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.

Comments

The only possible hope

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The only possible hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Having immunity from your testimony does NOT mean you have immunity from any and all actions related to that testimony. Leaking information would not be covered by his grant of immunity.

Re:The only possible hope

[Gussington]

Here's what's clear to anyone and everyone who lives in their mom's basement:

FTFY

Re:The only possible hope

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of "Correct the record" folks here tonight.

Re:The only possible hope

[kamapuaa]

Charity Watch, anyway, gives The Clinton Foundation an A, saying that 88% of donations goes to charity (the other 12% going to salaries, fund-raising, etc.).

Jesus Christ this whole scandal makes no sense. Every public figure and business should have a secure server. Really. But nobody does. If having an unsecure server is a felony, then just about everybody would be in jail, including the NSA, the director of the CIA, and the largest corporation in the world.

Re:The only possible hope

[DNS-and-BIND]

The scandal makes complete sense, unless you are a hyper-partisan who thinks it's OK when your side breaks the law. If any other federal government employee tried to hide her official correspondence with a hidden server, that person would now be on year 3 of a prison sentence. But, it's Hillary Clinton, so she didn't even get her security clearance revoked. You really don't get how outrageous the whole thing is? And if she does get away with it, it's just going to embolden thousands more government apparatchiks to take even more liberties with our already-overstretched laws?

Re:The only possible hope

[phantomfive]

If having an unsecure server is a felony, then just about everybody would be in jail, including the NSA, [vice.com] the director of the CIA [cnn.com], and the largest corporation in the world. [cbsnews.com]

None of those servers had classified information (and your third link isn't even about a server, it's about jailbreaking an iphone).

The security level of servers with classified information is significantly higher, exactly to prevent the problems found in your links.

Re:The only possible hope

[quantaman]

The scandal makes complete sense, unless you are a hyper-partisan who thinks it's OK when your side breaks the law. If any other federal government employee tried to hide her official correspondence with a hidden server, that person would now be on year 3 of a prison sentence. But, it's Hillary Clinton, so she didn't even get her security clearance revoked. You really don't get how outrageous the whole thing is? And if she does get away with it, it's just going to embolden thousands more government apparatchiks to take even more liberties with our already-overstretched laws?

Except that's not the standard, it never has been, government officials have used private emails for ages, John Kerry was the first Secretary of State to primarily use a state.gov address. The only way Clinton differed was she used her own server instead of a 3rd party server like AOL or Google, and I'm not sure a properly maintained private server (not that she had one) is a worse scenario.

And it's not clear that using the private server was an attempt to evade record keeping. Most indications are that Clinton really wanted to keep using a Blackberry and wanted access to her current email and the NSA and State Department weren't able to accommodate her so she just gave up and did her own thing.

Laws should be applied consistently, that doesn't just mean the rich and powerful don't get off easy, it also means you don't get to throw the book at someone just because you don't like their politics.

Re:The only possible hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Charity Watch, anyway, gives The Clinton Foundation an A, saying that 88% of donations goes to charity (the other 12% going to salaries, fund-raising, etc.).

Jesus Christ this whole scandal makes no sense. Every public figure and business should have a secure server. Really. But nobody does. If having an unsecure server is a felony, then just about everybody would be in jail, including the NSA, the director of the CIA, and the largest corporation in the world.

It is when you're violating the law to set it up to avoid FOIA requests.

And then direct your underlings to strip classification markings from secure data and "send it insecure".

Oh yeah, there are emails from Hillary!'s server where she tells an aide to to just that.

Grow some balls and Google "Hillary email remove classification".

Better yet, since you've obviously drank deep of the Klinton Kool-Aid:

In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure"

Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

Well, no fucking wonder the classified emails that Hillary! saw on her illegal server weren't marked!

Hillary! told her aides to remove the markings!

Re:The only possible hope

[andydread]

"breaks the law"
[citation needed]

Re:The only possible hope

[Anonymous Coward]

It is important to look at Intent as well, and Hillary did make attempts to get a secure Blackberry provided. Basically she [obviously] had no malicious intent and did her best. Hillary has 12 years of Senate experience and also the high level position of Secretary of State. All in all Hillary is a fantastic candidate on the merits, and I hope she wins rather than trump. I think people are blowing the email server out of all proportion and none of that data on it was Truly all that Sensitive anyway

Re:The only possible hope

[kqs]

If any other federal government employee tried to hide her official correspondence with a hidden server, that person would now be on year 3 of a prison sentence.

