Jared & Ivanka: Couple 'Continues To Use' Private Messaging For White House Business, Top Democrat Says (thedailybeast.com) 252
Freshly Exhumed writes: Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has revealed that senior White House advisor Jared Kushner's lawyer admitted in December that his client "continues to use" WhatsApp to conduct official White House business. The chairman also said that a lawyer for Ivanka Trump and Mr. Kushner told the committee late last year that they additionally used private email accounts for official White House business in a way that may have violated federal records laws. Mr Kushner's lawyer, Abbe Lowell could not say whether his client used WhatsApp to share classified information. Regardless, Cummings says the communications raise questions about whether Kushner and other officials violated the Presidential Records Act, which requires the president and his staff "take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records." As for Ivanka's use of a personal email account to conduct official business, her lawyer says she sent the emails before she was briefed on the rules.
If you're not familiar with WhatsApp, here's what you should know about it: "As of January 2019, more than 1.5 billion users in over 180 countries use WhatsApp, created in 2009 as an alternative to text messaging," reports USA Today. "Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014 to make a bigger play in the rapidly-growing messaging market, along with its own Messenger platform, which also boasts 1.5 billion users." The service features end-to-end encryption, meaning the sender and recipient are the only ones who can view the messages.
If you're not familiar with WhatsApp, here's what you should know about it: "As of January 2019, more than 1.5 billion users in over 180 countries use WhatsApp, created in 2009 as an alternative to text messaging," reports USA Today. "Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014 to make a bigger play in the rapidly-growing messaging market, along with its own Messenger platform, which also boasts 1.5 billion users." The service features end-to-end encryption, meaning the sender and recipient are the only ones who can view the messages.
Re:LOCK THEM UP (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello, I'm a lifelong libertarian voting republican in certain races since I first reached 18. In 2016, I voted AGAINST Hillary because I believe the democratic party, due to their demographics, will be the first to outlaw the most sacred amendment, Freedom of Speech. I still feel that way.
All that said. Trump and Co needed to go and yesterday. We need to purge the Party before Country folks in the Republican party before they ship the sink with them.
Fuck Pelosi. Fuck Trump. Fuck McConnell. Get the old rotten blood all out.
Yep. The problem isn't that Trump made POTUS, the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.
Most of the votes cast were really votes against one of the candidates.
In reality "None of the above" was the only sensible vote in the last elections.
Yes, Trump promised to "Drain the swamp" but it turned out to be a lie (surprise!!!)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is the system that given two choices picks the one least able to effectively lead the country and make things better for people, mostly because of innuendo and bullshit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're focusing on the wrong thing. The "system" resulted in the two worst major-party candidates in at least modern history being nominated, and yet your complaint is that the wrong dreadful candidate got elected?
If you fix your party and nominate a real candidate, then we won't have this problem in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.
Who would you have chosen instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Who would you have chosen instead?
For the 2016 presidential election:
Republican: John Kasich
Democrat: Tim Kaine
Or two candidates with similar ethics, executive experience, temperament, and political realism.
In a 3-way instant run-off, either of these guys would have easily beat HRC and DJT.
Re: LOCK THEM UP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who would you have chosen instead?
Adam Savage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. The problem isn't that Trump made POTUS, the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.
Most of the votes cast were really votes against one of the candidates.
In reality "None of the above" was the only sensible vote in the last elections.
Yes, Trump promised to "Drain the swamp" but it turned out to be a lie (surprise!!!)
Clinton was a disappointing candidate and poor campaigner, but she was not "None of the above".
She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington. The only difference is her thing happened to be a charity which happens to be one of the least personally beneficial. And the charity actually
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.
Are you serious? Check the donations [opensecrets.org]. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?
Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars [factcheck.org] after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?
The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia [investors.com], including secret meetings in 2016 [thehill.com]
as she was candidate Clinton
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.
Are you serious? Check the donations [opensecrets.org]. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?
Uhhh, you're confusing things.
Like I said, people were donating to gain favour. Obviously they did so more when she was in a position of power or potential power. But that's absolutely Washington SOP.
It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong". I mean it's pretty much standard that if you want to meet with a politician you don't have to be a donor.. but it would really help if you were.
