Slashdot Mirror
Hacker Guccifer Claims He Easily and Repeatedly Broke Into Hillary Clinton's Email Server (foxnews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fox News: The infamous Romanian hacker known as "Guccifer," speaking exclusively with Fox News, claimed he easily -- and repeatedly -- breached former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's personal email server in early 2013. In the process of mining data from the Blumenthal account, Lazar said he came across evidence that others were on the Clinton server. "As far as I remember, yes, there were up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world," he said. From the report: "'For me, it was easy ... easy for me, for everybody,' Marcel Lehel Lazar, who goes by the moniker 'Guccifer,' told Fox News from a Virginia jail where he is being held. Fox News could not independently confirm Lazar's claims. The 44-year-old Lazar said he first compromised Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal's AOL account, in March 2013, and used that as a stepping stone to the Clinton server. He said he accessed Clintonâ(TM)s server 'like twice,' though he described the contents as 'not interest[ing]' to him at the time." Guccifer was sent to prison last month, which is when his potential role in the Clinton email investigation became apparent.
Here's what's clear to anyone and everyone who lives in America:
Hillary is untouchable. Elites in general are untouchable. This entire debacle won't amount to anything because we're talking about one of the most powerful and connected people in the world.
Is the Clinton Foundation a slush fund for the Clinton family? Of course. Is it a real charitable organization? Barely (15% goes to charity). Did Clinton intentionally set a server up in her house to allow her to do things outside the watchful eye of the State Department? Of course.
Doesn't matter. None of that matters.
There is one and only one possibility that this entire thing blows up:
A leak from someone at the FBI. And it's not all that unlikely either. The mood at the FBI is rumored to be frustration. Frustration because they know that they have a rock solid case, and it will go nowhere. That's a recipe for a leak.
Aside from that, this goes nowhere.
Why do you say Hillary is above the law?
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Don't post stories to the front page if they don't have any comments. It makes it impossible to comment unless you find the story in the FireHose and go through there.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Is that a real question?
Wrong! Trump hasn't picked a VP yet, we don't know if he's going to pick Hitker.
So, he told *Fox News* this story (A Fox News story about Hilary Clinton, gee, what a surprise).
And Fox News could not verify his claims (gee, another surprise).
Unverified by Fox News (and presumably by anyone), and yet, here it is.
You type it in over there, it pops up over here. Might as well be true then.
Why is he in jail and Hillary isn't? If anything, he's a whistleblower on major criminal activity.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Hillary Clinton fired America's Ambassador to Kenya over — among other things — his use of "commercial e-mail":
To have setup and used her own e-mail server for "official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information" is the height of hypocrisy — the greatest sin of a politician. That the server contained not merely "sensitive", but in same cases "top secret" data may be, what will send her to prison. But it is the hypocrisy, that ought to derail her presidential bid.
Whether or not her server was hacked by anyone is besides the point.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You sure sound like a Clinton drone with more nonsense that Trump is somehow like Hitler. Is that because he wants to protect borders from *illegal* immigrants? Or stem the flow of new voters who come from a fundamentalist religion that oppresses women? Is it because the Trump organization hires so few black people? Oh wait...he hired a higher percentage of African Americans and Latinos than anyone else in the race. Is it because he hates women? Evidence please. Is it because he hates Jews? Oh wait... His daughter is Jewish.
Talk about a "false scandal". Enough with your Clinton propaganda.
Plus she already confirmed she never received anything marked as classified.
Does Rod Blagojevich have any thing on her?
But I guess that's ok, he did invent the internet in Australia, LOL.
Trump is running against Hitlery. They can't be on the same ticket.
No, but that doesn't stop the ridiculous, twisted accusations.
But that hasn't stopped limpballs from claiming she did.
She is the most investigated person in history, and no one has ever found any wrongdoing.
Like the stupid one that she put the server in an apartment bathroom.
It is nice that they waste their time with this nonsense instead of something that has legs.
The fact that he is in jail for accessing her server and she is not just free, but running for the highest office in the land speaks volumes to how corrupt the system is. Sorry, but "hacking" in the way this was done is not hacking, it was more like being a peeping Tom.
Considering the amount of Politicians and Appointees who have been immune to prosecution has far exceeded worry. I don't see how the Government is giving any options except for vigilantism.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This, plus she already investigated herself and found no wrongdoing.
Correct. If she had, the FBI would have arrested her a year ago. By not doing that, they've proven that she didn't do anything wrong.
Anyone who knows anything about security knows this:
This is one of the highest profile people in the world, in a seat of power very close to the pinnacle of the global power elite (The US Secretary of State). When any server is left unsecured, one must assume the information in it was accessed from a security perspective. When THIS server is unsecured? There is absolutely no chance it wasn't "breached" 100's of times. No chance. The Russians. The Chinese. Literally everyone that matters was in there.
To even for a moment doubt that is to posit a very fringe assumption.
He is 44 years old and still uses the word 'like' in every other sentence?
This. There is no evidence.
And, if there was then the FBI would have arrested her long ago. By not arresting her, they're admitting they have nothing.
So, here's my question. If Hillary gets indicted, convicted, or goes to jail, etc., after the DNC picks her as the candidate, but before the general elections, does Bernie get to be on the ballot? Or nobody from the Democratic party goes on the ballot? Is that the Republican's strategy all along?
And no one on a position of authority has ever said she did.
I would not describe a hack of an AOL email address as a stepping stone to hacking another system.
But the original has a much better description. He's claiming he saw clintonemail.com's IP while reading Blumenthal's emails, and then used a port scanner to identify vulnerabilities in her server.
If it's true, and can be verified from server logs, it could be important. Hillary Clinton cannot be charged in Court with violating an Executive order, so the law everyone says she broke is almost completely irrelevant to her fate in Court. The ones that are relevant to the Judicial branch are statutes, and they tend to only ban a) willful fuck-ups with information (ie: you not only had to do it wrong, you had to know you were doing it wrong), or b) only come into play if somebody actually sees the info.
a) is virtually impossible to prove beyond a Reasonable Doubt when your only predecessor who used email used a private server, but if there's proof of b)...
The people that hate her are deranged.
We've all been told that the final authority of what is classified rests with the Secretary of State.
Since Hillary was Secretary of State at the time, it's OK if a Romanian hacker and about 10 others got into her E-mail server. All the documents on it were declassified, because she said so.
Nothing to see here, onward to the presidency!
Imagine a threesome with Janet Reno and Margaret Thatcher. There, now you need brain-bleach.
C|N>K
You can just feel the violence in those people.
Pot makes you paranoid.
If you don't know how things work, starting points are based on Karma. A high Karma level will start posts at a default score of 2. Shills, Sock Puppets, and others who attempt to censor by mod generally rate things with a name to change the score, so the change in number will generally be accompanied by a label. E.G. "Troll" which gives a -1 score.
While there are certainly elements of Slashdot who are liberal progressives and use moderation to censor, there is also a strong showing of Libertarian/Conservatives who will balance things out. It's not perfect, because nothing is, but it tends to work well for political comments when presented without appearing to be a "rant".
