Republicans Are Reportedly Using a Self-Destructing Message App To Avoid Leaks (theverge.com) 326
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Trump administration members and other Republicans are using the encrypted, self-destructing messaging app Confide to keep conversations private in the wake of hacks and leaks, according to Jonathan Swan and David McCabe at Axios. Axios writes that "numerous senior GOP operatives and several members of the Trump administration" have downloaded Confide, which automatically wipes messages after they're read. One operative told Axios that the app "provides some cover" for people in the party. He ties it to last year's hack of the Democratic National Committee, which led to huge and damaging information dumps of DNC emails leading up to the 2016 election. But besides outright hacks, the source also said he liked the fact that Confide makes it difficult to screenshot messages, because only a few words are shown at a time. That suggests that it's useful not just for reducing paper trails, but for stopping insiders from preserving individual messages -- especially given the steady flow of leaks that have come out since Trump took office. As Axios notes, official White House business is subject to preservation rules, although we don't know much about who's allegedly using Confide and what they're doing with it, so it's not clear whether this might run afoul of those laws. It's also difficult to say how much this is a specifically Republican phenomenon, and how much is a general move toward encryption.
Don't care anymore (Score:3, Funny)
it's Republicans doing it so it's OK.
Re:Don't care anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
it's Republicans doing it so it's OK.
Whilst I believe you are being facetious, your post outlines the problems with partisan political supporters (of all sides), they consider something to be wrong only if it is done by those they don't support.
Re:Don't care anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm fairly partizan on my politics, but that doesn't stop me from chewing the arses off of my side even more than I chew tails of the other side. In fact, I'm usually much harsher on those of my side exactly because they are on my side. I expect and demand better behavior from them. I'm disappointed much of them time, but still.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting, the DNC chose Signal (Score:2, Interesting)
Meanwhile, the DNC is on Signal [vice.com].
Speaking only for myself, yes, I'll be mad at them if they're trying to evade the Presidential Records Act or similar, whichever party is doing this. I won't, however, just make blind assumptions or blame either party for trying to be secure. That said, insider threats are the big threats and for that it doesn't matter how securely the messages are delivered to the mole.
Re: (Score:3)
The DNC is in no way equivalent to the White House.
And the article is talking about the RNC, not the White House.
Re:Don't care anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it is right or wrong all criminal organisations adopt a policy of destroying records. That way there is no incriminating evidence left lying around. Trump certainly knows how to behave like a gangster.
Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Welp, they're in charge so I guess they get to make the rules, but did they even bother to change the laws first?
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems? Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?
Welp, they're in charge so I guess they get to make the rules, but did they even bother to change the laws first?
Trump and the GOP are hypocrites?
That's unpossible!
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems? Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?
Welp, they're in charge so I guess they get to make the rules, but did they even bother to change the laws first?
Trump and the GOP are hypocrites?
That's unpossible!
Inconceivable!
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
It's at least unpresidented.
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually they are. Records must be kept for presidential libraries.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Gore Vidal used to tell a joke about the Reagan Library:
That it had burned down, and the real tragedy was that Ronald hadn't completed coloring the second of the two books in it.
I'm pretty sure that the Presidential Libraries are set up and somewhat controlled by the ex-president. The Clinton Foundation started out as an adjunct of the Clinton Presidential Library. Naturally, Willie figured out a way to milk it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
Bill, that's just not true.
Further, courts since Nixon have upheld this provision of the law. Presidential records must be preserved. As Sean Spicer would say, "period".
Now, presidents have issued executive orders attempting to countermand this provision (Reagan, Bush I and Bush II), in an effort to circumvent it and to keep their evil-doing secret for as long as possible, but as recently as 2007, the courts have said, "Nah, fuck that". If you want to keep something from the public, you better classify it. That's how we got to the point where so much of what our government says and does is classified. The recent discussion of Trump's horribly botched raid in Yemen is an example of this. We know the target was missed, we know 30 civilians died (including an 8 year-old girl), we know that a Special Services soldier died and an aircraft was lost, but when asked why the administration was calling the raid a great success, the answer was, "It's classified".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
These are records that have been created, the fact that they're subsequently illegally destroying them does not make the records any less created. If they don't want to created public records, then they shouldn't create public records.
