As you know, President Trump sacked FBI Director James Comey yesterday. The firing involved a letter written by Rod Rosenstein, deputy attorney general, complaining about Comey, to Jeff Sessons. (The three relevant letters by Rosenstein, Sessons, and Trump are here.)
Jeff Sessons had recused himself of matters related to the Russia-Trump Scandal, so it was necessary for the DOJ and White House to make up a reason Comey was being fired, apparently, and that letter from Rosenstein included the excuse.
In the letter, Rosenstein said, "The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution..."
This is the announcement that ended the Clinton email investigation.
Let me rephrase this. Sessons agreed with Rosenstein's recommendation, and Trump with Sessons, to fire Comey because Comey had stopped the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email issues without prosecution.
The reason I mention this now is that to this moment, I've not seen a single news reporter, facebook commenter, or any one else get this right. At best the Clinton email connection is left vague, but at worse, people are noting how remarkable it is, and how unbelievable it is, that the Trump administration would use the OTHER THING Comey did about Clinton, the more recent momentary re-opening of the investigation thought by many to be a violation of the Hatch Act, as the excuse Trump is using. That is not the case.
Rather, it looks like this: Trump promised during his campaign to jail his opponent. Now, Trump has fired the FBI director for not taking steps to do so.
I am astonished that this has not been noticed, apparently, not yet, by the media.
I acknowledge that this is likely all a lame excuse, and that most people believe that Trump has fired Comey because the FBI was "getting close" to the White House, or to something, in its investigation of the Russia-Trump scandal. Fine. But the alt-Excuse, assuming it is fake excuse, is still important because top level federal officials including the President have now created policy. That policy is, the next FBI director will only be serving the administration's needs if they pursue or attempt to pursue a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton. And, again, I note, that "Lock her up!" was a campaign promise of Trump's.
So, this is not unimportant.
Trump and his minions did this because they (falsely) believe this will buy them tremendous good will with Democrats and Clinton supporters.
They are wrong.
That Trump and Sessions believe this shows how delusional and out of touch they are. They actually believe the fake news they are pushing.
This is what is frightening about this.
Trump's only hope to stay in power now is a wag-the-dog-war.
You amuse me bigly so I will lay some of it out for you and your readers. If you tell anyone I'll deny it and say this isn't me.
Short story. First of all, PBS and NPR have touched on the prosecution angle, but they haven't been able to make sense of the whole situation which is actually quite simple.
It is this: the art of sowing confusion and then turning it into chaos step by careful step on all fronts. The product is a protective cocoon.
This is why my Golden Name is omnipresent in all its hugeness.
The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution…
Personal caveat - ESL here
I first parsed this sentence as meaning "Comey spoke out of turn and should have let the Attorney General announce himself the conclusion of the investigation".
But, ah, yes.
I was implicitly - and wrongly - assuming the Attorney, at that point in time, would have said the same thing as Comey - investigation over, no prosecution.
This sentence actually just means that the Attorney was the one who should decide if the investigation is over, one way or another.
It doesn't really say that a prosecution should have been done; but it is certainly not Trump et al. acknowledging that Hillary Clinton was badly treated by Comey, as some of us may have read it.
So this sentence may well be have the meaning that the investigation was closed too soon.
David, re-read the letter! They are going to get very little good will by including a "lock her up" proviso!
@Helianthus: The then Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, had recused herself over the case. So some deputy AG would have had the final say on it. But I know of no reason why the FBI director would be out of line to recommend against prosecution.
The surprise to me is that the firing was over this, rather than Comey's misleading (to put it charitably) testimony to Congress re: Huma Abedin, which reasonable people actually would consider a legitimate reason to fire Comey.
But it's a transparent excuse either way. I am informed that a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia has issued subpoenas to associates of Michael Flynn. So firing Comey now reeks of the Saturday Night Massacre.
I would suggest changing: "...fire Comey because Comey had stopped the investigation...without prosecution." to "...fire Comey because Comey had stopped the investigation...without recommending prosecution."
Hello Greg! Might you credit the Trump WH with too much stability with their priorities, such as going after Clinton?
AFAICT, any scapegoat that currently has traction with the Great Leader at 4AM on the toilet is an acceptable target, especially to the degree that failures can be blamed on them. Long-term strategy does seem to be a long suit of this administration.