There are subjects which are purely censored though. Vaccine debate and God/Atheism immediately come to mind where if you are not progressive you are a "troll" almost without question.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Moon Unit Zappa, who recorded the song Valley Girl back in 1982 with her dad, is now 48.
This, plus she already investigated herself and found no wrongdoing.
And, it's sad how the mass media conveniently forgets to report on that fact.
Well, it sounds like it's going to soon be PMITA prison for you...
[Sir Holo RTFA's]
Oh, you're already there. Is it really all that PMITA prison, or just a bunch of UFIAs?
If I were him with his skills I'm sure I would have too.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
The statement appears (to me) to be based on the belief (as I do) that she has gotten away with many crimes simply because she has accumulated political power. Those of us who believe she is guilty of crimes and gross fraking negligence don't think the people that would/could/should decide to press charges against her, will.
The general "neocon" if you will, thinking is : She's got someone in her pocket by either having dirt on them, or someone that wants the ear of the next president that owes them a favor on the level of keeping her out of prison.
If you google it enough, you will find the shady (whitewater) to outright tin-foil-hat stuff that suggests she has had numerous people murdered.
For me, it is simply enough that she allegedly had military uniforms banned from the White House during Bill's term.
I had a sucky sig.
Right because Democrats who take millions in bribes from foreign countries should be immune to the National Security Act.
Sounds more like a mockery to me. If somebody needs my approval for anything, but made fun of me, then the only conclusion is that I can't accept anything from this person.
BENGHAZI
Exposing classified documents to the world, poorly covering it up, having your IT guy plead the 5th.
If the FBI doesn't do their job and put this woman behind bars I will have no faith left in the system.
He's a "computer hacker" guilty of "computer hacking". There's a law against that, so he should be in jail.
(Don't agree? Get that empty law full of scare-words repealed.)
The big joke turned out to be Sarah's critics. The NYT even encouraged its readers to help go through all her PERSONAL email account contents (which she'd written assuming nobody would ever see them) and NOTHING illegal was found. They did not even find anything blatantly unethical. For all the hyperventilation about the contents of her e-mails, all the liberal press dropped the whole thing when there turned out to be no wrongdoing there.
Character is measure by what we do when we think nobody will ever see/know. By that measure, Sarah Palin has better standards and character than most people.
What do you think we'd learn from Hillary's e-mails? How about the 30K plus e-mails Hillary deleted when she realized there were lawsuits underway to examine them? Do we REALLY want a president who cannot measure up to Sarah Palin standards????
I don't think he wants to keep Christians out. Actually, is there a religion that doesn't oppress women?
You sure sound like a Clinton drone with more nonsense that Trump is somehow like Hitler. Is that because he wants to protect borders from *illegal* immigrants? Or stem the flow of new voters who come from a fundamentalist religion that oppresses women? Is it because the Trump organization hires so few black people? Oh wait...he hired a higher percentage of African Americans and Latinos than anyone else in the race. Is it because he hates women? Evidence please. Is it because he hates Jews? Oh wait... His daughter is Jewish.
Talk about a "false scandal". Enough with your Clinton propaganda.
Trump is like Hitler in many ways. He is not Hitler, but let's not pretend they have nothing in common.
They are both white and have a penis, and have a great deal of DNA in common. So nobody who is trying to speak truth can say they have nothing in common. I know that's a bit silly, but you do a disservice to your cause by saying it's "nonsense that Trump is somehow like Hitler."
But going beyond that, there are more troubling things they have in common. Both use the uneducated masses, fear and hatred of the other, anti-intellectualism, and threats and intimidation to get their way. If you read Trump's interview with the Post editorial board, you will also learn that Trump at least, if not insane like Hitler, is at least incredibly stupid. Probably stupider than the average american, certainly stupider than the average professional.
Hitler said "What luck for rulers that men do not think." Trump appears to have taken that to heart.
As for woman-hating, look at Trump's language. If you think he treats women as equals, you were born in a cave. *Fox News* turned against him because of how much he attacked women. The Network that had defended the entire talking point of the "war on women" for years before Trump showed up.
Look, nobody's saying Trump is like Hitler in that he's going to start digging mass graves for the Muslims in America. But he's like Hitler in that he's a pretty terrible guy to rule a country and the racist, bigoted, international and military consequences of having him as President of the United States could have unpredictable and potentially devastating effects.
does not deal with political parties, which are private clubs/associations.
Some of our founders hated the idea of political parties and saw them as a big source of corruption and an enabler of ill-informed voters who tend to cast party-line votes (voting for "their team" rather than voting intelligently on each individual candidate), and America's 1st president, George Washington warned Americans never to allow a system of political parties to arise. As a result, this is not a "Constitutional" issue - political parties are NOT part of the design of the US government which the Constitution describes.
The parties have, however, used their power and position over the past several centuries to rig state and local election laws regarding who can get onto the ballots (even national elections in the US are conducted within each state by the laws of that state). As a result, this is a more complex issue than it might first seem to be. My recollection is that this was looked into in the past relative to things like the nominee of a party dying between the party nominating convention and the general election and that the general consensus seems to be that the party leaders can then just pick a person and plug him/her into the spot on the November ballot. This fall, should the feds come down on Hillary, the race could therefore become something like Trump vs Biden, or Trump vs Warren, or Trump vs Gore etc and not automatically Trump vs Sanders. Sanders supporters need to really drive their cause hard if they want to beat Hillary and cannot just wait for him to be the last guy standing after she gets indicted.
Again, STATE election laws come into play, so you need to look at 50 different complex sets of manipulated and intentionally-obscured election laws and YMMV.
So a "hacker", who was really just a guy who used social engineering to guess the answers to security questions, suddenly claims to know how to use exploits says he used those to do an actual hack into an email server!
And his "technical" explanation of the hack contained gems like this:
In the process of mining data from the Blumenthal account, Lazar said he came across evidence that others were on the Clinton server.
"As far as I remember, yes, there were up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world,” he said.
I hope he'll explain how he could identify who logged into Clinton's server by looking at Blumenthal's AOL account!! (Ok, maybe the reporter is just incompetent and related the explanation wrong, meaning she wasn't qualified to vet the story)
Oh yeah, and this "hacker" with his previously undisclosed and unused hacking skills, hacked into the email of Hillary Clinton, probably the 2nd best known politician in the US, and figured... "meh, this is boring, I guess I'll try to get famous by bragging about my hacks into such luminaries such as former FBI and Secret Service agents, the brother of Barbara Bush, and former Miss Maine Patricia Legere.
I'm sorry but this is a stupid story and /. should be embarrassed for posting it.
1) Guccifer hacked by guessing security questions, that's all he did. There's no reason to think he had the technical skills to do what he did. Look at the interview, it's seriously just "port scanner", "open port", "proxy server", "ya I hacked in". He didn't even think to throw in "unpatched software" or "rootkit"!
2) Guccifer loved to brag about his hacks. That he would have hacked into Clinton's email at the height of the Benghazi freakout and tell no one is absurd. On the other hand he's exactly the sort of person who would seek media attention by claiming to have done the hack that the entire country was speculating about for months.