Deleting things after the fact is what got Nixon run out of office. Considering the shady shenanigans that we've seen out of the GOP the last few years, I can only imagine how bad the stuff is that they don't want the public to see. Stealing a SCOTUS nomination was pretty low.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember Bork? Thomas?
How about Harry Reid and the filibuster for the lower courts.(That's cheating.)
This, right or wrong, good or bad, is the way the game is being played now. Stop pretending that this is a stolen nomination.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is being reported that the way the military sold Trump on doing this botched raid is by saying "Obama wouldn't do it". So, it was a matter of Cheeto Benito wanting to look tough in his first days in office and ended up getting people killed.
If it had happened under
Congress controls agencies, not the President (Score:4, Insightful)
I think what GP means is this:
Most government agencies, such as the FCC, FTC, and FBI, act on the authorization of *Congress*. Congress made a law creating the FCC, and granted the FCC certain powers. Congress can do that because the Constitution gives them that power. When Congress created the FCC, they also put limits on it. The a law, passed by Congress, that says "the FCC can regulate phone companies, and when they do, they must preserve their records according to a, b, and c. So these federal agencies created by Congress have to operate the way Congress specifies. Congress can create records retention rules for the agencies they create.
On the other hand, the Presidency was *not* created by Congress. The President gets his authority directly from the Constitution. The Constitution gives the President the power to control the military, to conduct international relations, etc - without asking Congress for permission. Because the Constitution gives the President certain powers, Congress has no authority to say "you can't do that unless you do it our way". The President can conduct his Constitutional authority in any way he sees fit. The Constitution says he's commander in chief of the military, so Congress has no authority to say that he must send all military orders using this system or that system.
Other Presidential powers *are* granted by Congress, and can therefore be regulated by Congress, so *in theory* they could regulate how he uses those powers, but the courts, the Congress, and the President traditionally are leery of interfering with *how* the other branch internally conducts their business. They argue about policy, the fight about what laws to make across the nation, but the vice-president (officially the president of the Senate) doesn't comment on the Senate rules of how they operate internally, and the President doesn't tell the courts how to publish rulings, and Congress doesn't tell the president which messaging system to use.
Picking a fight about that stuff internal to another branch is wasteful and counter-productive. If Congress decided to tell the President which messaging apps to use, he could turn around and have VP Pence, who is Constitutionally President of the Senate, start picking at the Senate's internal process. It's not worth it.
Re:Congress controls agencies, not the President (Score:4, Insightful)
Since Washington's staff in 1796. Staff under Pres (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an interesting argument. It was resolved quite some time ago. The counter-argument is of course that because the President is empowered to fulfill his duties as he sees fit, one method he may use is to hire staff to assist him in his duties. The White House staff operates under the Constitutional authority of the President, as agents of the President. Their authority doesn't come from the Congress. Further, interfering with the White House staff *is* interfering with the President's conduct of his Constitutional duties. This is the reasoning the Supreme Court has mostly used - Congress may not generally interfere with the President's conduct of diplomacy*, and because the President conducts diplomacy by using his staff, interfering with staff *is* interfering with the President's powers.
Not only can Congress not specify a particular means of communication, they can not even *look* at internal White House memos if the President indicates that doing so would interfere with his Constitutional duties. This is called "executive privilege" and it was first invoked by George Washington. In 1796, Presiden Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents related to the negotiation of the Jay Treaty. Many, many Presidents since Washington have invoked executive privilege, and most of the time they've won.
A major turning point in executive privilege was Nixon. The Nixon administration refused to turn over documents related to Watergate, saying "executive privilege". The Supreme Court ruled that while a President may keep White House communications private, in a criminal investigation of that magnitude he had to give more explanation than just saying "executive privilege". Given the gravity of the situation and the legitimate interest in the papers, he would need to say "turning over the papers would interfere with my Constitutional powers because ...", SCOTUS said. While technically the court ruled against Nixon, they stressed that generally the White House *may* choose not to reveal their communications to Congress or the courts - in criminal cases of major public interest, they just need to state a *reason* they aren't turning over the communications.