It's highly problematic, but
Re: (Score:2)
Re:LOCK THEM UP (Score:4, Interesting)
It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.
That is the point. Our government runs on sleaze, and HRC is a "normal" example of that sleaze.
So the choice was between a slimy politician and a slimy businessman. I don't know what the solution is, but our system is clearly broken if the only options were HRC and DJT.
One solution is instant-runoff voting, which was done in Maine and seems to work well. There were predictions that the voters would be too stupid to understand it, but that didn't happen in Maine.
Another (or additional) solution is open primaries. California has gone to open primaries for state, but not federal, elections. It seems to be working to elect more moderates, and weaken the power of political parties.
Potatoe, poh-tah-toe (Score:3)
> It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong".
Wow, that's really neat. You can completely ignore bribery laws by declaring that you intended to favor those donors regardless of their donations? That's incredibly convenient!
Re: (Score:3)
> It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong".
Wow, that's really neat. You can completely ignore bribery laws by declaring that you intended to favor those donors regardless of their donations? That's incredibly convenient!
You're not buying a decision as much as the opportunity to make your case to the people who make decisions. There is a distinction.
But it also misses the point. This is completely normal politician behaviour. Even Obama ended up appointing a bunch of major donors as ambassadors since... well that's just how the system works.
Honestly, this is why so much of the criticism against Clinton gets tagged as sexist.
50 male politicians do it "oh well, that sucks but that politics".
Clinton does it "OMG!!! This is bri
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There's so much wrong with this information it reminds me of the 9/11 truth movement and antivaxxer nonsense.
The investors.com article claiming Russian ties is a hatchet job. Let's not forget this rag's editor claimed Hawking's would have died if he lived in the UK and depended on NIH (in fact he lived so long partially because of NIH). Renaissance Capital does not have Russian ties, Bob Mercer does and he has been estranged from the company and finally removed from the organization due to his ties to Bri
Re: (Score:1)
She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour.
The whole point of the foundation was to provide an entity to collect donations. Public officials should not be creating or running foundations or any other donation-collecting organizations. HRC's foundation was an inherent and intentional conflict of interest.
But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser?.
Absolutely. Political donations should go through normal channels, with standard rules and oversight. There should have been no backdoor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is a poor argument. There were more votes cast against Donald Trump than against Hillary Clinton.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) You're objection to the Electoral College is duly noted.
Overruled... Next...
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. The problem isn't that Trump made POTUS, the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.
Most of the votes cast were really votes against one of the candidates.
In reality "None of the above" was the only sensible vote in the last elections.
Yes, Trump promised to "Drain the swamp" but it turned out to be a lie (surprise!!!)
Except that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
So most people were for her, it's just the US has an anti-democratic middle man called "the Electoral College" that got in the way. If the American system was more democratic there would be fewer problems (see also Al Gore (who I'm guessing would have handled 9/11 differently, i.e., not invade countries at great cost)).
Re: (Score:1)
the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.
Oh! I didn't know that we're supposed to wait for the Party to offer up the candidates from their Rolodex. From what I learned in high school, we can can petition for and nominate the candidate we want, not necessarily what the Party "offers". I believe those are the rules, should we ever decide to enforce them.
By the way, there were other candidates on the ballot. You shouldn't be so scared to take a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire "political class" is unsuitable and cannot be trusted to run a country. Their own interests will always be first.
Re: (Score:1)
Then don't vote for them!
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking out against Israel in an attempt to get them to change their ways is protected speech.
Boycotting them is, by definition, going beyond speech in an attempt to do economic harm, to get them to change their ways. You might have an argument about freedom of association, but that is regulatable in the business realm to prevent discrimination. Women, minorities, or country of origin, these are all constitutionally acceptable reasons to ban business discrimination.
These laws prevent businesses from disc
Jared & Ivanka: Couple 'Continues ,,,, (Score:3, Insightful)
Jared & Ivanka: Couple 'Continues To Use' Private Messaging For White House Business
LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! .....
Mob chants are NOT insightful NOR presidential (Score:2)
LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! .....
Excellent example of the brokenness of Slashdot's moderation. I can see the selfish (even authoritarian) basis for the "I disagree" negative mods, but what's the justification for insightful in such a tiny joke? A "funny" mod or two for the satirical aspects might have been justified, but I don't think nepotism, even flagrant nepotism, calls for the chanting mob.