3) There is absolutely zero evidence that he did what he said, there's not even the "undisclosed source who has a friend who dated a secretary in the division doing the investigation" or the standard "but wait... there's a record of him saying X back in Y... how did he know X back in Y?"
This is just some troll looking for attention, this should be exactly that crowd that sees through it.
I stole this Sig
Actually, is there a religion that doesn't oppress women?
My neighbors are Buddhist, and they have invited me to go to potluck dinners at their temple many times. While I was there, I didn't notice any women being oppressed.
Because anybody else would have been thrown in prison and had the key tossed away if they did the things that she's done.
Her nickname is Killary, and she's earned it many times over with innocent blood.
What a stupid fucking name. What a STUPID FUCKING NAME, sounds like a cum guzzling fag script kiddie.
Reincarnations of revered individuals seem to avoid womanly bodies... LOL
I'm sure this won't see the light of day, but this is a tech website. The politics and conspiracy theory comments need to go elsewhere.
I came here to read some insightful comments about:
-why install a server in a home
-how come someone else was using an aol email for state matters
-do we really think it's ok to allow anyone to access our SOS's emails (public or private) for any reason
-should our government officials have even less privacy than the masses when it comes to state security
If, and I mean IF she were to get to the Oval Office, then we know things are fucked up. Keep in mind, folks, she is only a secretary ;)
Show the emails. Either that, or shut up and stop spreading FUD.
Why do you say Hillary is above the law?
Because she's really Judge Dredd
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Hillary is above the law, it doesn't matter what regulations she may or may not have deliberately subverted. This is just a distraction to try to help the Trump/Hitler ticket win. And sure, we don't know who Trump will choose as running mate, but anyone who does join him will be just as bad.
I'm not a huge fan of Ms Clinton, but so far I haven't seen or heard anything that would indicate that she is any worse than the average politician, or the average citizen of any Western nation one would care to mention. To me it is suggestive of a feeble mind to expect a politician to be any better than the average of the population they represent, or be wildly outraged to discover that they have done what most people, regrettably, would have done, and taken an unfair advantage of their privileged position. Who on /. can honestly claim to never knowingly have done anything that was even slightly dishonest, unethical or illegal?
Being a politician, and especially one with a lot of power, requires somebody who is realistic and pragmatic, who has a steady hand in a crisis and is able to think before they talk. It would be nice if they are also good and honest, but I don't know how realistic it is to expect a person like that to be able to rise to the top and get real results in the political system in America. Just look at a guy like Obama who, to the dispassionate observer, seemed to be a fairly honest, well-intentioned person, if somewhat naive in his idealism; and how much has he actually achieved, that wasn't simply dictated by circumstances? Perhaps the fact that Ms Clinton doesn't seem to be squeaky clean is an advantage - and considering the amount of relentless scrutiny, it is impressive that a poorly managed email server is all that has turned up. Compare that to Mr Trump, who hasn't been exposed to quite the same amount of hostile snooping, but still seems to be surrounded by an odious pong - violent supporters that he appears to passively approve of, dodgy tax affairs, and if we dig deeper, probably a lot more.
I understand the anger that drives Trump's supporters - I think we all feel deeply frustrated with the way society is going, but I think it would be stupid to follow whoever seems to be shouting the loudest about it without considering carefully whether they would be able to do anything - or even be willing to seriously try. Does anybody really believe that Trump can "build a wall and force Mexico to pay"? Or that it is possible to round up all illegal immigrants and deport them, just like that? And so on? And what does it mean, "I will make America great again"? Isn't America great now? Everybody outside thinks so. Or "I will be so presidential, ...."? It sounds like what the contestants in a low level wrestling match would shout out. However, I don't think it is true that he is like Hitler - he's just an average crook, a narcissist with a hugely inflated view of his own importance.
In the end, neither he nor Clinton, Sanders or any of the others will be able to change what is wrong in America; for that to happen, people - ordinary, everyday people - will have to overcome their differences and unite against the culture that glorifies greed. The revolution must start in your heart, if you want to wax lyrical about it.
about Christianity, is there any point in widening the discussion to other faiths?
Christianity does not oppress women. It treats women as having the same value as men in the eyes of God, and having just as much responsibility and accountability as men. This does not mean that some televangelist somewhere isn't a jerk, or that some small-town preacher isn't only reading Bible verses that tell women to behave in some particular way, only that the faith itself and its scriptures in their entirety and in-context do not teach the oppression of women.
unless, of course, you were pretending that not treating men and women as interchangeable gears in a machine is equivalent to "oppressing" women; Christianity does indeed teach that men and women are different and have different roles, but it does not teach that women are the property of men as Islam does, or that the word of a woman is equal to one forth of the word of a man in legal proceedings as Islam does, etc. Husbands are not wives and wives are not husbands. Mothers are not fathers and fathers are not mothers. If you don't like those basic biological facts, then your argument is with reality.
Maybe you were thinking that some imaginary extremist Christians were oppressing women by opposing abortion, or opposing prostitution.
Christianity says nothing (no matter what one church led by a guy called a Pope may wish) about controlling CONCEPTION. So we're not really arguing about not conceiving a child, but rather about killing a child that has already been conceived. Christians generally are opposed to abortion, not as a form of oppression of women, but rather because a baby is not part of a woman's body; it's another individual human being and Christianity generally frowns upon the murder of innocents. Christianity also explicitly forbids child sacrifice, unlike most other religions in human history. Killing a child for economic reasons, or social reasons, etc is no different from ancient pagans throwing their children into a pagan fire.
Perhaps you see opposition to prostitution as "oppression". Well, it's generally not as "victimless" as portrayed; it creates a marketplace for the abuse of women, puts a price tag on all women, deprives any woman of the right to claim to be unemployed, and endangers women whose men cheat on them with prostitutes and bring home a few biological surprises. Women whose husbands give them a case of herpes or worse tend to feel a bit oppressed. For most of the past 2000 years, these things were considered advancements over the positions of nearly all other belief systems in human history where women were often presumed to be little more than bi-pedal farm animals.
This is fundamentally different from the religion of Islam which explicitly values women as less than men, makes them property, denies them basic freedoms (including things like medical care in primitive locations like Afghanistan where it is practiced strictly and women are forbidden from being with a man other than a relative, and no women are allowed to be educated). Christianity also supports monogamy, which is a much better form of married life for most women than polygamy and spends more time teaching men to treat the women in their lives properly than it spends telling women to behave, so does that make it "oppressive" to men?
Only uneducated fools post complete nonsense like "all religions are equal" on the internet in an attempt to appear smart or wise, and only morons lap it up. Next time, try READING the New Testament in its entirety before posting so you have a hope of appearing both literate and educated.
IMO the "lesser of two evils" mindset is what's wrong with US politics. The only time that argument is valid is if your political views run perpendicular to line connecting the ideals of the Democrat ("left" on the line) and Republican ("right" on the line), which is actually a diagonal when plotted on the graph of Personal Freedom (vertical) vs Economic Freedom (horizontal). (e.g. Authoritarian-Libertarian line is perpendicular to the Democrat-Republican line.)