Sure, except for everyone else.. Is is really so hard to Google before saying obviously false shit?

Re:The only possible hope

[AmiMoJo]

That's not exactly what happened though, is it?

She had a private server and Blackberry phone. When she came into her role as foreign secretary they told her that she needed a more secure means of communication, but were unable to come up with anything suitable for her office. So she carried on using her private server. Didn't hide it, I mean it's pretty obvious that hillary@clintonemail.com is not an official government account and the payments made to the company running the server are part of the public record.

Eventually someone took a proper look at the situation and realized it needed fixing. She screwed up, but the lack of intent and the fact that other parts of the government knew and failed to take more immediate and decisive action makes it very difficult to prosecute her for anything. She would probably be able to argue that she delegated that stuff to others whose responsibility it was to ensure compliance with relevant record keeping rules.

I'm not saying she did nothing wrong, she clearly screwed up badly here, but realistically it doesn't matter who she is - there just isn't enough there for a conviction.

Re:The only possible hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single republican in office during Bush Jr's administration used an RNC email server to hide all their correspondence from the American people. So anyone going after Hillary will have to go after all of them as well or be called a partisan hack.

I don't think Hillary is smart enough, but I wouldn't be surprised if she did this intentionally to try to knock out down ballot republicans and regain the house and senate for the democrats. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump was in on it as well.

Re:The only possible hope

[tomhath]

The mood at the FBI is rumored to be frustration.

That's what brought on the whole Monica Lewinski thing. Kenneth Starr was investigating the real crimes that the Clintons had committed when they started a smear campaign against him. He was so furious with their dirty tricks, lying, and stonewalling ("It depends in what the definition if 'is' is") he went public with the cigar story.

Re:The only possible hope

[drinkypoo]

She had a private server and Blackberry phone. When she came into her role as foreign secretary they told her that she needed a more secure means of communication, but were unable to come up with anything suitable for her office.

That is a lie, and you are a liar. They offered her a secure device which other people were using successfully. That Hillary Clinton is too stupid to figure out WinMo and has to use a crackberry doesn't mean that the solution was unsuitable. It means that Clinton was unsuitable.

So she carried on using her private server. Didn't hide it,

Yes, she did not bother to hide her illegal activity, because she knew she was untouchable.

Re:The only possible hope

[drinkypoo]

If you think for one moment anyone would hold back if they had a single shred of evidence that she was had done anything, you're a fool.

There's many fools participating in this conversation, and you're one of them. Who the fuck do you think controls the DoJ? Who the fuck do you think will actually carry out any trial?

The State Department has been running around sabotaging a trial by dicking around with classifications. The FBI would love to stick a nail in Clinton, because that's their job, but the state department and the DoJ will cockblock them all the way.

Re:The only possible hope

[drinkypoo]

Which is why the information could not be electronically transferred and required that a human being look at it on the screen of the secure system and then transcribe it by hand to the insecure system. Which is what Clinton had here aids do.

Yes. She deliberately placed that information in the hands of her aides for perusal to determine which material was classified, which is itself illegal. Nobody is denying this, in fact her defenders are actually repeating it! It boggles the mind how you think that's an out for her when it's actually incriminating. It was illegal to knowingly place classified information into the hands of others, and that's precisely what she did.

Re:The only possible hope

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's not clear that using the private server was an attempt to evade record keeping. Most indications are that Clinton really wanted to keep using a Blackberry and wanted access to her current email and the NSA and State Department weren't able to accommodate her so she just gave up and did her own thing.

So your excuse is that she broke the rules because the people who understand security said "no", and getting her way is more important than following those rules?

Laws should be applied consistently, that doesn't just mean the rich and powerful don't get off easy, it also means you don't get to throw the book at someone just because you don't like their politics.

Are you saying that if a low-level government employee ignored the legally mandated rules for handling sensitive data, they would not be charged with treason? You, sir, are full of shit.