However it does remind me of the parody protest I'd like to see, based on the chant of "Lock kids up, LOCK KIDS UP!" Obviously it would be a parody
Re: (Score:2)
LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! .....
Excellent example of the brokenness of Slashdot's moderation. I can see the selfish (even authoritarian) basis for the "I disagree" negative mods, but what's the justification for insightful in such a tiny joke? A "funny" mod or two for the satirical aspects might have been justified, but I don't think nepotism, even flagrant nepotism, calls for the chanting mob.
However it does remind me of the parody protest I'd like to see, based on the chant of "Lock kids up, LOCK KIDS UP!" Obviously it would be a parody of a Trump rally, but as part of a protest against child separation, especially for asylum seekers. I think for maximum impact, the protesters should chant in "Trump face", with the short video building to a crescendo of rage before dissolving into mad screams. Each Trump face could be as simple as a piece of paper. I'd recommend an angry shouty closeup of Trump's face. Try to forget the image of a mob of enraged little Trumps!
Well done, I think that such a video might go viral. It might even cause some people to stop and think "Do I really want to be part of that sort of thing?"
The bottom line is that it is legal to seek asylum. Be quite amusing if Trump's supporters want to flee in panic because the next president turns out to be a Democratic anti-Trump with Trumpian tendencies, only to discover that Canada and Mexico have closed the borders and will separate them from their children if they seek asylum.
Slashdot should introduce a '-1 Bwaaaaaaahhhhh! ... UNFAIR!' mod just for Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell if you are joking with some form of sarcasm or just ACKing my comment.
However, I do not think that would be a solution approach that would lead anywhere. In the specific context of Slashdot, I think the two most important approaches would be (1) Make the dimensions properly orthogonal and symmetric and (2) Make moderation reflexive and symmetric with a multidimensional form of karma. In more general contexts, I think the broadest brush I've painted with is currently called MEPR. One version is
Not True (Score:2)
Other people in the government or military have been convicted of similar security crimes.
They didn't have a corrupt Attorney General to keep them from being prosecuted like Clinton had with Loretta Lynch.
Nope, that was a work of bad fiction. (Score:1)
There were no emails that the court requested being deleted. So, wrong.
Mind you, that DID happen with Shrub and Dick. Didn't hear you bleat on about it at the time, and you're still ignoring it today!
Stop lying (Score:3, Informative)
Recordings of all conversations (Score:3)
So are all conversations they have person to person also part of the public record? There should be some kind of difference between internal conversations of members of the same team (where hey, at some point, you will have a beer together) and official business between organizations or even countries where decisions are being made.
Re: (Score:3)
It's fascinating law. I believe that the latest version is available at recent amendments to it are recorded at https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]. As best I can understand it, the law includes voicemail and text messages. I believe that it was deliberately crafted after Richard Nixon's impeachment.
Trump Said It Best (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
All I ever heard was how non-serious this was, and what a trivial violation it was, and mishandling top secret documents in a way that guaranteed they fell into the hands of Russian intelligence (It was a windows server computer and the program was **Microsoft remote desktop**. No shell requirement to get into her shit. It was that **easy**), and the only remediation should be mandated training for the personnel involved.
In the interest of consistency and fairness, the following must be done: an exonera
Re: (Score:2)
The Customer's Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Why have officially mandated guidelines for all those serving in government - including post-holders, employees and advisors - not been tightened? If the concerns raised by the "Clinton Email Server" were as serious as the talking heads would have us believe, then when the Republicans came to power in 2016, why was the first new legislation on the slate not a comprehensive review of "conduct in public office", with permissible and impermissible activities more clearly defined?
3. Why is it acceptable for "dark money" to be given to aid political campaigns, with voters having no visibility of sources and therefore no way of knowing if decisions and votes being cast by elected representatives are given based on representing their electorate or based on the requirements of those special interests?
One way to look at this is as a customer - you a buying a service from the federal government by virtue of the taxes you pay.