To me, simply the perceived disloyalty of Comey by offering any quarter to exculpatory facts. Those opposing X priority of the President seem to be dealt with harshly, and my impression is our POTUS is very unstable.
"But it’s a transparent excuse either way"
It's patently obvious. Trumpaline Tinyhands even admitted it with the lie of "three times you've said I'm clean". If it had nothing to do with the investigation, he'd not have to lie.
all this confusion reminds me of Adam Curtis thesis about "Oh Dearism"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy8uLjRHPM (5min video)
Adam Curtis is a documentary film maker for the BBC, and maker of the stunning documentary Bitter Lake - about Afghanistan's recent post WW2 history
@ Eric Lund
Oh, better and better. So I was really going the wrong way with my first parsing.
And I forgot about Loretta Lynch recusing herself.
I'm tempted to pity Comey: we liberals wanted him fired for doing too much on HRC (among other things), and he likely ended fired for not doing enough.
Of course, fox news ran a notice that said Comey had "resigned" - so all of this "firing" stuff will be pushed to the side.
"Hello Greg! Might you credit the Trump WH with too much stability with their priorities, such as going after Clinton?"
That is, indeed, always a risk. But, again, the president speaks, policy is made. It does not matter if there was an actual thought process leading to the words. The words are there.
US Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has other ideas about why, specially 'Why Now?'
Of course, fox news ran a notice that said Comey had “resigned”
Comey's resignation letter was delivered to his office by Trump's personal bodyguard, and Comey learned of it from TV news.
Even Soviet-era Pravda were better liars than Fox News.
"...Comey learned of it from TV news."
Yes, and thought it was a prank.
According to the New York Times's Michael S. Schmidt, Comey was giving a speech to his FBI team in Los Angeles when he saw the news about his firing break on televisions in the room. He hadn't been informed yet, and at first thought he it was a joke:
In response, Mr. Comey laughed, saying he thought it was a fairly funny prank.
Then his staff started scurrying around in the background and told Mr. Comey that he should step into a nearby office.
Mr. Comey stopped addressing the group. He proceeded to shake hands with the employees he had been speaking to. Then he stepped into a side office, where he confirmed that he had been fired. At that point, he had not heard from the White House.
You clearly haven't read the letter Greg. If Trump wanted Hillary locked up, there is little he can do about it at this point. If he wanted her to be prosecuted, he doesn't need to tell Comey anything. He would do what he said during the campaign. Direct Jeff Sessions to appoint a special prosecutor to look into her situation. The proper thing at that point would be for Jeff Sessions to refuse the order or resign.
As the letter said, it is the Attorney General that decides whether to prosecute, not the FBI director. Comey has done his investigation and reported to the Justice Department. It is up to them whether to prosecute.
The issue described in the letter(which I don't believe is the real reason for firing) isn't that Comey recommended no prosecution, but that he announced it publicly. The correct action was to send his investigation results to Justice, and be quiet. I'm not sure if it is even FBI's role to make a recommendation on prosecution.
Colbert's audience was in line and sitting in the audience for hours and didn't have time to get the new message from liberals. When Stephen announced that Comey was fired, they cheered.
You could also see this as a move to consolidate Trump's power: we had reports that Comey had just asked for more resources for the investigation into possible ties to Russia. Removing him, and having Sessions be in charge of finding a replacement, appears to head down the path to naming someone even less capable to replace him. Having #2, McCabe, in place in the interim, is a big plus to Trump.
Trump promised during his campaign to jail his opponent. Now, Trump has fired the FBI director for not taking steps to do so.
I think I'd say he fired Comey using the excuse that Comey wouldn't recommend the Attorney General begin investigating grounds for prosecution of Clinton -- not because there is any reason for the prosecution, but to shift public attention (and to fire up his mouth-breathing supporters) to that and away from the on-going investigation over Russia.
Dean, it's possible. There are any number of reasons that make more sense. More plausible than Greg Laden's reasoning is that Trump fired Comey because he got irritated by Hillary's saying that Comey's letter cost her the election, so he wanted to get Dems defending Comey.
It is even more plausible that the reason is exactly what they said in the letter. The FBI Director reports to the Deputy AG, Rosenstein, who was not confirmed until two weeks ago.