Re:The only possible hope

[AmiMoJo]

Man, all your posts are so angry...

It's not a lie, I was just pointing out that there was a discussion and it ended with her choosing to continue using her Blackberry. That was, as I stated, a mistake and broke the rules, but she definitely didn't hide it and that's the really important thing here.

If they tried to prosecute her she would just say that she asked about it, the relevant people were fully aware and the blame is thus shared out, and she could reasonably claim to have thought it was okay since no-one was screaming at her about it.

I'm not defending what she did, I'm trying to explain to you why a prosecution would fail and so won't be brought. It's not because she is "elite", it's because politicians are good at making sure liability for decisions is spread around.

Re:The only possible hope

[Anubis IV]

There was classified mail, including items carrying Secret clearance (and I believe one item with TS clearance). Not much of it, admittedly, and some of it was subsequently declassified, but there was indeed classified mail passing through her server.

Re:The only possible hope

[drinkypoo]

Man, all your posts are so angry...

My posts are angry because your posts are shit.

It's not a lie

It is a lie.

I was just pointing out that there was a discussion and it ended with her choosing to continue using her Blackberry.

That is another lie. Stop lying. You said "When she came into her role as foreign secretary they told her that she needed a more secure means of communication, but were unable to come up with anything suitable for her office." Well, guess what? That is a lie, and it's your own words. You know better, but you chose to lie anyway, and now you're surprised that I'm angry about it? Stop lying, and then I won't be angry.

I'm not defending what she did

Then why lie on her behalf?

Re:The only possible hope

[GlennC]

So she's not evil. She's merely incompetent.

Good to know.

Re:The only possible hope

[ganjadude]

The only way Clinton differed was she

so no... no one else did what she did

Re:The only possible hope

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Except that's not the standard, it never has been, government officials have used private emails for ages, John Kerry was the first Secretary of State to primarily use a state.gov address. The only way Clinton differed was she used her own server instead of a 3rd party server like AOL or Google, and I'm not sure a properly maintained private server (not that she had one) is a worse scenario.

And it's not clear that using the private server was an attempt to evade record keeping. Most indications are that Clinton really wanted to keep using a Blackberry and wanted access to her current email and the NSA and State Department weren't able to accommodate her so she just gave up and did her own thing.

You're right. I felt that if she had used a really secure server at the foundation, like a hardened BSD based server, she could make an argument that she was actually using better security. It would still technically be illegal, but that is a strong argument. Probably wouldn't be too tough to prove that the government email servers at the time didn't have great security. Then I found out she basically hired some "company" I will call Two Windoze Dudes And A PC to set everything up and that argument flew out the window. This wasn't about security at all but it was to keep her from having to use 2 different mobile devices at the same time. No more. No less.

Re:The only possible hope

[richieb]

How was she hiding any correspondence? Any emails set to or received from a .gov address would be archived and available on the government's system.

What exactly is being hidden?

Re:The only possible hope

[richieb]

It is when you're violating the law to set it up to avoid FOIA requests.

All her official emails were sent/received from a .gov address. All those system log the emails and you can get them with an FOIA request.

Re:The only possible hope

[bigsexyjoe]

Clinton Foundation went from watchlist, to "we don't how to evaluate such an odd foundation". http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/c...

Also very clear that 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...

She ignored violence against union members in Columbia for a bribe. Charming.
http://www.ibtimes.com/colombi...

Re:The only possible hope

[Saanvik]

It is when you're violating the law to set it up to avoid FOIA requests.

Do you have proof that was her intention? If not, stop making such claims.

And then direct your underlings to strip classification markings from secure data and "send it insecure".

Nope, she didn't do that. She told them, and this is the direct quote "If they can't [send it via secure fax], turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Turn it into "nonpaper w no identifying header" doesn't mean copy and pasting it into a different system. It's rewriting the content in a way that is not classified and removing the State Department headers so it is not quotable as an official source. It has nothing to do with removing classification markers. To do that would be illegal.

The really interesting part of this is that the content probably wasn't classified anyway. Talking points rarely are, since the purpose it to give the information to the press.

Oh, and BTW, the information was sent by secure fax.

So when you wrote...