Here's a VERY highly simplified view of politics (in practice the ideals of each group aren't actually 0% and 100%):
Authoritarian = Low personal freedom, Low economic freedom = (0, 0) = lower left.
Democrat = Low economic freedom, High personal freedom = (0, 1) = upper left.
Republican = High economic freedom, Low personal freedom = (1, 0) = lower right.
Libertarian = High personal freedom, High economic freedom = (1, 1) = upper right.
D---L
|...|
A---R
If you plot their opinions on the graph, you'll see that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are "far right" of most Democrats, and Trump is "far left" of most Republicans. In fact, they're so extreme that they're almost in the same position on the graph. And when viewed by outsiders, there's really not that much difference between Democrats and Republicans: e.g. [Most Europeans]-------------------Democrats--Republicans
When a politician runs on the Republican or Democrat ticket, no matter what they say during the election cycle, it's very safe to assume that they'll try to push things towards their party's ideals once they're in office. Therefore, the choice for President and Congress is always: "which freedom do you prefer most?" Personal or Economic freedom. (And no, you can't choose both until a Libertarian has a real chance of winning the popular vote. Hint: The fact that Sanders is trying to get the Democrat nomination is telling you that if given the choice, he will pick personal freedom over economic freedom.)
tl;dr:
If you value personal freedom over economic freedom, vote Democrat.
If you value economic freedom over personal freedom, vote Republican.
You're voting against your own interests if you vote any other way
(This is also true if you vote for 3rd party; 3rd party is not a valid option until the US gets preference / instant run-off voting).
SNL comedianne Tine Fey said that while LAMPOONING Palin and you were stupid enough to fall for it.
NEWSFLASH: The Cookie Monster is not real, and there's no actual Bruce Wayne who spends his nights fighting crime under the moniker "Batman". Oh, and Michael Moore is a rich guy who recently was hospitalized IN THE USA for high quality care, rather than insisting he be flown to Cuba for treatment. And while we're at it, Bernie the "Democratic Socialist" is gonna end up rich after this [about to be failed because it's rigged by the DNC] presidential primary and "Democratic Socialism" is nothing new; it's what the poverty-stricken and politically-oppressed Marxists in places like North Korea and the former East Germany (The Deutsche Demokratische Republik) had.
Sadly, you probably vote and your complete ignorance probably helped put Obama into office.
Not necessarily. You don't casually arrest the leading presidential candidate of a party and former Secretary of State without being pretty sure you're doing the right thing. What do you think would happen if the FBI arrested Clinton right now and then, after some months of investigations, released her? It'd almost certainly alter the outcome of the elections and would be a career ending move for a lot of people.
I don't know if she is guilty or not. My point is more that we can't take a lack of an arrest as an admission of anything. It doesn't matter if she received nothing marked as classified. Her position was of a highly sensitive nature where non-classified materials could be damaging if leaked. What we do know is that she was highly irresponsible. What we don't know is the extent to which she was irresponsible and if laws were broken.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
It's not beyond comprehension that any important position in government would be the target of hacking. If you believe Hillary Clinton that nobody has your delusional and in denial that a server so improperly contained and used by the Secretary of State was not the target and most likely hacked or at least attempted to be hacked by many. Why anyone would defend such a person is beyond me. I guarantee if Hillary was a Republican the Democrat's would be screaming for justice!
Given Hillary's inept knowledge of computers and how the guy who installed her email server has now been granted immunity. I would say he was threatened with espionage if he did not come clean on how the server was handled. This was a total disgrace to our national security to even have a private email server outside of proper channels for government business. Clinton should be held accountable just as much as anyone who violates their duties and responsibilities to protect information.
So what you're saying is "Many people have accused her of things. None of them have been proven true, and most have been demonstrated to be false. But I want her to be guilty and believe them anyways, even the demonstrably false ones."
A quick Google search brings up this about uniforms in the white house. So that looks false too. Will you publicly admit to being wrong, or will you continue believing and trusting news sources which lie to your face? Are you honest or gullible?
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Hillary and her policies. Why do people have to make up lies to hate her? Say what you hate about her policies, but not that she is a corrupt traitor who wants to destroy America.
Is Sarah Palin still available? :-)
The party of "personal freedom" has quickly turned USA into the worst police state in the western world.
Sidney Blumenthal has an AOL account?? Right there this hackers story sounds fishy to me.
Is that because he wants to protect borders from *illegal* immigrants? Or stem the flow of new voters who come from a fundamentalist religion that oppresses women? Is it because the Trump organization hires so few black people? Oh wait...he hired a higher percentage of African Americans and Latinos than anyone else in the race. Is it because he hates women? Evidence please. Is it because he hates Jews? Oh wait... His daughter is Jewish.
I think an overarching issue is that we don't really know what Trump (or most successful politicians) think.
I suspect that Trump is good at recognizing what people want to hear, and is willing to pander to some viewpoints/groups that Clinton and others are not. But I have very little sense of how Trump's campaign speeches would translate into Presidential actions.
While I think Clinton is probably just as disingenuous, it's probably a little easier to anticipate how she'd act as President, because she has a long political track record.
...but she didn't inhale. Ducks...
You sure sound like a Clinton drone with more nonsense that Trump is somehow like Hitler. Is that because he wants to protect borders from *illegal* immigrants? Or stem the flow of new voters who come from a fundamentalist religion that oppresses women? Is it because the Trump organization hires so few black people? Oh wait...he hired a higher percentage of African Americans and Latinos than anyone else in the race. Is it because he hates women? Evidence please. Is it because he hates Jews? Oh wait... His daughter is Jewish.
Talk about a "false scandal". Enough with your Clinton propaganda.
Trump isn't like Hitler, he's more like Mussolini without the uniform fetish. About "immigrant defence", he want's to build a stupid wall he claimed would cost 4 billion then, 6 then 8 then 12 billion. The border guard does not want a wall, they want border patrol in depth with mobile patrol teams and drones/helicopters, because they think the only thing a 30 foot wall will do is "create a market for 31 foot ladders" (That's a direct quote) and because something like half the illegal immigrants coming into the US are coming through airports or some alternative route that a wall wouldn't guard against and the same goes for drugs. If Trump builds that wall it will just drive the drug cartels to build more and bigger submarines and dig better tunnels. Furthermore the US Congressional Budget Office estimated that the maintenance costs of such a wall would exceed the construction cost within a decade. Can you please explain to us how Trump is going to make Mexico pay for it? And will Mexico just pay for the construction or the maintenance as well? Presumably Trump got this idea from the Israeli "security wall", this is what things are like at the "security wall" these days: Regarding "a fundamentalist religion that oppresses women", you are presumably talking about Muslims there so all Muslims are religious fundamentalists who oppress women? Care to back that gross generalization up with some facts? Finally, I don't think Trump actually and literally 'hates' women he's just an unabashed misogynist which is a psychological disorder that can take many forms and will not help his chances at the ballot box.
One unbiased party passing along the information of another honest party.
Is that because he wants to protect borders from *illegal* immigrants?