In order to be able to look at this objectively, we need to cast aside the specifics of Hilary's email server or Kushner's use of Whatsapp, or Jrvanka's access to Top Secret information through clearances that raised strenuous objections from every agency involved... Instead we have to look at this from th eperspective of imagining a worst-case scenario: that the republic is under direct attack from hostile foreign actors, corrupt insiders and mendacious corporations and make sure that the framework in which government operates is designed from the get-go to safeguard *us* from abuses of that system.
Many
In shore, there are no excuses for the public to accept these failures of their government.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Because the GOP 1) didn't really believe that the emails were anything other than a BS talking point and 2) they want to use their own private communication too (see #1).
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Clinton's email server wasn't that she had a personal mail server. That's kind of cool (well, until I found out she was running Exchange on it). The problem was the spillage of classified information through it. You do not discuss classified information on the unclassified domain. Period. Most of the time, that sort of thing involves a harsh prison sentence, so it's already very illegal. No new laws were needed, and it is very different from complying with open records laws.
Ahahah. Right. (Score:3, Insightful)
"[H]er lawyer says she sent the emails before she was briefed on the rules."
It's a testament to this lawyer's iron will that he/she could utter that sentence without vomiting. If there's anyone on earth who really thinks that this administration could have entered the White House being blissfully unaware that email privacy and security was something to probably think about...
The partisan morons are revealed (Score:2)
The very first month Trump is in office he blows up Israeli intelligence assets out in the open. It was made known that Israel's security officials now considered anything "leaked" to the U.S. president is at risk. It hasn't gotten any better since then but domestic intelligence has adopted the practice of withholding things from him.
Over every objection by each and every U.S. intelligence agency Ivanka and Jared are given security clearances. These two are paid with taxpayer dollars to advise the
Re: (Score:2)
"most likely"? Just look at the recent 99 year lease taken out on the building that was likely to bankrupt the Kushner family business.
Re: (Score:2)
> These two are paid with taxpayer dollars to advise the president.
That statement is patently false - they do not take government salary of any kind.
"first daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump, son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and intergovernmental and technology aide Reed Cordish — take home no pay from taxpayers, according to the disclosure." - https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
Thank you for falling for my trap. It was so obvious I thought nobody would bite. But given that you seem to be paying some attention...
Here is Newsweek: [newsweek.com] Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner Made More Than $82 Million While Working at White House.
So, you consider this OK? You think there are no conflicts of interest here?
I remember when Republicans were so morally outraged by someone losing $52K on a real estate deal called Whitewater before they were eleccted that they spent $70M+ of taxpayer dollars inve
Dem dishonesty, mountains & molehills (Score:2, Flamebait)
This is just whatabboutery on behalf of Hillary Clinton without mentioning her by name. No one else has set up their own private server, used it extensively & exclusively for electronically communicating the highest levels of classified information, or destroyed huge amounts of evidence while under active FBI investigation. There is no comparison whatsoever between Hillary and any Republican - Republicans, by the way, who Hillary blasted [youtube.com] for using "secret email" accounts a mere two years before settin
Ratio is high today (Score:1)
(The /. ratio is defined as the ratio of AC comments by paid Russian propagandists compared to the rest of the comments in aggregate.)
December (Score:2)
senior White House advisor Jared Kushner's lawyer admitted in December
This is news now? I remember hearing about this at the time (December) - Cummings isn't claiming they are using WhatsApp today.
Just to be clear an exchange between a husband and wife where oneor both work in the whitehouse about whether the other will be home for dinner qualifies as "official whitehouse business" since it involves their work schedule.
As long as Hillary walks free, fine with whatever (Score:2)
Until you arrest the grand prize winner for top secret material stored on a box conveniently accessible to the world, until that day I say not one government official should be punished for leaking information.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Because people piss their pants if it's not a technology related story on Slashdot, so someone needs to find a tech angle for Mueller to get that posted. Here we have the WhatsApp/Facebook aspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Because people piss their pants if it's not a technology related story on Slashdot, so someone needs to find a tech angle for Mueller to get that posted.
There should be a Betteridge's or Godwin's Law postulating that Slashdotters are capable of finding a tech angle on anything.
It's kinda sorta like the IT UI saying: "Nothing can be made foolproof, because fools are so ingenius."
That said, I don't come here to read the tech news . . . I come here to read what other tech folks think about the news.