This should end up pleasing Dems, since they will likely get a special prosecutor out of it.
mikeN, is there any point you're trying to make with your asinine comments?
Since I'm being candid, I might as well point out what should be obvious; everybody has their reasons for being unhappy about Comey. So what? All the wrangling is really about deeper issues and Comey is just the tip of the iceberg.
Pro tip: Try not to be distracted by the shiny talking points.
Heh, heh! I can say that, because it costs me nothing. God bless my uneducated friends who can't do a deep dive or grasp cause and effect!
"and didn’t have time to get the new message "
Ah, 'fraid not, "mike", the left don't do it the same way as your lot.
"It is even more plausible that the reason is exactly what they said in the letter. "
"Trump fired Comey because he got irritated by Hillary’s saying that Comey’s letter cost her the election,"
Yeah, it's entirely reasonable that Trump got mad because Hillary was complaining about Comey. Well, not reasonable in the real world, but for some...
"It is even more plausible that the reason is exactly what they said in the letter. "
That would require believing they told the truth, but based on the history of statements from this administration one would have to be a fool to believe they have suddenly begun telling the truth.
"This should end up pleasing Dems"
Yes, they will be thrilled that Comey (again, as weak as he was) was willing to let the investigation go on is now gone and will be replaced by another Trump bootlicker is wonderful /snark
"since they will likely get a special prosecutor out of it."
Doubtful. Queasy as the Republicans may be about this (we've seen a few who are openly disturbed about it) it is doubtful that there are enough who are so disturbed they will go with the Democratic side on this.
Considering that the present White House incumbent told so many lies and exposed so many glaring gaps in his knowledge during his campaign that I see no reason to believe anything that comes out of the government he heads anymore. Whatever the truth of the matter, I doubt if it is in the interests of America in general.
MikeN: You may be right about the FBI-AG formal relationship but I think that is a moot point. I see no reason to think that violating some rule or other would hinder DT & the GOP in the least if they wanted something done or stopped.
>mikeN, is there any point you’re trying to make with your asinine comments?
Just that Greg's logic makes no sense. The AG can prosecute if he wants to. Thus many other theories are more plausible than Greg's.
Yeah, just fire the director of the FBI when they are getting close to the truth. No one will care. I think Lionel A nails it at #13. Why now?
That's the thing about conspiracy theories that actually turn out to be correct. Once there are more than a handful of people involved in the conspiracy, watch it all slowly unravel. Not the first popcorn moment in this sad administration, but hopefully one of the last.
“since they will likely get a special prosecutor out of it.”
Looking ahead, FBI Director has to be approved by the Senate. Dems might get some Republicans to agree to this condition.
"The issue ...isn’t that Comey recommended no prosecution, but that he announced it publicly. The correct action was to send his investigation results to Justice, and be quiet. I’m not sure if it is even FBI’s role to make a recommendation on prosecution."
This isn't the way it works.
The public prosecutors don't go out looking for people to prosecute, the cases are brought to them.
It is entirely normal for the police to publicly announce that they will not be bringing a prosecution, which is shorthand for saying they will not be bringing the case to the public prosecutors.
On the other hand, regardless of what the police decide, there is nothing to stop prosecutors from initiating an ex oficio indictment.
Clinton should have had the book thrown at her for her breaches of national security, and the Attorney General was as remiss in his duty as the FBI were.
"The AG can prosecute if he wants to."
So how does that relate to Greg's theory? And how does it support or at least not scupper YOUR claim? If the AG can do it anyway, in what way was Comey's letting it go going to stop him? It can't, according to you, therefore it can't be a reason to fire him.
"Looking ahead, FBI Director has to be approved by the Senate. Dems might get some Republicans to agree to this condition."
And how does that change what Dean said so that you quoted him (incorrectly, I assume, else you were disagreeing with yourself)?
Queasy as the Republicans may be about this (we’ve seen a few who are openly disturbed about it) it is doubtful that there are enough who are so disturbed they will go with the Democratic side on this.
Is what you would have to show is likely wrong. Not just ignore it and spout bollocks yet again.
"Clinton should have had the book thrown at her for her breaches of national security"
Uh, only if they then threw most of the previous Sec of States in jail for it too.
And the executed Shrub and Cheney for their deletion of emails.