It's the manner in which he wants to protect the borders. Building a wall is an incredibly dumb idea to start with (because of ladders and the immense cost, which Mexico definitely isn't going to pay for), but it's also both inhumane and ineffective. People will just take greater risks, perhaps going by sea or trying to scale the wall. The real solution requires socialism, creating a framework where more people can come legitimately (so they don't cause problems or get exploited) and helping people in Mexico so they are not motivated to travel.
Trump takes the simpler approach of blaming immigrants for a number of problems and then saying he will take the obvious and wrong but tough sounding solution. Much like Hitler in fact, who blamed many of Germany's problems on immigrants and Jews, and then enacted the simple and tough sounding solution. Not as bad of course, but similar.
Or stem the flow of new voters who come from a fundamentalist religion that oppresses women?
Wasn't your country started on the basis of religious freedom? And again, it's a lot like blaming Jewish culture.
Is it because he hates women? Evidence please.
The way he treats female critics differently, often referring to their gender and bodily functions suggests that while "hate" might be too strong a word, he certainly is biased against them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Did you just propose socialism as a solution to illegal immigration? Do we have to pay protection money to all the world's poor to keep them from breaking our laws and flooding into the country? How is that working out for Europe?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Wicca doesn't oppress women. Nor does neo-Paganism. Nor does Odinism. Nor does Shinto. Nor does Hinduism. Nor do the Native American traditions.
The pattern here seems to be, "Faiths that have emerged from the Middle East," really. And, of course, some areas of Africa, where the whole forced circumcision is a thing.
Love sees no species.
Funny thing this story is from Fox Unnews. I could tell Fox that I have hacked her e-mail, and they'd print or broadcast it! Any story from Fox is suspicious. Doesn't mean it's not true, but sure raises questions.
For some people, there's no such thing as enough. First it's a yacht, then another (bigger) yacht, then it's an island to park your yachts at...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Said the Trump drone. Sheesh!
Slashdot user silentcoder claims he easily and repeatedly convinced actress Jennifer Connolly to let him ejaculate on her face.
Since apparently claims without evidence count as facts now, can I expect fox news to carry THAT story too ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Hillary is above the law, it doesn't matter what regulations she may or may not have deliberately subverted. This is just a distraction to try to help the Trump/Hitler ticket win. And sure, we don't know who Trump will choose as running mate, but anyone who does join him will be just as bad.
Disclaimer: I was not paid by Hillary's PAC to post this.
You know, you put this story in Donald F. Drumf's hands, he'll speak of it as if it's true, just like the Ted Cruz's dad helped JFK's killer story, gleaned from that paragon of journalistic excellence and editorial care and circumspection, The National Enquirer. You know, the guy who said, all he knows is what he reads on the internet?!?
And his rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, moron fanbase will believe him, because they too, only know what they read on the internet, which begs the question: how did they learn to read, without using the internet, and how do they use the internet, if they don't know how to read?!?
DAMN YOU, SCREENREADER TECHNOLOGY! YOU'VE DOOMED US ALL!
Incidentally, it doesn't matter what Drumpf says, vis-a-vis Hilariously Rotten Clinton. She needs no help from the human misinformation fountain to spin truth into untruth, and lie herself; she's a CLINTON! She learned how to lie from the very best at it, Slick Willie himself! You remember, the man who said, "I want you to listen to me, I'll say it again: I. Did NOT have. Sexual relatioins. With that woman. Miss Lewinsky." Lied right through his teeth, with her pubic hairs still lodeged between them.
There are people out there, like me, who will NOT vote. For Hilariously Rotten Clinton. Under any circumstances. No matter what.
And don't tell me that I'll be responsible then, in part, for Adolf Drumpfler getting into the Whitehouse, because for one thing, there's NO MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE between Drumpf and his good buddy Clinton, who took, (let's not forget, along with her "husband,") MONEY from DRUMPF, to watch him marry yet ANOTHER trophy wife. Some feminist SHE is. They sat there smiling, taking his money, watching what, if she were a REAL feminist would have made her vomit all over herself, did not object to the marriage when she could have... and SHE NOW WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT ALL THE CAMPAIGN BRIBES BEING PAID TO HER, HER BULLSHIT FOUNDATION, and any one or more PACs or SUPERPACs will in NO WAY impact how she runs her administration.
HAhahahahahahhAhHAHHAHAHAH! Good one, Hil. Tell us another! Your fans miss that good, old-fashioned CLINTON BULLSHIT!
No, I won't vote for that BOUGHT-AND-PAID-FOR, WAR-HAWK phony, fake-progressive who takes money from the FILTHY-RICH and giant, soulless corporations, thinks black youth are SUPER-PREDATORS, and then pretends she gives a FUCK about anyone or anything but herself.
It is not people who WON'T vote for Clinton who are handing America over to Donald F. Drumpfler, it is the ONES WHO ARE, HAVE, and WILL.
YOU are the ones trying to elect someone who thought the Iraq Debacle was a GOOD IDEA. Who is in the employ of people whose interests are not only not aligned with yours, but they are mostly in direct opposition to the American people, and the world.
Want more of the same bullshit and meaningless platitudes from a bought-and-paid for WHORE for money? (Yeah, I'll say it...) Vote Clinton.
As for me, I'm going to wait and see who the Green Party and the Libertarians nominate, since I already voted in my state's primary, trying to stop ANOTHER LYING CLINTON from tricking her way into the Whitehouse. (Don't believe any trickery is going on? Ask why the Mainstream USELESS Media only covers Trump and Clinton, as if they've both already won, and talk nonstop about them "pivoting" to the general, when neither "party" convention has occurred yet? Ask why money is funneled (laundered) back and forth between HRC's purse and the DNC? Ask why the DNC scheduled debates deliberately when NO ONE would be watching them.)
HRC = DJT as far as I'm c
Whitewater was a false scandle. How many other investment go belly up, check out businessman Trump.
No one was killed, foster, check out the story, then check out the man who was to put out the story of electioneering fraud and Kentucky servers, in the 2000 elections.
Better yet, black box.org. check on their election monitoring. They don't care about one party, but hit all parties.
And hilleries email? Technical y. She could have used any server she wanted. It only had to be as secure as any other server, check George and the rule changes, to allow him to use the end server. It's the sender of the emails who are not being charged for sending classified materials to a insecure server. Hats why she cannot be charged. But it is why people like department heads should have been charged. People like betrayus who only got a free pass for refusing to back up state, his safehouse guards, a few blocks away did not help a ambassador.
If you really want proof, instead of a a way to deny it: Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich by Peter Schweizer.
Sections of the book were printed in the NY Times, though promptly ignored by all the other media, since it didn't match the collective liberal narrative.
It's not necessary to make up lies the truth is damning enough. The quick Google search you reference points to a site well known for its liberal bias. Since were doing anecdotes instead of facts on the subject I'll just report that I know well a military enlisted person who spent a good deal of his career at the white house. He was a communication specialist and as is typical in those circles spent most of his career in the Reagan and Bush I White House jumping from the travel unit ("Sea Duty") and White House communications. His treatment, as a member of the military, after the Clinton's move in was such that he request posting to real sea duty rather than remain there.
I doubt she is a corrupt traitor who wants to destroy America. She worked for that guy. She is merely a corrupt self serving elitist who hopes to someday parlay her presidential tenure into more untold millions in speaking fees and the selling of political influence.