A Slashdot story about Kim Kardashian's butt would probably get a post stating:
"I am a postdoc using advanced topological quantum entanglement field theory mod
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All agreed there; that's why some of us browse at -1 permanently, so we can dig through the wreckage and upvote hidden gems (defined as Shit I Like).
What makes the system of moderation great is that it allows us to use our own squishy matter between the ears to decide what we'd like to see, instead of nanny stating us like sheeple.
Re: (Score:2)
*raises hand*
What do I do if some of my squishy matter leaked out on the floor?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. The fact it's done is a minor news item. When we find out what's actually in it, if we find out, that will be real news.
Re: (Score:1)
All this nail biting for the benefit of the advertisers and tabloids...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that nothing happened to Hillary is the precedent. If nothing happened to her, and remember there were others pre or during Hillary that got away with it, then why would such a genius as you self-proclaim yourself to be have anything to whine about vis a vis Trump et al continuing the stupidity?
Re:Does not violate federal records laws (Score:5, Insightful)
While you are likely right, it also sounds like a poor excuse on Ivanka’s part, when her father was voted in due to Hilary’s emails. Surely it would have made sense to do better than the one accused? At the same time I have read stories where the approved systems are so clunky that this invariably staff do use other methods just to be able to get work done.
Do note I am not here as a supporter of Hilary or Trump, so I am not taking sides.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty bold accusation. Can you back it up?
Re: (Score:1)
And I am ever so certain (Score:3)
Also, I'm quite certain I'm Napoleon. Viva la France!
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, some people are naive. Or just blinded by ideology.
It's not "all records", it's "the records Kushner chooses to maintain". And those records are in a format which is not searchable (screenshots).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's 2019 and "but her emails" is still going strong. Is this going to be the campaign slogan for 2020?
Re: (Score:1)
Not sure what the statute of limitations are, but 5 years sounds about right. And I’m not saying it is just Hillary, it’s that she is “patient 0” and we need to set a precedent that is more severe then “meh.” It would stop or at least pause morons like the Trump family.
Re:Does not violate federal records laws (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish there was a statute of limitations on using Hillary Clinton to excuse bad behaviour.
Re: (Score:1)
There's a statute of limitations on Hillary Clinton. She's getting old. Thank goodness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blame is fine. "Her emails" as defence of your own shitty behaviour is not. Take responsibility.
Re: (Score:3)
> It's 2019 and "but her emails" is still going strong. Is this going to be the campaign slogan for 2020?
Well, they contain collusion with foreign spies (Steele, Deirpaksa & co.), every sort of records law evasion you could want (and intent to do so in the email with Colin Powell who explained how to get away with it, that it was against the law, and that the NSA was strongly against this), violations of handling of classified materials, quid pro quo (e.g. the "WaPo party"), among other things... but
Re: (Score:2)
Hiring someone is not collusion. And, from on objective standpoint she seems to have done everything required of her (making the records available), when it was required of her. She certainly should have done that earlier (e.g.: when she left office), but the actual laws were non-specific about that.
Yo mentioned Colin Powel, who absolutely broken both the spirit and letter of the law intentionally, and then don't mention that he has not been punished for this, nor that Clinton seems to have gone out of her
Re: Does not violate federal records laws (Score:1)
Just WAIT until you see all the ILLEGAL STUFF Hillary REALLY did. It will make all the PIDDLY illegal stuff we already know Trump and Co. have done look like PEANUTS. And I am NOT talking about the COMIC, as YOU can TELL by my ALL CAPS.
Re: (Score:1)
Just WAIT until you see all the ILLEGAL STUFF Hillary REALLY did.
About as likely as finding Jimmy Hoffa. These people are untouchable. They have insurance. For one to go after the other is the very definition of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is not "are they official employees", but rather "are they covered by the FOIA?"
If they're not covered by the FOIA, then they've broken no laws, unless they've discussed classified information on their private server, in which case they should be nailed to a tree for mishandling classified information.
If they ARE covered by the FOIA, then they've broken the same law Hillary did, in the same w
Re: (Score:1)
Not unless their day jobs are working with the highest levels of classified information. Not unless they hired a sysadmin without a security clearance to set it up. Not unless they deleted thousands of pieces of evidence while under active FBI investigation.