For 25 years after Nixon no President lost an executive privilege claim. The Clinton administration claimed executive privilege a record fourteen times, and lost only once.
So yeah that is an interesting argument you've made. That argument has not been the successful argument throughput history.
* Aside from ratification of treaties by the Senate only.
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems? Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?
Welp, they're in charge so I guess they get to make the rules, but did they even bother to change the laws first?
Yes, it is. And what Hillary was accused of by the Republicans.
But.. Hillary's emails.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case something really, really stupid. Paper trails, or the new digital trails allow, blame shifting their number one purpose. I said, they said, in court, just means you are all fucked, digital trail in court means, just the instigator gets done. Next up of course, "I thought you meant", no record to go back to, when you a plotting and scheming and conspiring, means mistakes, fuck ups that bring down the whole scheme.
Then of course it becomes an instant flag for further scrutiny and so all message
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Only democrat's claim there was nothing actionable, but ask the people been jailed for mishandling classified information if they feel the same?
I see. Name the specific law and the statutes involved and the punishments as prescribed by law. Also, give us the citations of the names of the people who are in jail for mishandling classified information. Up to the challenge, You can even use alternate truths as long as you cite them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Both (e) and (f) carry a fine of up to $10,000 and a sentence of up to 10 years. She should face a count for each email sent from her account. For any emails containing classifie
Re:That's becoming a meme (Score:5, Informative)
Everybody entrusted with classified information is held to the same legal standards, many a lessor person has faced decades in Jail for such a crimes. She could get lucky and be charged with the negligent mishandling charges for all the emails she sent. (she is not liable for emails sent to her that might have contained such info, but then the FBI should be going after whoever sent those to her), but as Classified information, is stored on physically separate networks and machines, the act of transferring the data, especially the Top Secret info that was on some of the emails, is a deliberate act so she should face the slightly more severe deliberate security compromise charges.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care if anything was actionable in the emails. At least one email that was required to be retained for official records was deleted after being subpoenaed, that was illegal.
Re:That's becoming a meme (Score:4, Informative)
Still feeding the fake news and alternative facts I see. Sorry, you can't rewrite history. If you voted for President Pedophile, you voted for someone who lies and has no problem breaking the law, and if you did it because he made up a claim that his opponent broke the law all the worse. Kelly-Anne Conway just broke the law on Fox News last night by advertising for Ivanka Trump, but I don't see Republicans punishing her either. Most federal employees in the past get suspended or fired for what she did last night, but President Pedophile and Republican controlled congress are the only ones with the ability to punish her, and I don't see either doing anything. President Pedophile actually defended her after she broke the law.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ma... [forbes.com]
https://www.bloomberg.com/poli... [bloomberg.com]
The Clinton e-mails are one of the biggest lies Republicans, Breitbart, and Fox News told. Nothing was really deleted. Hillary first sent one copy of the hard drives to a law office and had them sort between all the personal stuff and professional stuff. They "deleted" the personal stuff off that copy of the data before handing it to the FBI. The FBI said that wasn't sufficient and issued a subpoena for all the data including the personal data. Then she handed a copy of all the data including the personal stuff. Once requested, the FBI got everything. The quote from the FBI was about "deleted" e-mails was that there were about a dozen business e-mails that hadn't been included with the first set of business e-mails handed over. There wasn't any crime, because nothing was actually deleted. The FBI also decided that the missing ("deleted") e-mails was not criminal because there was no evidence that it was done intentionally and there was nothing incriminating in them (incorrectly sorting 0.1% of the e-mails was probably accidental). It's not like we are talking about paper copies where there is only one copy of the papers and she shredded them. There were multiple copies of the data on different hard drives and backups.