Did you just propose socialism as a solution to illegal immigration? Do we have to pay protection money to all the world's poor to keep them from breaking our laws and flooding into the country? How is that working out for Europe?
So your counter solution is to make the country so shit no one wants to immigrate, illegally or otherwise?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
That's because she had her underlings strip the classification markings.
This is very simple actually - someone wants fame. He got caught and is trying to become the most powerful person in America - a kingmaker - to compensate. In the spirit of our current society's instant fame mentality, "Pics or it didn't happen."
So you want more personal freedom, and your solution is to stack the Congress with the party whose goals clearly oppose personal freedom (and the party to which most police and military officers belong), and then try to elect a President who has publicly advocated removing many more personal freedoms? Right. Good thinking. /s
The way he treats female critics differently, often referring to their gender and bodily functions suggests that while "hate" might be too strong a word, he certainly is biased against them.
His actions vis-a-vis his first imported model wife were a pretty clear sign, too. Trump is a violent, dangerous, disrespectful hooligan who ruins lives like other people ruin paper napkins. Anyone actually willing to vote for him for President of the United States needs to take a long, hard look at what kind of scum they are.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Once upon a time, /. was the place to go for news like this, and the comments would all talk about the technical aspects of this story and dissect the claims to show if they're credible. So much of this story is technically, uh, dubious, yet many people here are blinded by their political leanings (both sides) that they are willing to accept an unverified report like this.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
I'm not a huge fan of Ms Clinton, but so far I haven't seen or heard anything that would indicate that she is any worse than the average politician
That in itself should tell you how poor a candidate she is to be leader of our nation. We don't need more of the same, which is leading us down the toilet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
As soon as I seen the words: The real solution requires socialism. I stopped reading,
Maybe if she did Bill wouldn't have strayed.
Time to offend someone
Must be a slow news day..
While I think Clinton is probably just as disingenuous, it's probably a little easier to anticipate how she'd act as President, because she has a long political track record.
A long track record of flip flopping on every social and moral issue that faces us; and a history of Polsplain away how she never fails to protect monied interests.
Clinton is worst kind of hypocrite, she is the cancer in American politics that rots out or principles and lowers us all. She is EXACTLY like Trump! The only difference is branding and who she is trying to sell herself out too. Its like a how a Dodge Dart is different from a Chrysler 200 - the target buyer.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
How many female Shinto priests are there?
The ban on female Shinto priests was only lifted 60 years ago.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
The real solution requires socialism, creating a framework where more people can come legitimately (so they don't cause problems or get exploited) and helping people in Mexico so they are not motivated to travel.
Sorry no, you're a cheater. You want use the government to hold a gun to my head and appropriate MY PROPERTY and WEALTH to help people I don't owe a thing to. Look if you want to help the people of Mexico that would be a noble thing to do, by all means contribute anything you can to a good charity. It might mean you are good person. Organizing a political mob to steal what is mine so you can redistribute it is not the same thing and it does not count.
Trump takes the simpler approach of blaming immigrants for a number of problems and then saying he will take the obvious and wrong but tough sounding solution. Much like Hitler in fact, who blamed many of Germany's problems on immigrants and Jews, and then enacted the simple and tough sounding solution. Not as bad of course, but similar.
Except Germany had real problems and they were mostly to be blamed on the French and Woodrow Wilson. Hittler lied about the source of those problems.
On the other hand Islamist migrants (not the immigrants we have in the States today) are a real problem. The immigrants are a self selected group of individuals who are probably of highly above average intellect and are mostly wealthy enough to land on their feet. They had the money and talent to get themselves here in the first place. These are also mostly muslims ( culture ) rather than Islamists (followers of Islam). In other words they don't take all that stuff in the Koran about sharia law seriously. The uneducated migrants on the other hand are a huge problem. They want sharia, they do rape and otherwise sexually assault women because their values permit that. They don't put the rules of our secular society above their religious views when outside their homes and communities, they ignore them. When we start bring the common riff raff from the region over here in bulk people are going to be in for a rude surprise, especially the LGBT for Muslims crowd.
Wasn't your country started on the basis of religious freedom? And again, it's a lot like blaming Jewish culture.
No its again nothing like that. See above.
The way he treats female critics differently, often referring to their gender and bodily functions suggests that while "hate" might be too strong a word, he certainly is biased against them.
Again not much real evidence here. I am not sure this is really defense of Trump but he seems to be just an ass. He isn't prepared to debate most of his opponents, so he finds away to change the subject. I don't think he "picks on" women especially in this case. I think its because we have become so sensitive to that as a culture it seems like it. He insulted the appearance of Curz's face, commented on Marcco's size (and made inferences about the size of his genitals). I think if you want to be intellectually honest Trump really isn't a bigot, he is just a prick!
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Trump is a violent, dangerous, disrespectful hooligan who ruins lives like other people ruin paper napkins.
Spot on!
Anyone actually willing to vote for him for President of the United States needs to take a long, hard look at what kind of scum they are.
I am sorry but No! Lets be honest Hillary is scum. She will work tireless to undermine the system of checks and balances and put herself and her friends above the law, like she has her entire career. She does not care who she tramples while she does it either. At least with Trump its sorta personal if he decides to ruin your life.
As much as I hate to have to think about it, "disrespectful hooligan" in the White House is preferable to a malicious actor.
That is the real choice here, if you abstain or if you vote for a third party, you are effectively voting for Hillary. That is the reality of the system we have today. Those are really the only choices.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I am sorry but No! Lets be honest Hillary is scum.
Your logical fallacy is false dichotomy.
The simple truth is that Trump is almost exactly the same kind of scum as Hillary, except that he's probably more misogynistic. There is really no difference whether we get one or the other, and that's why I'm willing to write in Bernie Sanders even if write-in candidates really can't win. I don't give a shit, but I certainly won't vote for Trump or Clinton.
As much as I hate to have to think about it, "disrespectful hooligan" in the White House is preferable to a malicious actor.
No, you don't get it. A hooligan is a malicious actor. There is no fucking difference, except how and why the fucking will occur.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's not so much that Trump is somehow like Hitler - it's more that the crowds that gather to hear him sound a lot like the soundtracks to films of Hitler rallies. What's scariest about Trump is that he somehow makes scary elements of American society feel free to express their worst sides in public.
What's most interesting about Trump is that he renders it undeniable that mainstream Republicans have been soliciting the votes of those elements for decades without bringing them out in their fullest, ugliest form for all to see. The fact that he's closer to them as a person than, say, Mitt Romney or George Bush is doesn't change what he reveals about party strategy.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I highly suggest everyone watch this video released by anonymous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It really drives home who Clinton is. I can't believe I have to choose between Clinton and Trump. It is like the simpsons episode where we are choosing our alien overlord. Please let there be a viable third party candidate....
Apart from that killing widows bit.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If there's something there that shouldn't be, he planted it.
If there's something missing that should be there, he deleted it.
