, Insightful)
media matters and david brock spent 1,000,000$ correcting the record on social media in a feeble attempt to sway perception of Hillary. does anyone believe a 50k ad buy or 100k made a difference if its true?
Five bucks, NONE will be democrats! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Even closer than that, one of Hillary's closest advisors, John Pedesta, had intimate ties with Russia. If the issue is election manipulation, why is he not being looked at? And how did Hillary go from being so broke upon leaving the White House that they had to try stealing the china, to being a multimillionaire a few years later?
Much ado about nothing (Score:2, Interesting)
- without specific geographic targeting (only 25% we so targeted)
- without targeting specific candidates
- vaguely meant to spread division in the society (what does that even mean?)
Somehow this got blown into "Russia was subverting democracy in the US". It's OK for Sheldon Adelson, Koch brothers and such to throw millions in on the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, they have lost their ever loving minds over there on the left...
But hey, it's just the shoe on the other foot, the party out of power makes as much trouble as they can for the part in power. Politics as usual.
Huh? (Score:2)
How do you know the content of the ads?
Also: "anti-LGBT, racist, anti-immigration campaign not specifically targeted at any candidate". Ummm I think only one candidate in the election held those positions. I could be wrong though.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the untold amounts of money that Hungarian George Soros has dumped into all kinds of election groups. He spent a LOT more than $100,000. But yeah, no subversion there either. Let's get the microscope out and do a super thorough search of the Russian flee and ignore all the elephants running around...
Re: (Score:2)
I bet if this were Hillary Clinton your post would be IMPEACH NOW! But it is ok because Trump has an R next to his name.
Russians: $100K Hillary: $1.2B (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
She has blamed a lot of people, probably most of America at this point.
http://insider.foxnews.com/201... [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I know right? That 100K of russkie money must have been very well spent..
Face it you guys, Hillary was such a bad candidate she lost to a novice, braggart, loud mouth real estate developer from Queens even after out spending him 2 to 1 along with that hum dinger of an October surprise "Access Hollywood" tape thing.
It should have been a blow out... Except that she and her campaign drank their own KoolAid, didn't bother to put in the effort to win, so she lost by the skin of her teeth...
Re: (Score:3)
What does that have to do with the price of ducks in peking?
I am pretty sure Hillary is not leading the investigation into the possibility of direct Russian influence in the election. I am also pretty sure knowing about foreign influence and/or involvement in our elections should be a pretty clear cut bipartisan *American* issue we should know about regardless of which pony you pick in the race.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a 23.6% chance this comment was by a Russian paid astroturfer. Which, of course, is what this is all about.
Re: (Score:2)
How to win elections (Score:2)
Give speeches in more of the fly over states.
Dont just give the same boring, short speeches in select parts of the elite east and west coasts.
Visit and talk to real people in the fly over states. Take time to listen to real US citizens and talk to them.
A few very simple steps win US elections.
A political party has to find a candidate that has the energy to give a charismatic speech anywhere in the USA on topics people can
Re: (Score:2)
Why only the Russian ads? (Score:2)
Or is the goal here to arrive at a predetermined conclusion - that Russia tried to influence the election?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you condemning FB for behavior that exists only in your speculation?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't say unbiased. Didn't say that at all. I just left open the possibility that FB might have complied with the government investigation even if Hillary had won. I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't. Saying that they would have stood in the way is nothing more than speculation. There are plenty of good reasons to condemn FB; no need to invent more.
Re: (Score:2)
"The eighties called, they want their cold war back". That was the Lefts' attitude just a few years ago. You're right. Had Hillary won, none of this would be happening. There would be no outrage, no investigation and probably even no accusations that the Russians "hacked" the election (as we often hear or read). The most that the Russians did amounts to some propaganda engineering, and that is hardly shocking.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
Mostly because the accusations against Hillary turned out to be bullshit as the investigation showed.
Which ones? The ones where the FBI plainly spelled out the illegal things she did and directly told you that anyone else would have faced legal jeopardy for the same acts? The ones where all of her staff had to be offered immunity deals before they would even talk about it? The ones where the simply broke federal law at numerous levels and looked you in the eye and lied about (and still does to this day), but assures us that her husband's private meeting with the chief law enforcement officer who would be tasked with indicting her, and who then had to recuse herself, didn't have any impact at all? Gotcha.
You're confusing "got away with it" with "didn't do it."
Re: (Score:2)
The ones where the FBI said that nobody would prosecute what she did because such things were never prosecuted? Guess what - if you or I did what she did nobody would prosecute us.
Re: (Score:2)
The ones where the FBI said that nobody would prosecute what she did because such things were never prosecuted? Guess what - if you or I did what she did nobody would prosecute us.
Tell that to the people who have had their careers ended and have gone to federal prison for doing FAR less than what she did, or were sent to prison only for lying about it. The FBI didn't say that nobody's ever been prosecuted for mishandling classified information, Comey said that given the circumstances he didn't think he could get DoJ to prosecute this particular case. It was in that exact context that he said if it were anyone else, they'd face legal trouble for what they did. You're deliberately cho
Re: (Score:2)
Name some people who went to Federal prison for mishandling classified material without any intent of doing so, please. I haven't found any. Comey said he wouldn't be able to find a prosecutor who'd prosecute for her violations of the law, not that he thought the DoJ would refuse to prosecute. The Attorney General had explicitly left the decision up to Comey, and she would have prosecuted had he recommended it. The statements I read implied no special treatment for Clinton. Some time afterwards, I saw
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing bullshit is your statement. You just ignored some critical facts, outlined below in the following comments.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're dumb. The FBI said, "We don't think we can prosecute her because we don't think we can show that she broke the law as the law is written."
But even then, even IF the FBI had said, "We found nothing" you'd still say evaded prosecution, and even real investigating, because she's rich, famous, and Obama was running the show, because it's clear that your mind is made up before it processes information available to you.
Re: Hypocrites (Score:5, Informative)
The FBI said, "We don't think we can prosecute her because we don't think we can show that she broke the law as the law is written."
What Comey actually said:
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
That's something VERY different.
Re: Hypocrites (Score:4, Informative)
Not true...
Putting classified onto an unauthorized system or taking it to an unauthorized location and storing it in an unauthorized way IS a crime. Unauthorized disclosure is just the result of unauthorized handling of classified. It's NOT treason, but mishandling classified information is indeed a crime.
Don't fall for Hillary's narrative. It's not true... Don't fall for those who claim she committed treason either, because that's not true. But there *could* be a crime here.
Go back and listen to Comey's statement when he was letting Clinton off the hook before the election. Where I don't agree with is conclusion (that no prosecutor would charge and try this case) it is CLEAR that she was extremely careless with classified information, which by the statute is criminal. Comey just let here skate...
Re: (Score:2)
Putting classified information directly in the hands of a hostile foreign government is actual TREASON, yet Trump still sits in the White House.
The good news is that Mueller does not appear like he's going to let him off the hook.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting classified information directly in the hands of a hostile foreign government is actual TREASON, yet Trump still sits in the White House.
The good news is that Mueller does not appear like he's going to let him off the hook.
You do understand that the President is the ultimate authority on what's classified and what's not. He can, on his own initiative, declassify anything at any time he so chooses. So by definition, he didn't improperly disclose classified information. It is literally his to do with as he pleases. You can argue the disclosure wasn't a good idea, but it wasn't a criminal act for the president.
Also, TREASON has a specific definition in the US Constitution. Sharing information with "a hostile foreign govern
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. I'm going on what James Comey said his investigators found. She technically broke the law, multiple times.
Remember, the *only* part of Comey's statement I disagree with is his conclusion that no prosecutor would take the case and charge Clinton with felony counts for her gross negligence with handling classified information because he didn't find intent. Everything else he said was spot on. She broke the law, Comey clearly said as much, intent is NOT part of the statute, but gross negligen
Re: (Score:2)
It was a bunch of CC: BCC: ACC: XCC: email chains full of people that lame management types love so much. There wasn't anything to indicate that anything was classified even though it was.
The elites in the country treat secrets like this all the time and that's why the GOP knew if they shoved the investigation in that direction they'd have new material for their campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
Again go listen to Comey and you will find you are incorrect... There WHERE indications that parts of the messages being sent/received where classified.
Comey mentioned "portion marking" which where still in the copied text. This is a readily identifiable marking, consisting of text characters which is common in classified materials. They mark the "portion" of text in documents where different parts of the document have different classification levels. Clinton sent and received E-mails with both classif
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks must have sent me to a fake version of her emails so that I would sound stupid on slashdot. How is it you know and care so much about what comey said and you never saw the documents? (sucker)
Everyone in washington treats secrets this way. I promise you. I never made any claims that hillary wasn't uncaring and negligent. That's exactly what she is. The disappointing thing is that anyone is surprised at all. Being angry about clinton doesn't show that you're wise to what's really going on...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please... I listened to Comey's testimony before congress and his 45 min statement he made when he let Hillary skate before he later re-opened the investigation... Surely you recall all that? Everything I'm claiming as fact here Comey said himself.
So.. Do you not trust Comey here? Are his statements untrue in your view? She broke the law, Comey said so. He then let her off the hook...