Rice had her aides use personal e-mail accounts to send e-mails for her. Powell used a private e-mail account (believed to be AOL) for his secretary of state e-mails. Republicans only had a problem with Clinton doing the same thing Republicans had done. They also leave out that she requested a secure e-mail option from the NSA twice and was rejected; the NSA told her to send e-mails from her office computer when she spent most of her job traveling. She was just trying to do her job.
http://www.nytimes.com/interac... [nytimes.com]
http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
http://www.usatoday.com/story/... [usatoday.com]
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
http://thehill.com/policy/nati... [thehill.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02... [nytimes.com]
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/... [factcheck.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's becoming a meme (Score:5, Informative)
He flirts and hits on 10-15 year old girls regularly (often enough that there are multiple tapes of him doing it). He liked walked in on underage teenage girls naked changing and bragged about being the only man allowed to do it on the Howard Stern show. He had his staff try to encourage the underage teenage girls that were naked to flirt with him saying they were more likely to win the contests if they did. He talked about wanting to sleep with teenage girls on the Howard Stern show. In my opinion, that makes him a pedophile.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
http://www.rollingstone.com/po... [rollingstone.com]
http://www.politifact.com/wisc... [politifact.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
http://people.com/politics/don... [people.com]
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_... [slate.com]
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mo... [cbsnews.com]
http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/12/... [tmz.com]
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-... [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: That's becoming a meme (Score:5, Informative)
You are on Slashdot. You should understand deleting one copy of data isn't actually deleting it when other copies exist. You are doing exactly what Trump, Fox News, and Brietbart did by using the term "deleted" when referring to one copy of the data to imply that data was lost. The first sentence was a misquote. I said "Nothing was really deleted" because other copies of the data existed; thus no crime. When handing over the business only data Hillary was very clear about what had been done and that she had a law office sort the data.
There is no cover-up or conspiracy here. Republicans managed to make one out of thin air. I do have to credit them with managing to convince so many Americans that a crime was committed when one wasn't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
She didn't delete any e-mails. That's a Trump alternative fact. I already posted once in this thread about it:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
There is zero evidence that Hillary broke any laws. None of the "classified information" in the e-mails was marked "classified" which is the big difference between those that are prosecuted and those that aren't. For unmarked information, you would have to prove that she was intentionally trying to leak classified information for it to be criminal. Should she ha
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you and the article make it sound like something was actually deleted. First of all, even in the article it says the tech wasn't asked to delete anything by Clinton, so even if he did it wouldn't be her crime. That said, from the actual FBI report it doesn't sound like he did anything wrong. The report just documents every time e-mail was deleted in the audit logs including temporary and duplicate copies of data.
The quotes in the article are reworded and rearranged from the actual FBI report. I d
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't keep finding more missing e-mails. They took a long time to go through the e-mails they already had. They kept finding e-mails in what they already had that were relevant to the investigation. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
When they got a hold of the Wiener/Abedin e-mails the reason they were able to go through them so quickly is that they already had all the Clinton e-mails, they just had to go through the ones that were about Clinton that weren't addressed to her.
As I stated, she
Re: (Score:2)
Also probably one of those "It's not illegal when the president does it," type things, especially when his party is in power, is spineless, and his voters really wouldn't mind if he murdered someone on national TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems?
Yes, if it is Government business. If is GOP/politcal party business, then no.
Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?
Yes, because she did Government communications over non-Governmental systems.
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:4, Informative)
On a related note, the White House FOIA page [whitehouse.gov] is currently unavailable. So much for requesting transcripts of all Trump Administration business done over Confide (just for shits and giggles since there's no chance they'd, you know, comply with the law or anything).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that one of Trump's ex wives?
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that delete all does not get to all the magnetic backup tapes and the FBI still gets some data was well understood over the decades.
So political parties use methods like a political back channel. Or some internal political party work is not the really the US gov legal effort.