Clearly it's all part of a con5&*jh ...
no carrier
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Hah! I scrolled down before replying. I'm a practicing, albeit secular, Buddhist. I am pretty sure that we don't oppress women but we did not used to let them participate nearly as much. I think that changed sometime in something like 200 AD. Don't quote me on that. They're not monks by the way. They're nuns. They're just as welcome to teach and do, well, whatever they want. I suppose the Dalai Lama could reincarnate as a woman. I suppose the Dalai Llama could be a woman too. ;-)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
What we do know is that she was highly irresponsible
How much do you know about security? What evidence do you have that she didn't hire people even more competent than the people running the government server to run her server?
Furthermore, every one of her predecessors behavior was equally "irresponsible"
Dude... We (Micmacs) used to make women on the rag go sleep in the menstrual hut and they weren't necessarily wives so much as anyone could take a turn - though I think she had to technically "be willing."
Where the hell do you guys come up with this noble savage stuff. 'Cause, you know, I am actually not just a Micmac but I'm a tribal member and I've read almost every bit of history we can come up with. I've even spent a summer digging with the archaeologists to see if we can help uncover more history.
Yeah... We traded women for fucking dead animal carcasses to eat and survive at least one particularly cold winter. To be fair, we went and stole her back and murdered most of the Penobscots the following summer. We also stole a bunch of their women.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Remember China-gate from 1996? Then President Bill Clinton authorized the sale of sensitive US technology to China and Chinese money was donated to his re-election campaign!
Was Hillary playing the same game, selling US secrets delivered via a private server with weaker security than the Ashley Madison website in exchange for "donations" to her "charitable" foundation?
It is time to look past the server itself to what may be the biggest spy scandal in US history!
You want use the government to hold a gun to my head and appropriate MY PROPERTY and WEALTH to help people I don't owe a thing to.
No, that's not it. I want you to realize that the best way to stop people trying to take your stuff by force, be it via crime or by illegally immigrating to your country and competing for your job, is to try to make life less crappy for everyone. Fortunately this will cost you very little, and while the pay back is hard to quantify it is definitely greater than the investment.
The alternative is to build a fortress and try to defend it, a costly proposition. If you look at history, the most successful conquerors and rulers where the ones who took away people's desire to fight them and instead encouraged them to work in the system, by making the system at least somewhat fair and yielding realistic opportunities.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
A man makes a claim that they admittedly can't confirm, but they give him air time anyway. That's not journalism. That's Fox "News" propaganda. And it's not really news. The assumption is that, if she was using her own private server, it was vulnerable and was probably hacked at some point. This is just the usual salacious but non-substantive crap from Bullshit Mountain.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
No, the solution is not to reward people who break the law. Giving free stuff to not only those who come into the country illegally but also to people who might consider coming to the country illegally is increasing demand for people wanting to come into the country illegally. Enforce the border, send illegals who get through the border home, and change the law to stop anchor babies. Only the children where at least one parent is a citizen should be eligible for birth location citizenship.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
There is a real "Boy who cried wolf" effect with Hillary Clinton. So many false allegations over such a long time that a lot of people see "Hillary Clinton accused of ..." and just assume it is just another partisan hit piece without bothering to look further.
For better or for worse: If you falsely accuse someone of wrongdoing enough times, then most people will just ignore it if they actually do something wrong.
Trump secured the republican nomination through lies and manipulation. It's entirely possible that Clinton will lose the race because of lies (from either her own mouth or from her opponents). Wouldn't that be a spectacular and foreboding event if Trump were able to cut Clinton out the race through accusation and investigation (or visa versa -- illegal emails vs mob connections)?
This election we seem to have the choice between a two completely different and likely power-hungry oligarchs. The state of American politics is alarming, particularly regarding the influence that money, emotion and name-recognition have on elections.
I bet none of this would have happened with a ranked-ballot voting system. ;)
Fed have the drive it was not dod wiped or anything all activity is there to see.
Or stem the flow of new voters who come from a fundamentalist religion that oppresses women?
Trump is going to disenfranchise Mormons, evangelicals and Catholics? That's news to me. When did he announce this new proposal?
hitler was the best pupil of you lefties like uljanov. hitler learned how to ignore any decency and morals from the commies.
and he learned the propaganda trade from you folks.
it is a standard lefty trick to accuse political opponents of 'fascism'. trying to godwin the opponent. it is a very lame tactic and will not work this time.
try harder.
It went from watchlist, to "we don't how to evaluate such an odd foundation". http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/c...
Also very clear some rather non-benevolent people gave them money for favors from the state department.
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton...
http://www.ibtimes.com/firms-p...
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
What the fuck is wrong with Clinton supporters like this? It's so disgusting, I wonder if David Brock wrote it himself.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
his solution may be false, but the problem is real. The US already has an immigration policy commensurate with almost every other 1st world nation on earth. It's just we don't enforce it.
i've got relatives that waited a decade to get through the immigration process. There's a line, because we as a nation have determined that we only want so many people coming in per year.
Freedom of movement is endorsed by no nation on earth.
hey, we would do that... but the progressives of today seem to frown on empire-building.
we could fix mexico today, just you know, those pesky individual rights and human rights people seem to think we should respect.
Eeeep wrong.
Actually I'm a Sander's supporter. Hillary gets "lesser of two evils" status at best with me.
I still don't believe claims without evidence though - even about evil people. It's called healthy scepticism.
As for being crude ... throughout my 3 decades plus on this planet I always had a deep and abiding love for the sweet and unappreciated poetry of profanity, if that offends you - well fuck you too.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
A line that anyone who comes here illegally can skip and be rewarded for it.
Clinton hired an independent contractor to set up her email server. She then made history by creating the first-ever political appointment in the State Dept. IT department. She paid this contractor monthly to maintain her email server while he was a State Department political appointee. It apparently never occurred to Clinton to have her appointee manage her server as part of his official duties - why not?
The soviet union often called itself "democratic" as do those other places and these nasty sorts often claim that democracy, where everyone is equal and gets one vote is a natural partner with their Marxist economics. They don't mean "political freedom" or "freedom of the press" or "property rights" when they say "democracy", they mean rule by the consensus of the masses (with the un-spoken undertone that The Party will inform those masses).
There's simply nothing new in the Bernie pretense of softening the word "socialism" for the American public by prefixing it with the word "democratic". Joe Stalin did that routine decades ago before massacres of millions of innocent people; the word "democratic" did nothing to save them from the barbarity of a Marxist monster.
Our founders gave us a great government structure and an excellent Constitution. They wrote and spoke volumes of advice to their posterity (that's US and our kids) about the political landmines we should avoid stepping on (which very few of us read, and none of our schools seem to teach anymore as they push multiculturalism, transgernderism, etc- all the cultural garbage that's not their business but that their political activists want the next generation to embrace).
Our founders did not establish themselves as dictators. They left us a government and a nation we are perfectly free to destroy. We have the freedom to snuff-out human liberty and freedom and hand ourselves over to any fascist who is owned by multinational bankers or any marxist offering us free stuff. Our founders knew full-well that there was no way they could write a document that we would be unable to ignore. Put another way: If we are so stupid that we ignore everything they told us as we trash everything they created for us,then there is no extra clause they could have added that said "and we REALLY mean it!" that would get us to stop and say "oh, ok then"
That in itself should tell you how poor a candidate she is to be leader of our nation. We don't need more of the same, which is leading us down the toilet.