Or no, they should not jail Hillary for it, since it was accepted practice, and if you are pissed off about that, get the rules changed.
But remember ex post facto.
Greg - I believe you are mistaken and have to agree with Helianthus in comment #4. The emphasis is on process - not the content. In fact, when content is discussed in the succeeding paragraph Rosenstein goes in the opposite direction:
"Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. "
This has been one of the Dems main lines of attacks on Comey and here Rosenstein adapts the Dems position. Now, this is the real irony: Comey did Hillary wrong so I'm firing him. Yeah - we're all buying that as the true rationale. That weird smell is the Trump Administration suddenly all aghast that Comey had the nerve to "gratuitously" release derogatory information about HC.
It's my understanding that the investigation into Trump"s association with the Russians had reached the "follow the money" stage, and requests had been made for the records of Trump's business entanglements with the Russians. Trump tends to get particularly antsy when you reach for his wallet, so might that not be one more of "the real reasons" for Comey's firing?
Hillary Clinton belongs in a jail cell next to Edward Snowden and that Manning abomination.
@ Kevin Thomas O'Neill #33
Err, no. I think you are reading too much into my words, I'm mostly in agreement with Greg. More precisely, I disagree with you on this interpretation:
Comey did Hillary wrong so I’m firing him.
This is the reading of this firing that we liberals tend to go to, because our criticisms of Comey are along these lines.
But my current position, and I believe Greg's, is that the letter send by Rosenstein make it clear that Trump &co are - officially - criticizing Comey for taking upon himself to stop the investigation.
IOW, Comey was officially fired not because he did Hillary wrong, but because he did Hillary's case wrong.
The distinction is not without meaning. The first phrasing acknowledge HRC's innocence - or at least mistreatment; the second phrasing, not so much. Maybe quite the contrary, as Greg read it.
Given trumpo puts his policy in his tweets, his tweet that criticised Comey for not advocating prosecuting Hillary kinda proves the point that his refusal to support the orange bottler in finding ONE promise he made to keep was the reason to his supporters, at the very least.
They, after all, would be horrified at Comey being fired for being mean to Hillary. THEY WANT HIM TO BE MEAN TO HER. So at the very least, "you won't lock her up!" was a reason.
The timing is probably due to the stage the investigation was in, because this was definitely rushed on a whim's notice.
Remember, there doesn't need to be ONE reason for something.
"This has been one of the Dems main lines of attacks on Comey and here Rosenstein adapts the Dems position. "
Only as a sop. It's a fake reason. And not requested nor required. And about 100 days late.
and here Rosenstein adapts the Dems position.
And again, no, he doesn't.
Remember, there doesn’t need to be ONE reason for something.
For all my bickering about "Comey was fired for closing the investigation on his own, not for re-opening it 8 days before the election" (i.e. Rep's main criticism vs Dem's main criticism), I will admit that your US governing team may have a list of motivations.
E.g. "Let's throw a bone at the Dems and fire Comey, maybe that would stop them yelling"
Or "Let's distract everybody by firing this annoying dude"
The old saying about malice vs stupidity also comes to mind.
I'm not a'merkan!
"The old saying about malice vs stupidity also comes to mind."
Mine is that there's no damn difference in what happened, only why. Like an accident or deliberate. Doesn't matter, you still fell off the ledge, whether you tripped or were pushed.
And it only makes malice a BETTER option, since if it were deliberate, it was the result of action and choice, which can be changed. If it was stupidity, it likely won't change.
So I really don't care about "malice or stupidity" when it comes to the act.
At work some years back, someone's data was deleted. Well, they couldn't find it and asked me what was wrong with the system. So I checked and they had issued a DCL job to delete the data, so I told them they'd deleted it from the IBM. They told me they'd never logged in. So I checked about, but the system at the time for the IBM had plaintext copies of the passwords for all accounts. So I checked up on one sysadmin who had access to that file and they were not available, they'd taken a sudden day off.
So I asked if his boss could phone him up and ask if he'd deleted it. "You can't blame them! You don't know!!!". But I pointed out if he'd deleted it (e.g. he got the account wrong or typed in the wrong ID for data to delete), then we had a one-off event that could be solved with a better process and thereby stop, whereas if he hadn't, then we had some rogue process deleting data and it would continue.
