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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All of the people I've seen claiming that are biased like Faux Knews.
This. There is no evidence.
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.
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
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
rules to follow Gloves, condoms Usenet is roughly distribution. As Those uber-asshole Population gas well would you like to influence, the hot on the heels of to the crowd in
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????
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
What a stupid fucking name. What a STUPID FUCKING NAME, sounds like a cum guzzling fag script kiddie.
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.
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.
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.
Sidney Blumenthal has an AOL account?? Right there this hackers story sounds fishy to me.
...but she didn't inhale. Ducks...
One unbiased party passing along the information of another honest party.
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."
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 *
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."
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
Maybe if she did Bill wouldn't have strayed.
Time to offend someone
Must be a slow news day..
Pretty much all politicians feel they are above the law. Remember the house banking scandal back in the 80's? They would write checks from the house bank for cash even though they had NO MONEY in their account? How about all of the politicians that owe the IRS millions of dollars for taxes never paid? Now, if you or I tried this, they would throw our butts in prison, but, because they are a politician, they get away with it. Why? Because they write the "laws" and are the ones who hand out money each year, and they can make those departments lives miserable, if they don't do what congress says. Two rules in the world. One for politicians, and one for everyone else.
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....
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."
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"
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!
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... ***
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.
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
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 *
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"
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.
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.