Also, WikiLeaks isn't a suitable source of evidence for much of anything. Where I don't know if what they publish
Re: (Score:2)
Comey let her off the hook because top level politicians mishandle secrets as often as they wipe their own asses and he knew it. If he'd pulled the trigger on it then getting rid of any American politician you don't like would be as easy as ordering your intelligence service to grep their wad of stolen mailspools against random strings from their wad of stolen classified documents until something came up.
The most important question is: Why do you still care?
A year later we're on the brink of nuclear war
Re: (Score:2)
LOL.. So it's bash Trump now that Hillary's history..
To use your logic...(and quote Hillary) "What difference at this point does it make?" Hillary lost, Trump won... Why do you still want to argue that fact?
(QED)
Re: (Score:2)
I started bashing Trump as soon as it was obvious that ignoring him wasn't going to make him go away. It's too bad because if nobody cried about him when he was a longshot he wouldn't be president right now. When you're a young blue haired rich girl who has to write 1000 words about something by Friday or your weekend is ruined, Trump is just too hard to ignore. Lots of blame to go around.
It may seem pointless to keep griping but it's important to keep up general levels of public discontent so that the
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, someone who hasn't looked into the facts.
As far as I could tell, nobody has faced criminal prosecution for inadvertent mishandling of classified material. The penalties were all administrative in nature. If you can come up with a counterexample, I'd be fascinated. I couldn't find one. I've been told that intent is not part of the statute, but it's been the criterion for prosecution on felony charges.
If you or I had done what she did, we might be fired, we might lose our clearance temporarily or
Re: (Score:2)
So.. You are saying two things I don't agree with.
1. You don't need an example of someone being prosecuted for breaking a law to prosecute them for breaking a law. If that where true, then NOBODY could ever be prosecuted for breaking ANY law. So I owe you no example of such a prosecution. All I need provide you is the law, and she broke the law, Comey said so. His argument to let her skate is NOT part of the law, intent was NOT part of this law, only negligence is.
2. Hillary's "mistake" was careless
Re: (Score:2)
I was hoping he had read them so I could tell him I was reporting him to the government for illegally downloading classified information.
I'd ask a lot of hillary haters the same question and actually even in the heat of the campaign I wasn't able to find a single one of them who bothered to check even if they had hundreds of related posts in their history.
It's a stupid man's world and we just live here.
Re: (Score:2)
She's a million times better than trump but it makes my blood boil every time I hear her talking like she deserved the presidency. She had the audacity to accuse bernie of not supporting her.
What a cunt..Every time she opens her mouth she's just paving the way for an eventual kid rock presidency.
Re: (Score:2)
The Attorney General, being a political appointee, had said she'd defer to FBI recommendations on whether to prosecute. Otherwise, you deplorables would be complaining that she didn't prosecute for political reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee this will turn into a giant nothing burger and the DNC will have to "pivot" again to the next story about why the election was stolen by the russkies.
I think that narrative is coming apart at the seams right now so they will have to drop it. It looks like this laser like focus on this might result in a couple of the popular democrats getting burned. There is mounting evidence that the intelligence services where improperly used by the past administration to target their political opponents, which if true, would make Watergate look like a circus side show...
Now we hear that the russkies purchased Facebook ads? Unless it can be proven they coordinated
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ads purchased by forgeigner have to be idea based, cannot support a specific person and a few other limitations. It is these same laws that allow illegal immigrants to speak at political conventions without the law makers hosting them going to jail.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/fo... [fec.gov]
Re:As a European... (Score:4)
There's some truth to that. They both had the highest negatives in history... it was definitely all about who was "less bad".
And you just lost whatever sense you were making before. Trump an establishment puppet? Are you kidding me? The establishment in both parties absolutely hates him. On the Republican side we had 17 candidates to pick from in the primary, and ALL of the Republican establishment candidates lost big. In the end, it came down to Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, who were by far the most establishment-hated candidates that I've ever seen run in a primary.
If you want to rephrase your charge of "tightly controlled establishment puppets" to refer only to the Democrats, then I'll give you that, because after the DNC email hacks we found out that they did, in fact, rig the primary contest to make sure Hilary won and Bernie lost (though the fact that he got as far as he did, even in the face of their treachery, shows they don't have as much control as they thought). But yeah, end result on the Democrat side was that their establishment got the candidate they wanted, and when taken to court about it, they argued that as a party they have no legal requirement to select their candidates in any particular way, and that it would be perfectly legal for them to go back to using old boys clubs in the back room with cigars to pick the candidate. A tacit admission that they can rig the process as much as they want. But only one party rigged it, not both.
And now you are back to making sense again. We all know that's why she lost, and the funny thing is, I'm pretty sure that's the only reason you won't find in her new book, "What Happened."