Oh yeah, there are emails from Hillary!'s server where she tells an aide to to just that.

and

Hillary! told her aides to remove the markings!

You are misstating the facts. I'm going to assume you didn't know better, so I won't accuse you of lying. But if you say the same thing again, you will be lying.

Re:The only possible hope

[Saanvik]

I was pretty stunned when they granted him immunity. All he has to do is mimic Col. North and say, paraphrasing Col. North, "Everything I was told to do was legal and proper, everything that was a crime I take full responsibility for".

As soon as that happened, the case disappeared unless he decides to testify against her. Even then, it's not a strong case, unless they have written proof.

Re:The only possible hope

[Saanvik]

It would still technically be illegal....

Nope, using a private server was not illegal.

Re:The only possible hope

[Tablizer]

But the difference is mostly an implementation detail, not a legal difference. AOL sucks also (Per Mr. Powell.)

Re:The only possible hope

[Saanvik]

Which is why the information could not be electronically transferred and required that a human being look at it on the screen of the secure system and then transcribe it by hand to the insecure system. Which is what Clinton had here aids do.

There is no proof she ever had her aids do that.

There is no doubt that she should be prosecuted just for attempting to avoid the FOIA, which is the reason the server existed to begin with.

Pure speculation.

Re:The only possible hope

[ChrisMaple]

She screwed up, but the lack of intent...

Hillary is a grand master of malice and corruption. Assigning "lack of intent" to her is not blindness, but a refusal to see.

Re:The only possible hope

[ChrisMaple]

There is a long list of people who crossed the Clintons, and who were massively damaged in finances and reputation (and that's just the ones who are still living.) Don't live your whole life as a dupe.

Re:The only possible hope

[quantaman]

Man, all your posts are so angry...

My posts are angry because your posts are shit.

It's not a lie

It is a lie.

You a Trump fan? Substituting facts for angry assertions does not make you right.

I was just pointing out that there was a discussion and it ended with her choosing to continue using her Blackberry.

That is another lie. Stop lying. You said "When she came into her role as foreign secretary they told her that she needed a more secure means of communication, but were unable to come up with anything suitable for her office." Well, guess what? That is a lie, and it's your own words. You know better, but you chose to lie anyway, and now you're surprised that I'm angry about it? Stop lying, and then I won't be angry.

She had a list of functional requirements she felt were necessary, the solution they gave her didn't fulfil those requirements and they weren't going to give her a better one. So she ignored their suggestion and just did her own thing that did fit her functional requirements.

She was wrong to do so, she should have managed or found another solution, but the other poster was correct to say it she found it unsuitable and no one thought it was a big deal.

Clinton didn't think it was a big deal because she didn't hide it in the slightest, the State Department and the National Archives either explicitly knew what she was doing or had a good idea but they never bothered to follow up because it wasn't a big deal. Clinton's enemies, looking to crucify her over Benghazi, poured over the Sidney Blumenthal emails that Guccifer leaked in March 2013. They would have seen her email address, and they didn't care.

No one cared at all until the Republicans, after years of ridiculous obsession over the massive non-scandal of Benghazi, finally clued into the fact they had something where real laws and regulations had actually been violated and they could swap a completely fake scandal for one that actually had a grain of truth.

Oh, and if you don't think those same congresspeople leading the charge aren't constantly sending emails with classified information through their private emails and unsecured cellphones then you're a bloody moron.

Re: False Scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a real question?

Re: False Scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong! Trump hasn't picked a VP yet, we don't know if he's going to pick Hitker.

email server

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: email server

[Anonymous Coward]

Does your grandma run a multi million dollar faux charity with donations from Saudi royals, pharmaceutical companies, foreign interests and Wall Street banks?

And ... Was she Secretary of State?

Re:email server

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't even matter if this hacker is telling the truth or not, Hillary Clinton is over. The hypocrisy, the tired rhetoric and excuses, the attitude of untouchability, all huge turn-offs to anyone with a brain. On second thought, most Americans have become such weaklings, maybe they will come out to prop up their feeble candidate. The people's self-destructive affair with political correctness to match the candidate with the weakest character imaginable.