"Oh, you can't blame THEM! You have no EVIDENCE!!!".
I don't give a flying fuck. Phone up and find out. I don't want their head for the error, it won't bring the data back, but it WILL make the system safer because we can put in some checks. E.g. deletion has to be an email request, where the cryptic (therefore mistranslatable) job ID is written along with the owner ID, and if they don't match (in a two-factor style system), then a clarification of the IDs can be made.
But no, "You have no evidence, so we're not phoning them up to ask!".
Malice? Incompetence? CYA? Don't care. The result is the same, and it's not like they're going to fess up to what it was. And retribution isn't necessary.
What made it worse was we were supposedly operating under a "no blame" culture, and I wasn't blaming them, as in wanting their pound of flesh. But the wording was "blame" and ignorant buffoons didn't bother with the intent, which was spelled out in the reason for the paradigm as being so that you would not be blamed for fucking things up, therefore you can freely admit an error before it becomes worse. No, to them, it was "You can't say 'If they did delete it...' anything" because "that's blaming them for it!". No, blaming them for it is wanting them disciplined for their mistake. I wanted the mistake to be found or, if there was no mistake made, then we need to investigate how the system failed and deleted data, because a data storage bug is 100% catastrophe for a data storage archive.
Mike, that's a very good point. With all the word salad that comes out, any functionary is free to pick what they like comma and implemented without any intent intelligence. I had not thought of that: It's a policy Buffet!
Cracked has a take on this.
Clinton should have had the book thrown at her for her breaches of national security, and the Attorney General was as remiss in his duty as the FBI were.
The Feds almost never prosecute a case that they do not expect to win. As people knowledgeable of the relevant statute have informed me, to get a conviction under that statute requires a showing of intent. Comey is of course familiar with that statute, and familiar with the evidence, and he concluded that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate intent in Clinton's case to the standard required for a criminal conviction.
The deputy AG probably reached the same conclusion, but you can imagine the howls of indignation from the Republicans if she, a Democratic appointee, announced that unilaterally. Since Comey is nominally Republican, his announcing that conclusion gave her cover to not prosecute the case.
The DOJ could still prosecute the case if they wished, provided the statute of limitations has not elapsed. But the career lawyers know it would be a waste of time.
I agree with you.
I wonder how they got around the intent requirement for the poor sailor who took a photo (a selfie I believe) which showed some equipment in a room of a ship (a sub I believe). He never sent the photo off the phone - but he went to jail.
I am going off memory here - but I don't think he had any intent (like Clinton).
In the interests of justice - the sailor should be set free (if not already out) and they should use the same standard of intent for low level people as they do for high level people.
And never heard you complain about any other sec of state who did the precise same thing, never mind the deletion that happened under shrub.
So your wonderment is partisan and not genuine. You only want to get a democrat, and you're willing to use anyone to do that.
Adam @46 - "And never heard you complain about any other sec of state who did the precise same thing"
Give it up Adam, your comments are old and tired....just like they were on Deltoid, that is currently resting in peace at the bottom of the rising ocean.
Powell used a separate email account, whereas Clinton had a completely separate sever to house and store her emails. Powell's emails went into the State Department system with the state.gov domain.
And I don't remember Powell scrubbing 30.000 emails "with a brush" or claiming not to know "C" stood for classified...
Regardless, 2 wrongs don't make a right... except in Wow's Wind Over Westmill world...
Stick to your previously proven lies, hypocrisies, speculations and exaggerations....if you happen to find an inkling of fact in that imagination of yours, please feel free to share.
Eric, they never prosecute a case they don't think they can win, which is why it won't happen here with all the immunity thrown around. Demonstrating intent given Hillary's actions would not be too difficult. Comey declared no intent to leak classified info which is a different thing. Intent to conceal is evident in Hillary's actions, and her statements to the FBI, like pretending not to know what 'C' means on classified material. These sorts of statements are used by prosecutors to demonstrate intent, as well as having documents get deleted while they are being requested.
Also, intent is not required in this law, as other prosecutions have shown. Hillary's real benefit is the example set by Petraeus who got a free pass.
OK so you repeated Eric's post.
Well done. You typed.
Next, work on comprehension.
Only one retard thinks I'm adam.