The other effort is to say the Freedom of Information Act is limited and what was the emerging National Archive and Records Administration can only look at a real gov a
Re: (Score:2)
So there you go people - IT folks can make a difference to expose things like North giving classified anti-tank missiles to Hezbolla less than a year after Hezb
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary lost for several reasons (such as support for the TPP at the expense of the middle class), not just the emails. The DNC screwed themselves by picking her as the candidate; Bernie would have won.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a dig at the above poster (it probably doesn't apply to them), but typically Americans are so politically naive that they even think "Atlas Shrugged" is some brilliant thing instead of a pathetic call for the implementation of Russian feudalism in a place that already has something hundreds of time
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we live in an age where those breaking the rules no longer even pretend that they should. I was reading a Conservative Catholic forum a few minutes ago where they're demanding the Ninth Circuit Court justices be impeached for the audacity of challenging edicts from on high. I'm beginning to see the kinds of people that empowered the Bolsheviks, Brown Shirts, Khmer Rouge and all the other dictatorships out there, people who believe any challenge to the leader's authority is effectively a high crime.
Re: Isn't this illegal? (Score:2)
I don't think he was suggesting it was official Church policy was he?
Re: (Score:2)
hey republicans: if you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide??
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, yes. It was technically legal to host a private email server when Hillary did it (maybe violating rules that Obama put in place, maybe violating laws regarding classified information). It was made illegal after her, so they did bother to change the laws...
Re: Isn't this illegal? (Score:4, Informative)
The @POTUS account retweeted his Nordstrom tweet, so yes. Plus Kellanne Conway was busy telling people to "Go buy Ivanka's stuff."
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/0... [cnn.com]
http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/... [heavy.com]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl... [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing the US Government is keeping up their subscription payment for the @POTUS twitter account, the same as the rest of us do for our twitter accounts.
Otherwise the guy in this story [slashdot.org] would probably be sweating bullets over twitter not being the smashingly successful profitable company that it is.
Re: Isn't this illegal? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In a bunch of Hillary supporters' wet underpants. (before they woke up)
(we should set up a 'Burma Shave' type meme, except the last sign reads: 'President Trump!' )
Re: Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
When was Hillary Clinton POTUS so she could do these terrible things from her high position of power that you speak of.
Seriously, you're left defending Trump by creating an imaginary Hillary Clinton presidency to point to. But it doesn't work like that. Trump claimed to be draining the swamp, but I guess what he really meant is that he was going to make a new swamp, twice is smelly and with him right at the moment.
Re: Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
She doesn't need to be POTUS to do those things because she's a whooosh. I mean witch.
Re: (Score:2)
The glass ceiling fell on her?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for fuck's sake! No, she's not, Satan has WAY more fashion sense!
Re: (Score:2)
Sure (Score:2)
The day after his party killed the one federal agency tasked with ensuring voting machine security.
Monsters and the monsters that defend them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're probably exchanging cookie recipes...
Re: (Score:2)
Nordstrom has one you can buy for two-fifty. It's true, I saw it on snopes.
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, McCain, at the sunset of his political career, clearly is in a "I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks" kind of mood, and while McConnell remains somewhat deferential, he doesn't seem at all thrilled with the Administration either. Mind you, that really was the intent of the Senate, that Senators' longer terms and one-third per election was meant as a partial insulator of the sort of electoral winds that preoccupy the House and the White House.
Still, you're right. The GOP leadership have become a sort of modern group of von Papens, staring on impotently in disbelief as the new leader shocks and awes everyone. The chief difference is of course the historical leader I speak of actually seemed to have some notion of what he's doing, whereas Trump literally does seem to be stumbling around blindly. That shocks me because we've all been told countless times what brilliant people the likes of Bannon and Conway are, and yet, as so often is revealed, those that are skillful at achieving power are often astonishingly bad at its application.
My prediction is that Conway, Bannon and Spicer are not long for this world. Not only are there rumors floating around that the Kushners are in a tug of war with Bannon, but even without that, Bannon's use of his newfound influence to push through Executive Orders is making Trump look foolish and unprepared, and as we know, nothing is ever Donald Trump's fault, so we know when Trump looks foolish, he looks for fall guys. Just look at Paul Manafort's take.