Re:email server

[Mr D from 63]

So, it appears at least they reported accurately and fully disclosed. Lets watch if other news agencies so explicitly include that type of information going forward when accusing others of things.

The question now is, which criminal do we believe? Hillary or the Hacker?

Re:email server

[Lawrence_Bird]

So then I guess NBC is a sub of Fox now too, right? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

Re:email server

[tgrigsby]

"Reported accurately"? You're kidding, right? This guy makes a vague claim and they can't even verify it, but they put him on the air anyway and that's accurate reporting in your book? You should really study the basic principles behind journalistic ethics.

Re:email server

[Mr D from 63]

They reported the claim, they reported is was not verified. If he actually made the claim then they are both accurate. If you want to see poor reporting, how about repeating third party claims with no mention or attempt to even discuss verification. We see that from all the news organizations, but I suppose that does not bother you when it suits your agenda.

Re:email server

[Straif]

Point #1, the suit in question wasn't against Fox news, it was a Fox tv affiliate. Point #2, the suit wasn't about the right to lie, it was a simple wrongful dismissal suit in which the fired couple made the claim the TV station was trying to lie.

Simply put, two reporters didn't have their contracts re-upped and they claimed it was due to their complaints about how the editors at the station edited one of the their stories. The final judgement was based on whether the firing was legal and had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the story (which the FCC classified as just a difference in editorial style and not an intention to mislead).

If you're going to try and make a point about how some entity is untruthful it would at least be a good idea to be using an example that itself isn't based on a lie.

Re:email server

[ichthus]

Lets watch if other news agencies so explicitly include that type of information going forward

No, they won't. Apparently, NBC had this same news, but chose to sit on it, rather than report it.

Re:email server

[Mr D from 63]

Of course they chose to not report it, but don't think for a second they would to the same for Trump. If you haven't seen them pass along things in that manner many times in the past you'd have to be blind.

Why is he in jail?

[guruevi]

Why is he in jail and Hillary isn't? If anything, he's a whistleblower on major criminal activity.

Re:Why is he in jail?

[Gussington]

Why is he in jail and Hillary isn't? If anything, he's a whistleblower on major criminal activity.

Two reasons:
1. "a report from Fox News"
2. "Fox News could not independently confirm Lazar's claims"

You need to improve your critical thinking skills before calling for the noose...

Re:Why is he in jail?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same reason the guy who hacked Sarah Palin's Yahoo Mail account (proving she was illegally conducting official business on a personal email account) went to jail but Sarah Palin didn't. The elites don't go to jail in America.

Since when is Palin an "elite" in America?

Anyway, Palin didn't go to jail not because she is an elite but because her emails were incredibly dull, and nobody really cared enough about the little bit of mixing of personal and official emails, that there was evidence of, on the same account. Unlike Clinton, she didn't have access to top secret information. That is enough to make all the difference. It is enough to make these silly comparisons between Palin and Clinton completely pointless. Clinton is not being investigated by the FBI just for conducting government business on a private server; she is being investigated for potential mishandling of classified material.

But you're right. She probably won't get to jail. She is, after all, a Clinton.

Re:Why is he in jail?

[s.petry]

It appears that there is a different perception of "Elite" at play. Elite does not have to be intelligent or holding lots of power, there are useful idiots who are also elites. Often people play an idiot for effect (GW) which helps other Elites.

I think people have this perception that all of the elites are the same, when that does not seem to be the case. Look at a Bilderberg roster, most are the type you expect but there are always a few head scratchers on the list.

Re:Why is he in jail?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Since when is Palin an "elite" in America?

She could see Russia from her front porch - that makes her an elite visionary.

Re:Why is he in jail?

[KGIII]

You're going to make me defend Palin? I fucking hate you.

*sighs*

Palin *got* information from people which mixed personal and official business. She then told them that this was a private email and gave them the email address to conduct the official business at that address.

Son of a bitch, you're an asshole for making me do that.

Re:Why is he in jail?

[Mr. Slippery]

Since when is Palin an "elite" in America?

Since she was elected governor of Alaska, at least. Possibly since she was elected to the city council in Wasilla, though I'm not sure how much power or status that gave her. Certainly as mayor she was able to use her status to impose her will on people.

