• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI agreed to destroy laptops of Clinton aides with immunity deal, sources say

Thoreau72 said:
Many informed people beg to differ with your analysis.

Full disclosure here: I just finished reading a collection of essays written in The Nation magazine, beginning in 1931 and ending in 2014.

It is painfully obvious that corruption and political games have been part of DOJ and FBI since Hoover was in, even preceding the McCarthy era and the HUAC. The Church committee and the COINTEL hearings also revealed this fact.

That you are unaware of it simply shows you apparent disregard for the lessons of history.
Click to expand...

I can tell by the whole anti-Trump tone on their website that they are totally unbiased. But I'm sure everything else is fair and balanced.
 
Chomsky said:
But correct me if I'm wrong, weren't these the employee's personal devices?

Actually, I can't find a definitive answer to this outside of Fox claiming "their" laptops (rather than the government's).
Click to expand...

If they use their personal PC for gov't work, then any and all information related to that work on those PC becomes Fed. property. They not only shouldn't be given immunity, they should be required to hand over those PCs to the gov't post haste and any fialure to do so should result in charges of contempt and obstruction of justice.
 
As far destroying the laptops is concerned - I can pretty much guarantee you that within an hours of getting those PCs, the FBI will have their hard drives fully imaged and backed up. The smartest thing they could do is image the hard drive onto a new identical one, swap it out with the original and use the original for the case.
 
American said:
I can tell by the whole anti-Trump tone on their website that they are totally unbiased. But I'm sure everything else is fair and balanced.
Click to expand...

FYI I do not visit their website, but could not bring myself to vote for The Donald whether that website existed or not.

I am disgusted with both candidates, in case you're even interested. But I do find the lessons of history to be most informative.
 
Chomsky said:
If I, or a client of mine (I'm not a lawyer), voluntarily gave the government or any other entity the right to examine my personal data, I'd sure as hell want it destroyed after the examination as well. It sounds like prudent practice. I can't fault them at all.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. I can see the FBI keeping it sequestered in a basement someplace, but destroying the data lends to an appearance of corruption, whether or not corruption actually exists. It's not a smart move.
 
American said:
Nixon did far less than Hillary, and resigned. How can you possibly even go back that far.
Click to expand...

Actually, Nixon did much more, but Nixon actually did some very good things too, while in office. It's not that Nixon was a crook at heart. He was a very paranoid individual, and his paranoia destroyed what could have been a very historic legacy for him.
 
The government had warehouse space for the Ark of the Covenant, they probably could have found a place to store these laptops.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
The government had warehouse space for the Ark of the Covenant, they probably could have found a place to store these laptops.
Click to expand...

LOLz. :lamo

On a serious note, the federal government has thousands of unused / disused properties on which they keep paying, leases / rental / maintenance / security.

So, true, they have lots of storage space for all kinds of stuff. But, being evidence, wouldn't / shouldn't they be locked up in some sort of secure evidence lockup?
 
Chomsky said:
If I, or a client of mine (I'm not a lawyer), voluntarily gave the government or any other entity the right to examine my personal data, I'd sure as hell want it destroyed after the examination as well. It sounds like prudent practice. I can't fault them at all.
Click to expand...

As I was reading the "bombshell", I kept asking myself what perversity and maniacal partisanship could compel someone to contort a glaringly simple reality? If someone was transparent enough to grant authorities access to his personal data, no one has any legitimate concern as to what happens to it afterwards.
 
reinoe said:
So all we have to do is cross our fingers and hope that 100% of everything was copied, although it begs the question why the laptops need to be destroyed at all.
Click to expand...

100% of everything is always copied. Creation of a forensic image requires collection of 100% of everything because it's a sector by sector copy of the entire device. Hard drives don't actually store everything in one big blog at the beginning of the drive, a file might reside in 35 little pieces scattered throughout the drive, so if you are copying raw sectors (which is what creating a forensic image does), you have to copy the entire drive.

The destruction of the laptops is an unimportant detail. The standard practice is to return the laptops. Requesting that they destroy them instead is just a means of saying "we don't want them back, so just get rid of them when you're done".
 
Last edited:
Gaztopian said:
As I was reading the "bombshell", I kept asking myself what perversity and maniacal partisanship could compel someone to contort a glaringly simple reality? If someone was transparent enough to grant authorities access to his personal data, no one has any legitimate concern as to what happens to it afterwards.
Click to expand...

Its not personal data or the FBI wouldn't want access to it. One executive agency does not have the authority to erase oversight data for another agency. There may be some question as to whether the FBI actually violated oversight as well through the destruction of data. A transparent government would want to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety, apparently the FBI, the State Dept. and the Attorney General's office don't believe in transparency.
 
When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a pants suit and desperately deleting incriminating e-mail.
--Webclair Lewis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom