Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Michael Flynn Jr believes it (Score 1) 702

Even worse, Michael G. Flynn, member of the Trump transition team and son of the next National Security Adviser might be a 4chan shitstain and is spreading this story just for the keks.

We need a government official to fact check this unsubstantiated allegation, right now, before these rumors get out of hand!

Comment Re: Political reality (Score 1) 445

Nothing?? Among other things, Hillary gave her maid access to a SCIF so that the maid could monitor the secure fax machine for her!! Just for this alone, anyone else would have been prosecuted. To my knowledge, the FBI reported this only about a week before the election, but it was only barely covered by the press (google search site:cnn.com "hillary" "maid" pulls up nothing relevant). This should have been reported as a bombshell. http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/c...

Comment Re:Does this mean... (Score 1) 822

Portion markings are not required to make an email classified. It is the information contained that makes it classified. After review, there was a determination that many documents containing classified information were passed through Clinton's system. Part of one's responsibility as a classified information processor is to identify classified information.

Comment Re:Does this mean... (Score 4, Informative) 822

No, they did find intent - they just refused to say that they found intent.

I've posted this before, but I guess that I'll have to keep reposting it every time someone claims there was no proof of intent.

Transcript of Gowdy questioning Comey. Lots of context, but note the bolded section:

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?

Comey: There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey: No.

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements are used for what?

Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right?

Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve. You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.' It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.

Comment Re: That's, for better or worse, for a court to de (Score 1) 219

Not that I disagree, but how do you handle the situation where a company (many, many people) are responsible for the creation of the work (such as a movie)? If you assign copyright to every single person that worked on the movie, how do extension requests work?

Comment Re:What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score 1) 380

It's wrong when people get hurt. See here Alex Jones caught on tape planning terror attacks against Clinton rally: video link.

That video link shows the opposite of what you claim.

A new video investigation released Monday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action shows how Democratic-aligned organizations used a tactic called 'bird-dogging' to incite violence and chaos at Trump rallies for media consumption. A key Clinton operative is captured on camera saying, "It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."

Slashdot Top Deals

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Working...