"Elite, sometimes "Ãlite" is a small group of powerful people in political and sociological theory, such as an oligarchy, that controls a disproportionate amount of wealth or political power in society. This group holds a superior position among the ordinary people and exercises greater privilege than the rest of the population." -- the wik

Does it even matter?

[mi]

Hillary Clinton fired America's Ambassador to Kenya over — among other things — his use of "commercial e-mail":

"The Ambassador’s greatest weakness is his reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions. He made clear his disagreement with Washington policy decisions and directives concerning the safe-havening in Nairobi of families of Department employees who volunteered to serve in extreme hardship posts; the creation of a freestanding Somalia Unit; and the nonuse of commercial email for official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information [emphasis mine -mi]. Notwithstanding his talk about the importance of mission staff doing the right thing, the Ambassador by deed or word has encouraged it to do the opposite."

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.

Re:Does it even matter?

[Bing Tsher E]

The Clintons set up that email server to circumvent government transparency.

If she had used the regular Government State Department server, her correspondence would have been subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and eventually it would have ended up archved at the National Archives.

The fundamental reason for the private Clinton Email Server was to keep her correspondence permanently off the record.

Re:Does it even matter?

[phantomfive]

If hypocrites were disqualified from running for office, we would have no politicians left.

Re:Does it even matter?

[vux984]

But it is the hypocrisy that ought to derail her presidential bid. /quote

If hypocrisy derailed presidential bids then Ron Paul probably would have been our last president elected unopposed, and Sanders would be the only candidate running this election, for either party.

Re:Does it even matter?

[Sir Holo]

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 US Govt's "Sensitive but Unclassified Information" category is a a flaming piece of bullshit itself.

SBUC labeling is an attempt to hamper or foil FOIA requests—Period. It has been around for much longer than Hillary, so don't blame her. It is abused by basically every US Govt arm, as an attempt to keep the populace as uninformed as possible.

SBUC really just means: "This is just ordinary communication, but we want to exclude it from FOIA requests anyway – because otherwise the plebes might get upset... or something."

Re:Does it even matter?

[whoever57]

I am amazed that you cannot see that using a commercial email server is far worse than using a private email server.

Re:Does it even matter?

[TheGratefulNet]

if that's true (and I suspect it probably is) then this is the real crime. the fact that our government is so anti-open and goes to great lengths to hide stuff from the people, that's the much bigger elephant in the room.

HRC or anyone else - only diff is the name. people come and go. its not about any one person.

our system is broken. our system gives personhood to business and defers most recently created laws to business or to other positions of existing power. pushing power further upward, creating even more of a void in the middle. basically, ruining our entire system, slowly, over time, for their personal gain.

do we talk about THIS?

no, we have witch hunts on this or that person.

sometimes, we totally miss the bigger elephant in the room.

Re:Does it even matter?

[Tablizer]

To have setup and used her own e-mail server for "official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information" is [very bad]

BUT, what makes you believe the alternative was any safer?

Re:Does it even matter?

[Sir Holo]

You have understood the point absolutely, and entirely.

Congrats. I guess... as it it not a nice realization.

I have worked in Academia, Industry, the US Government, and within the US 'Military-Industrial Complex (MIC)'. I left the latters for the primary – Academia.

One of the first lessons (LECTURES) I was given as a government and as a MIC-employee was that I should label every report, internal publication, memo, or even a fucking email setting up a meeting time – as SBUC. Just as a matter of course. "It's just hygiene," they told me.

Fuck that. I have been a Federal Whistle-blower. TWICE. Why yes, they have tried, through illegal means, to destroy my professional reputation (I am anonymous here on /.),as well as my personal and financial lives, in retaliation for whistle-blowing.

I am not dead yet. The third, and biggest, whistle-blow is imminent.

I've already mentioned their names. I DO HAVE a "Dead-man's Switch" set up, which will, in the case of my death or long-term coma, release the headline-making shenanigans of the bastards who have intellectually raped me available to The Intercept, Wikileaks, The Guardian, as well as some others.

These assholes have already fucked with me. If I die, it will be 100x worse for them. The 'perfectly organized' data-dump is already armed. If I fail to log in to my "Dead Man's Server(s)" on a periodic basis, the full contents of illegal activities of my intellectual rapists will be exposed in one large chunk. The media outlets can then tranche the information as they see fit.

