US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1129

On June 21 2014 02:50 Roswell wrote:
No worries Saryph, heres a pretty good article for explaining basic common questions Link
Would it really cost 10 million to back up emails? Gmail for me has saved since 06, (the ones I havent deleted.) its text for gods sake. What is each email less than 140KB?

On June 21 2014 02:57 Roswell wrote:
But 10 million dollars? I could go out and buy 4 Hardrives and have a trillion emails for 200$

On June 21 2014 02:57 Roswell wrote:
But 10 million dollars? I could go out and buy 4 Hardrives and have a trillion emails for 200$

Which is why Wall St. firms have to store all that stuff indefinitely or be liable to the Feds. We really should demand that kind of accountability of our government.

But it's bad reasoning to say "nothing happens" means "no scandal." Nobody was arrested for obviously illegal activity prompting the financial meltdown. Did no-one do anything wrong? Silvio Berlusconi repeatedly evaded conviction. Did he really not do anything illegal before they finally busted him? Al Capone? Hell, Narendra Modi? The Clintons financial dealings?

The timeline is really damning.

Neither is it plausible for 6 hard drives to have crashed in the time-frame we know emails were being exchanged concerning the targeting of conservative groups and Lerner's attempts to get Justice Department criminal proceedings. The redundancy inherently present in multiple layers makes it highly unlikely.

5. All email servers in a professional organization use TAPE backup. Meaning if all the above fails, you can restore the server using the TAPE backups.

6. If they are talking about her local PC, then it’s a simple matter of going to the servers which have the email and getting them from the servers. If the servers have removed the data you can still get them by using the backups of the servers to recover the emails.

On June 21 2014 04:19 zlefin wrote:
There's too much grandstanding in general in committee hearings. There should be a rule against grandstanding and pontificating; the point of the hearings is to hear from witnesses; so they should have to ask questions or move on.

On June 21 2014 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:

Keep the media out of the hearings and there is no one to grandstand for.
Or you know, get someone to lead the hearing who will actually tell someone to stfu when they cross the line.

On June 21 2014 04:37 aksfjh wrote:

You can't just kick out the media, but I think it might go a long ways simply to get rid of cameras and audio in there...

On June 21 2014 04:40 Adreme wrote:


They do have closed door meetings without cameras and media present and they typically are much nicer and they focus on getting information but when you bring cameras in its time to grandstand.

Many journalists and partisan Democrats excitedly reported Thursday that Scott Walker was at the center of a "criminal scheme" in which Walker's campaign illegally coordinated political activity with outside organizations. What these reports either downplayed or ignored altogether is that two judges, one at the state level and one at the federal level, have already found that the case against Walker has no merit and must be halted.

"The theory of 'coordination' forming the basis of the investigation, including the basis of probable cause for home raids, is not supported under Wisconsin law and, if it were, would violate the United States Constitution," federal judge Rudolph Randa ruled in May. For more on the case, which is being appealed, read Christian Schneider at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner.

On June 21 2014 08:26 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like there was a little bit of premature self-congratulation by the left on the Scott Walker thing:



Source

On June 21 2014 08:47 ticklishmusic wrote:


First, I don't really think there's any self-congratulating going on (I mean, I personally don't crow whenever someone with different political stances from me gets in trouble). If anything, you're the one sounding a little self-congratulatory here.

Second, the judges halted the investigation because they found that the reasons for investigation was not good enough. That's like saying police can't go into a house to look for drugs because they don't have a warrant because they don't have enough evidence to suspect there are drugs there, not that there are no drugs in the house. It's not a subtle difference by any means, though the writer of that article tries to make the leap from one to the other (shoddy journalism, zzz).

Third, the case can be reopened, and I bet there's a good chance that it will be.

On June 21 2014 09:26 xDaunt wrote:

Go read the federal order. The judge ruled that the investigation was likely frivolous as a matter of law. Specifically, the judge stated that the Wisconsin Club for Growth (and by implication, Walker) was likely to win its suit against the State for conducting the investigation because, as a matter of law, their conduct is lawful and protected by the First Amendment.

So no, the investigation probably is not going to be reopened.

This case is currently being reviewed by the 7th Circuit Court after Federal Judge Rudolf Randa (a member of the Federalist Society whose wife donated often to Walkers campaign and whose Judicial Assistant is the wife of Scott Walkers lawyer) ordered the investigation shut down and evidence collected by the investigators destroyed (the 7th Circuit immediately intervened to prevent the destruction).

The decision is just the latest in a string of hot-button rulings Randa has issued since President George H.W. Bush appointed him to the federal bench in Milwaukee in 1992.

Previous decisions by Randa struck down the Freedom to Clinics Entrances Act, which prohibited people from blocking abortion clinic entrances; eliminated Wisconsin’s minimum markup on gasoline, which was meant to prevent stations from undercutting and driving competitors out of business; and declared more than $50 million off-limits to victims of clergy sexual abuse who were suing the Milwaukee archdiocese.

The prosecutors say the work amounts to illegal campaign contributions. They contend Wisconsin Club for Growth doled out money to other groups, who then used it to help Walker or other Republicans.

For example, the organization gave $2.5 million to Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which in turn placed ads supporting Walker and Republicans, and criticizing their foes.

The club gave $4.6 million to Citizens for a Strong America — a sum that represented 99.9% of its revenue. The group then passed on some of the money to other groups — $1.2 million to Wisconsin Family Action, nearly $350,000 to Wisconsin Right to Life, and $245,000 to United Sportsmen of Wisconsin. In addition, Schmitz alleged, Citizens for a Strong America was the creation of Jordahl and Johnson. Johnson's wife, Valerie, was the treasurer and a signatory on the bank account, the brief alleges.

On June 21 2014 09:42 oneofthem wrote:
forgive me for not getting worked up about some politicized monkey trial when there are actual problems out there.