Cracked has it pretty much nailed, though the RWNJs here will blow right by this as usual and keep talking past the rest of the reality-grounded people:
...and the bus you rode in on, MikeN.
Me me me me me 24/7.
Pissing on your leg and calling it rain...
"Demonstrating intent given Hillary’s actions would not be too difficult. "
Another line of bullshit from the chief liar, mikeN.
Sorry -- rickA -- the foolishness of their posts is almost identical.
Adam - "Only one retard thinks I’m adam"
It's worse than I thought.
I'll just summarise Wow's numerous and voluminous posts thusly:
I'm not suggesting Clinton's offence was in the same ballpark as that evil gnome Libby Scooter.
The fact remains, Clinton *intentionally* moved material that had markings on it to a system where that material was not permitted to be moved.
Not only that, but the material was then accessed by her country's enemies.
She cannot be ignorant of the handling rules for classified material.
Craig, that is actually a separate issue from setting up her own server. She had some e-mails that were so highly classified, they shouldn't have even been on her State Department e-mail and only accessed in special systems.
Bwahahahahaha. Thats a very funny bit of writing
in the link. And it gives very good perspective too.
Cant they have a Royal Commision type thing into it all?
It certainly seems called for.
Btw, how did North Korea drop from political dialog so
quick? Its noticable by its absence from just a few days ago.
#56, #57: If what either or both of you say is correct and obvious, then why are the Republicans in power holding back on actually bringing her to trial? Are these great GOP patriots so afraid of losing the case? Or could it possibly be that there are things with which prominent Republicans could be charged if such laws and rules were enforced too stringently?
I've heard Republicans make charges of great wrongdoing by Democrats before and they just disappeared after their publicity value wore off.
"I’ll just summarise Wow’s numerous and voluminous posts thusly:
And I'll summarise craig's reasoned response:
When the law hasn't had ANYONE doing the same thing being arrested, when the people responsible for upkeep of that law say there's nothing, but you STILL insist it's clearly illegal and you would be jailed for the same, MAYBE YOU'RE READING THE FUCKING LAW WRONG.
But, hey, if you feel that strongly about it, bring a private prosecution over it.
"The fact remains, Clinton *intentionally* moved material that had markings on it to a system where that material was not permitted to be moved."
That is not a fact, that is a blank assertion.
a) Most of the classified material was not classified at the time
b) SOME of it MAY have been classified at the time, but the counts were so low it may not have been any, and it's entirely possible it was a needle/haystack issue.
c) Some shit is "classified" as a cover-up of criminal work. See the WL releases on the Apache Helicopter war crimes, or the selling of boys to Afghan warlords as sex slaves. All classified. All illegal cover ups.
What is clear is that you want to insist on this narrative because you feel that you personally are held to a higher standard.
Fair enough, the anger is understandable.
But reality shows either that you're wrong or that you're misunderstanding reality.
If you want to change the law, then go and change the law. But at the moment, the law is not what you claim it to be.
Craig, here's an idea.
You deliberately copy just one classified email onto your home PC, wait a bit to see if you're caught, then anonymously dob yourself in.
(don't connect your PC to the internet at all during this time it has classified information on it if you feel that there is no innocuous information that is classified that you can do this test with)
See if you DO get fired.
If you don't, then you know absolutely your claim about it was wrong.
If you do, you can point to this thread and point out that Hillary didn't get done for it, so what is the difference?
You then either find out what that was or you have a defence in court, or you can press a private action against both the government and Hillary for their partisanship and breech of the equal protection under the law clause.
Craig, mikeN, and rickA, are getting quite tiresome with their fact free assertions about intent. No surprises in their behavior, but it is tedious.
I can agree with them that this sort of thing *should* be illegal.
However, the law doesn't appear to agree with them that it *IS* illegal.
Therefore the claims she should be locked up are not supported by the law.
Don't like it? Get the law changed. Simples.
"Craig, mikeN, and rickA, are getting quite tiresome with their fact free assertions about intent. No surprises in their behavior, but it is tedious."
I haven't been following this thread ... are they arguing that Colin Powell should be locked up?
No, apparently that's different.
Excellent point. I think you hit the nail on the head.
Unfortunately, it won't be on this presidency's coffin.
"I haven’t been following this thread … are they arguing that Colin Powell should be locked up?"
No, he isn't a woman, and wasn't (in their minds) as "uppity and dangerous" as President Obama.
And they like making things up. That's a big part of it too.
Popped up on BBC News: Could Trump be guilty of obstruction of justice?.
In other news
The NHS has been hit as part of a global cyber-attack that threw hospitals and businesses in the UK and around the world into chaos.
There is a war on.
Tyvor, as I said above immunity has been given to many witnesses, so a prosecution is unlikely. There is not as much evidence available as a result. For example, they agreed to destroy laptops in exchange for handing them over for inspection.
Colin Powell didn't use private e-mail for classified info, but he did go around the record keeping requirements intentionally. E-mail wasn't quite as pervasive back then, but he was definitely breaking the law, and advising Hillary to do the same. But again, not with classified material.
Lionel Smith - "Popped up on BBC News: Could Trump be guilty of obstruction of justice?".
A question is posed and Lionel has a wet dream...
"There is a war on."
Actually, it;s just a scam going on. Not the NHS or government, some criminal knobhead is holding up businesses with computers to ransom for bitcoins.
It's just arson with ransom demands, not war.
Though many try to make it look as manly as war. NI for example loved to think of themselves as terrorists fighting against UK rule in NI, when they were just criminal thugs shaking people down for protection money.
There was no more politics or religon behind it than Mafia dons shaking down for protection.
"But again, not with classified material."
But it WAS with material from his government position that was under court order to offer up and instead deleted deliberately.
Which even if it was printouts of kitteh pics is a criminal offence.
So where is Powell? In jail? No.
Where's the complaints? Nowhere. Not from those wanting to lock her up for something that might be deliberate but might not, and was handed over for checking in any case.
And even you trying to be accurate here is ringing false because you're eliding the illegality of deleting documents that were under court protection and therefore MORE required by law to offer up and not delete than if they were merely classified.
Classified documents can, after all, be withheld from court view. Nonclassified documents cannot, for any reason.
#71: If that is so, why hand out immunities if because of them no prosecution can be made in court? The answer that occurs to me is that the trial will be held instead as a propaganda festival in the media in which the loudest mouths usually prevail. Faux News; America's most watched.
As I said before: "I’ve heard Republicans make charges of great wrongdoing by Democrats before and they just disappeared after their publicity value wore off."
“I’ve heard Republicans make charges of great wrongdoing by Democrats before and they just disappeared after their publicity value wore off.”
That's because, just as mikeN, rickA, and their ilk show here, they make these accusations not because there is any fire behind the generated smoke, but because gullible people believe there is something to them. Once the disinformation campaign has achieved its desired result, they don't care any more. Just like spending was a big issue when President Obama was "spending like a drunken sailor" (when he wasn't) but Trump's plans to do so result in the same "deficits don't matter when our guy, who is white, does it" crap from them.
Their guy, however, is a vibrant orange.
#77: Oh yes, I agree. I can still hear Lindsey Graham in my memory, bemoaning just about everything Pres. Obama did or said as the worst thing ever in all of history, or words to that effect.
Watch Blazing Saddles again. Slim Pickens was playing a part. The Republicans aren't, but they do the same thing.
Actually, it;s just a scam going on.
Well yes that is what it looks like but its impact spreads further than the UK's NHS and its intent could be deeper.
Infections in more than 99 nations are being reported by security firms. It appears that the hardest hit are Russia and Spain.
What has happened?
The most widespread and public malware outbreak for years has managed to infect a huge number of large organisations.
WannaCry seems to be built to exploit a bug found by the US National Security Agency. When details of the bug were leaked, many security researchers predicted it would lead to the creation of self-starting ransomware worms.
What comes of relying on Windows which is expensive to keep up to date and troublesome to do on legacy systems.
It's the fact that it affects so widely that to me says it's just a crooked shakedown.
If it were war, it would be targeted to those being warred on.
If that's "everyone", then it ain't war.
And it's a problem with closed source binaries and copyright theft taking public property (the intellectual value of the learning done in the source code) and making it not merely propriatory, but hidden completely.
If there were no copy rights for non-expressive object code, then businesses would have to release the code to get their copy rights. And if they did so, then others could modify their software to work, even if the "copyright owner" cannot be bothered.