Re:Clinton Selling Access To State Secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
The only insane frothing at the mouth is the anti-hillary shriekers like you dearie. She was investigated thoroughly for many years. Yet you demand that trump should not and deflect to "Waht aboot hilairy!!!!!" And when your idiocy is treated with the disdain and scorn it deserves, you HAVE to pretend it is just raving lunacy, not people actually connecting to reality and finding you falling FAR SHORT of it. Because otherwise you would not be able to maintain both your idiocy and your ego's satisfaction.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Uhhh, Comey literally laid out the case for exactly why she should have been prosecuted, then said she shouldn't be prosecuted, and it has emerged more recently that there was White House pressure to change the wording of his report to turn "gross negligence" (an actual criminal offense) into "extreme carelessness".
Unlike the Dems, Republicans actually care that their leaders don't violate the law. But we also don't allow people to just trump up charges against our people. You idiots were shrieking about ho
Re:Clinton Selling Access To State Secrets (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. I won't be holding my breath for a chant...any chant...of lock him up.
Your Horseshit (Score:1)
Mishandling classified evidence is what would send Hillary to prison for decades, for using an unsecured, unauthorized server adminned by a guy who didn't have a security clearance. Just ask Kristian Saucier [washingtontimes.com] who was prosecuted by the DOJ for taking selfies on his unsecured, unauthorized cell phone on a sub.
And what do YOU think the government would do to you if you destroyed thousands of pieces of evidence while under active FBI investigation?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Your Horseshit (Score:2)
In Soviet America all people are equal before the Law. But some classes of people are more equal than others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Everybody is talking as if they know what's in the Mueller Report. They don't. It's in Barr's hands now.
All that article talks about is indictments when we know there are many SEALED indictments. We knew since last year there's an INDIVIDUAL-1 that's obviously the president. And we knew if Trump fired Mueller, the fallout would have been massive.
In short, this article is nothing but spin.
Re: (Score:2)
Individual 1 is a name for the President in a Southern District of New York investigation, not Mueller investigation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, the only news referring to,"damage to the President" is that there were no more indictments recommended by Mueller. It is entirely possible that his legal advice is that a sitting President cannot be indicted so he is leaving it up to Congress (Or something. Not an American). It is also possible that there is evidence in the report but not clear enough to i
Re: (Score:2)
It's a major fault in /. moderation system that posts are so easily and frequently modded as troll. A comment, however stupid it is, can only be modded as troll if it clearly insincere. .
This is a comment I actually agree with so you can imagine the misbehavior of the modders is even more offensive
It is indeed very obvious that with the ending of the Mueller investigation every possible claim against the sitting government will be thrown at it to draw attention away from it.
Well, not every possible
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's never about needing the oil. It is about controlling it and a bit about selling it.
Re: (Score:3)
At least Jared and Ivanka are using an encrypted platform. Hillary, on the other hand...well, he likes to screw taxpayers without protection.
If there's a virus/backdoor on any receiving device then encryption won't make a difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Us Intelligence agencies controls Whatsapp? I'm sure there are many people who'd like to know this little fact, including the US intelligence agencies. Have you told them, yet?
Re: Are Jared and Ivanka Storing US State Secrets? (Score:2)
How naive are you? OF COURSE our intelligence agencies control WhatsApp. It's part of friggin' FACEBOOT for crying out loud!
Re:Are Jared and Ivanka Storing US State Secrets? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not? Then why do they have top level security clearance?
Dummy... (Score:1)
LOL, 2017
Hey dummy! How about posting some Rachel Maddow clips or some Louise Mensch tweets next...
Re: (Score:1)
Not as dead as this post...
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans cleared her, not Democrats. (Score:1)
And before Hillary there was Shrub and Cheney. Republicans. Who got given the walk DESPITE DELETING EMAILS THE COURT REQUESTED. Since you didn't complain when you did it before, you can't blame Hillary for you not complaining about you doing it AGAIN.
Maybe you should have thought before posting your bollocks. Try something not so obviously ideologically blinded and contrafactual.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans "lost" then found literally millions of emails.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Fix your caps lock key. Or maybe just buy a new keyboard. You've almost certainly sputtered on that one enough that it's very damaged.