No and yes - she is probably going to be a fairly reasonable president, exactly because she is very much an average person: not prone to come with outrageous outbursts, fairly balanced and a bit grey in a way. The leader of a country should be in control - an administrator, not a prophet. Elect a guy like Trump, and he will disappoint you profoundly; as they say - the higher you fly, the deeper you fall.
But yes, more of the same will lead you down the drain; but it is not up the the president to fix it. If only it was that easy. The reasons why America is in a decline are probably not dissimilar to why the British Empire fell apart - they grew immensely fat on over-exploiting their own, lower classes and their colonies, and then coasted along thinking it would last forever; and then it fell apart through mismanagement (I'm sure somebody with more insight and a more sympathetic view on the Empire will correct me here, but I think I'm not far off the mark). America's big, big problem is over-consumption and an attitude that seems to say that you think you are entitled to it, even if it hurts the legitimate interests of the rest of the world. That was one of the main reasons why America has been so un-popular many times in the past - perhaps to an American it is difficult to quite understand how it incensed people to feel that America did whatever they wanted and didn't give a shit because of "American Interests". Learn to be humble in the world and learn to be more modest in your consumption, and a lot of problems go away.
The solution to America's problems have to start with a change of attitude in the hearts of the American people. I know it sounds trite, but that's the way it is. You can't keep pushing the responsibility over on your leaders and then expect them to make everything better while stabbing them in the back on a daily basis; how is that supposed to work?
when you typed "I just wouldn't be so dishonest as to claim that Christianity isn't practicing gender discrimination.", you confused "assigning different roles" with oppression. An aircraft carrier has crew who work on the flight deck, on the mess deck(cooks,etc), in the engine room, and so on. Each of these crew members has a different role, but none are "oppressed" (at least not more than any others [grin]) and all are of equal worth as human beings. More on this later.
When you types "but aren't Catholics the single largest Christian denomination worldwide", you made a point current politics should have cautioned you on: Trump has won the GOP primary with the largest group of votes in his party, in part because his opponents were so divided (same feat as Romney 4 years ago). Most GOP voters voted for other candidates, of which there were 17 and many insist that Trump does not define what it is to be "Republican". There are a HUGE number of Christian denominations, most of which do not agree with Catholicism on a great many things, particularly where the Catholics explicitly violate Biblical teaching like on celibate priests and praying to Mary.
When you typed "It's no wonder there were moves to protect women.", you made my point and undermined you own. If this was a pure matter of common sense and logic for which Christianity gets no credit as "better" then why was it not in every culture and belief system?
When you typed this: "The Bible is quite clear. Women are made for men ", you made your biggest stumble. Anybody who learns about Christianity from a quick Googling or watching some phony televangelist rant for five minutes will make that error. Any serious student of the Bible, and particularly the Christian New Testament part, also states that the husband belongs to the wife and is to serve her interests above his own. The New Testament puts a larger burden on men than on women. Try reading the entire thing some time.
Finally, you return to the canard of asserting that because the Bible treats men and women differently (which is not shocking given that they ARE different) it is in some way bigoted, oppressive, etc. Average men and women have different abilities, different concerns, different desires, different aversions, different strengths, and different weaknesses, and different roles in the creation and raising of offspring, which are inexorably anchored to biological differences. The fact that men and women are different and complimentary does not mean one is superior to the other or that one has more basic human value. Christianity addresses men and women differently because they ARE different, but it does not EVER teach that women are inferior to men, or the property of men. Christian churches tend to be led by men not because of some anti-woman bigotry but rather because the apostle Paul wrote that leaders of churches should only be married men who had proven themselves responsible by first proving they could manage their immediate family matters. A man was expected to protect, care for, love and provide for his wife and their kids. The way that the man's relationship with his spouse and the way they jointly managed their home and raised their kids were to be the evidence for how responsible, wise, caring, and attentive a man was before the congregation should entrust him with more responsibility.
now admits they got the story first and interviewed the guy while he was still in Europe in jail. So much for it being a "Faux News" scam. NBC just is not willing to admit why they spiked the story during the time frame when it could have most helped Bernie and hurt Hillary.
NBC: NobodyButClinton.
But yes, more of the same will lead you down the drain; but it is not up the the president to fix it.
That's true. It will also take congress' cooperation.
The solution to America's problems have to start with a change of attitude in the hearts of the American people.
Which has to start with them seeing the possibility of success.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Eh I don't know too much about Hillary, but comeing from Arkansas, I personally know some one that feared for their life because of Bill Clinton. If it was rational or not, I can't say, but back in the good old days I wouldn't have gone picking fights with the Clintons in small town Arkansas.
You might actually learn something.
Hilary Clinton did not break the law. When she became Secretary of State, she was asked if she wanted a state.gov email address or use her own personal email for communication? Despite what you may think, this is allowed by law and many other government officials have used their own email accounts/servers in the past and still do. The State Department stated that if she wanted to use a .gov email account, it would be a few weeks before they could set this up. Clinton instead opted to use a private email server that was originally set up in 2008 for her presidential campaign. The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work.
Did she send or receive classified emails from this personal email server? No. None of the emails that she sent or received were marked classified at the time. .gov email account, which are in fact stored. So many of those emails are in fact already archived whether classified or not.
Contrary to what Fox Noise keeps repeating, emails are not necessarily marked classified until they are checked to see if they can or cannot be released to the public. Additionally, she did send emails to many government employees at their
Would these questions have been asked if she opted instead for a .gov email address? Yes. Even if Clinton's emails had been on a government email address and government device, these questions would be raised prior to public release. While the State Department's review of her 55,000 emails brought the issue to the Inspectors Generals' attentions, the emails that recently were upgraded to classified prior to public release were on the unclassified .gov email system. They were not on the separate, closed system used by State Department for handling classified communications.
Why did she delete emails? She used her personal email server for work and personal reasons, again allowed by law. The emails she deleted were only those that were NOT sent to any government employee or institution. They were emails to her friends and family members, which did not need to be archived anywhere. Would they have been archived if she used a .gov email account? Yes they would have been and Clinton has already stated that she wished she had simply turned them over instead of deleting them to free up space. But the justice department and the FBI have already stated she did nothing wrong, broke no laws and is not under any kind of indictment or investigation.
Last but not least, why didn't she provide her emails until 2014? Simple, the Federal Records Act had gaps in their record keeping processes prior to this time and they realized it. The law was changed in 2014 (after Clinton already left), and she and 4 previous Secretary of State members were asked to provide copies of all emails for archival purposes only.
Bottom line, she didn't break any laws as all of the emails that were sent were not marked classified at that time and not until they were reviewed for release to the public under the Freedom Of Information Act.
Source for this information is at: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/ and http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913
And yes, I do realize one of those sources is hillaryclinton.com.
Or it didn't happen!
It just happens that women are notably absent from historical church leaders
Interestingly, you haven't complained about the fact that the proportion of women recognized by the church as saints far exceeds the proportion of women awarded Nobel Prizes in the sciences.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.