If I believed Trump wasn't an idiot, I'd almost wonder if letting Bannon and Conway fuck up so badly was part of a plan that would end in a Trumpesque version of the Night of the Long Knives.
I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if they still want that backdoor to that encryption sitting there for someone to stumble on...
Re: (Score:2)
Would Germany have the ability given its funding changes?
"Germany to pour cash into mass surveillance" (08.09.2016)
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-t... [dw.com]
"particularly decrypting what the report calls "non-standardized telecommunications,""
Other nations still hire their crypto experts on merit so the institutional expertise in say Australia, the GCHQ is still good
Just not lie scheme and cheat ? (Score:2)
If you just can't be upright and legal and not message stuff you can't talk about or don't want to admit in public it seems like a 'decent' solution.
God forbid they just say what they mean and stand behind it like regular human beings.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's excellent reasoning when applied to government though. They work for us, and virtually everything they do ought to be open to scrutiny with the exception of genuine national security reasons.
And no, national security shouldn't apply arbitrarily based upon what the government thinks is going to embarrass them, they should have to go to court and get a judge to sign off on the records needing to be protected.
Just use a Samsung Note 7 (Score:5, Funny)
"This phone will self-destruct in 5 seconds. Good luck, Kellyanne."
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that Kellyanne's mission is ... impossible. [*badum-tish*]
Fry meme: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They learned nothing, that's #1 in any crook's book.
So yes, I believe when Nixon says "I'm not a crook". Because he failed badly at this.
The app's name is ... (Score:2)
... "Donald Trump." However, the guy's a pisser, so he leaks.
Yeah (Score:2)
I'm surprised ... (Score:2)
This note7 will Self Destruct in 5 seconds! (Score:3, Funny)
This note7 will Self Destruct in 5 seconds!
If you're doing nothing wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you're doing nothing wrong then you've got nothing to hide"... is that how the saying goes?
Errrrrrrr (Score:4, Insightful)
Quick question: Doesn't this violate the government regulations regarding destruction of records?
https://www.justice.gov/usam/c... [justice.gov]
and:
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen... [ed.gov]
After all, if Trump’s tweets are now presidential records (and, by law, they are), wouldn't these also be included under those rules?
"Federal records may not be destroyed-except in accordance with the procedures described in Chapter 33 of Title 44, United States Code. These procedures allow for records destruction only under the authority of a records disposition schedule approved by the Archivist of the United States. NARA issues a General Records Schedule (GRS) that gives record descriptions of records that are common to most Federal agencies and authorizes record disposals for temporary records."
Yes, yes, I know, "But Hillary Hillary Hillary....", right, I get it, but if her doing it was illegal (and I think it was), how can this be legal?
Bathroom on Fire (Score:2)
Wouldn't this self destructing email thingie have set her bathroom on fire? Or at least set the wiping cloth on fire?
The Democrats on the other side... (Score:2)
Re:Encryption is bad!!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Actual quote: "As always, should you or any of your IM force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions."
Re: (Score:2)
Most of what you've written is nonsense, but it's true we could have done better than Trump.
Maybe the Democrats should have put up a candidate that was better than Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, Putin is way ahead of you.
Remember, he's former KGB. You know he's assembling gigabytes of blackmail for Trump and everybody close to him (looking at YOU, Kellyanne). We're talking murdered whore with Trump Jr.'s DNA all over her. Let me annex everything from Estonia to Greece, little Donald, and Uncle Putey will make this all go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a definition of a nihilist. A nihilist rejects the notion of morality as a binding social force entirely, or at least a social force that applies to them. I, for instance, don't believe in some absolute set of moral values. History itself pretty much falsifies that claim. But I do believe humans need rules, and that rules that attempt to guarantee as much liberty as possible while still allowing a functional social contract are preferable to the alternatives.
As to many Conservatives, well they, l
Re: (Score:2)
You'll discover that this same app is available to download and install to any plain old citizen who chooses to do so.
It's in both the Apple and Google app stores.