These people have ignored the First Rule. (DNFWM)

Re:Does it even matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

And we know that - how? Her word? When it's already been shown she did not release all work related e-mails? Really - we're to trust her?

Re:Does it even matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

why did she comply 100% with the request for a copy of all work-related email? The only things she deleted were about 30k personal emails.

She was supposed to use systems that would keep official copies of all her official emails. She used her own system, which didn't.

She was supposed to hand over all official materials she had in her possession when she stopped being Secretary of State. She had to sign a document to that effect. But she had copies of all those official emails (on the server), and her lawyer had more copies (on a USB flash drive). Who even knows how many copies there were... maybe her IT guy had some backup tapes.

A political group filing Freedom of Information Act requests eventually figured out that there was almost no FOIA-available email from her; the government just said "we got nothing" and didn't explain why. Thanks to the Guccifer hack that came to light, the existence of her personal email server also came to light. Then a court ordered her to (finally!) turn over all those emails that she was supposed to have turned over already and wasn't supposed to have any more.

Then she didn't turn them over. She instead went through her emails and picked and chose what to turn over. She says that she deleted personal emails but turned over work-related emails... next time the IRS audits you, just give them part of what they ask for, and explain that you deleted the rest because it was personal. See how that works for you. In case the analogy wasn't clear: when a court orders you to turn stuff over, you don't get to pick and choose what to turn over. Unless your name is Hillary Clinton I guess, since she got away with it so far.

Oh by the way, she (or people working under her direction, same diff) printed the emails on paper, and handed over the paper. This senseless destruction of trees was just to make things harder for the people trying to sift through her emails, but of course all it did was waste some time; the feds have document scanners and OCR, and turned the paper back into searchable data. It was just sort of a little "fuck you" from Hillary to the people filing FOIA against her.

So, the US government doesn't have a complete record of her emails, but any spy agency that figured out what she was doing could have cracked her server and downloaded everything. So odds are good that the Russians and the Chinese have full copies of everything, whereas the US government is having to work hard to try to piece it all together.

So yeah, she cooperated 100%. 110%!!

P.S. A Marine is in huge trouble for sending a classified email with a personal laptop, and having a couple of classified documents on it. His defense is that secured laptops were hard to come by in a combat area, and the email was an attempt to save lives. The Marine Corps kicked him out over this.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/1/hillary-clinton-emails-far-more-egregious-than-dat/

Do you support one standard for the little people, and a looser standard for Hillary Clinton?

Re:Does it even matter?

[AmiMoJo]

the height of hypocrisy â" the greatest sin of a politician

Are you kidding? Hypocrisy is the least of all political sins. It's so common no-one cares any more. It pales in comparison to a nice juicy sex scandal or some recreational drug use.

The say that patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel too, but actually it's usually the first.

Re:Does it even matter?

[dywolf]

Wait wait wait....
seriously....
you didn't read your linked article AGAIN!?

Somehow you turned "he wasn't fired over email" into "he was fired over email"....

Shuster said Gration was forced to resign because of his use of personal email accounts.

That was one issue State Department officials raised. But just one of many. The State Department Inspector General’s report paints a much more troubling picture of an embassy in disarray under Gration’s leadership. In the words of the auditors, Gration "has lost the respect and confidence of the staff to lead the mission." Gration ranked at or near the absolute bottom among other ambassadors assessed by the department.

His use of email was an issue, but according to an ambassador with much experience, it was a relatively minor one.

We rate the claim Mostly False.

Are you SURE you aren't doing a Colbert style parody act of a RWNJ?

Also, commercial email is not the same thing as a private email server, now is it?
Surely even your puny brain is aware of that?

Re:Does it even matter?

[dywolf]

No, he got a score of 2 (and it should be -1) because even his own link proves him a liar.

Re:Does it even matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

And there you go. The ends justify the means.

Re:Does it even matter?

[drinkypoo]

BUT, what makes you believe the alternative was any safer?

We can't know that, but we do know beyond the shadow of a doubt that hers was incompetent, and illegal (at least as it was used).

Re:Does it even matter?

[Anubis IV]

There have been multiple instances where the people she was corresponding with for work turned over copies of conversations they had with her that contained e-mails she had failed to supply, and there are large date ranges missing from the copies she supplied (particularly around times when suspicious activity may have been taking place, such as the stuff related to Benghazi), despite the fact that the government procured copies of some of the messages she sent during that time from other sources. It's well-established that it's not just personal e-mail that she failed to supply. Some of those work e-mails were subsequently "found" by Clinton, but the question remains how many will never be found.

Re:Does it even matter?

[mi]

somehow you turned "he wasn't fired over email" into "he was fired over email"....

False. Seems like you didn't read the post you were replying to. AGAIN. What I actually said was, and I emphasize the part you missed:

Hillary Clinton fired America's Ambassador to Kenya [politifact.com] over — among other things — his use of "commercial e-mail":

Which is exactly, what the Politifact article says. And this is the most pro-Democrat link out there, so they would try to de-emphasize her hypocrisy — but could not. Not quite.

Re:Does it even matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for fucking Bernie Sanders, the only chance the US has of becoming a first world country!

Re:Does it even matter?

[laxguy]

I am amazed that you don't understand the law she broke.

Re:Does it even matter?

[TsuruchiBrian]

So the best thing for society would be if you died?

Re:Does it even matter?

[richieb]

She was supposed to use systems that would keep official copies of all her official emails. She used her own system, which didn't.

Any official emails going to/from .gov address would be logged and archived by those systems. So, how was she hiding her official emails again?

Re:Does it even matter?

[Tablizer]

You are not a lawyer. Stop pretending.

Re:Does it even matter?

[Saanvik]

She was supposed to use systems that would keep official copies of all her official emails.

Such a system did not exist until after Sect. Kerry became the Secretary of State. Until that time email retention was supposed to be done by printing a copy and ensuring that it was available for archiving. That's exactly what Ms. Clinton did; she printed copies of the emails that were related to her duties as Secretary of State and turned them over.

In case the analogy wasn't clear: when a court orders you to turn stuff over, you don't get to pick and choose what to turn over.

Ah, but see, that's not what happened. She was ordered to turn over her work related emails, which she did do.

Oh by the way, she (or people working under her direction, same diff) printed the emails on paper, and handed over the paper. This senseless destruction of trees was just to make things harder for the people trying to sift through her emails, but of course all it did was waste some time; the feds have document scanners and OCR, and turned the paper back into searchable data. It was just sort of a little "fuck you" from Hillary to the people filing FOIA against her.

Actually no, it was the requirement. An electronic copy was not sufficient to meet the archiving requirements.

Re:Does it even matter?

[Saanvik]

I'm sorry, I'm going to need a citation for the claim that "there are large date ranges missing from the copies she supplied (particularly around times when suspicious activity may have been taking place, such as the stuff related to Benghazi)". As far as I'm aware, the only confirmed "missing" emails are 15 from Blumenthal. Everything else has turned up.

Re:Does it even matter?

[drinkypoo]

You are not a lawyer. Stop pretending.

You are not my mom. Eat a bag of dicks.

Re:Does it even matter?

[Sir Holo]

So the best thing for society would be if you died?

Thanks for the compliment.

I was simply stating that killing me will not prevent the damning information from being released.

It will be released, in small tranches, and at the most critically important moments, while I am still alive. I know how to time things.

So, my life is of no consequence to the whistle-blowing. All of that machinery is already set up, and ready to go into motion – including strategic moves by attorneys, pre-scripted. The important pieces are all already in the hands of many – who do not know the second party that holds the other part of the key – but will if I die. In more than triplicate (geographically). I am not stupid.

Re:Does it even matter?

[Tablizer]

How did your mom get all those dicks?

Re:Does it even matter?

[Anubis IV]

That's a fair request, but I'm afraid I can't be bothered to look up something I care about so little as this. If that means my words are less credible and should be taken with a larger grain of salt, then I would strongly encourage others to do so, think critically, and do their own research if this is a topic that matters to them.

For my part, I'm just repeating something I recall having heard (here, I believe) last year, so it's possible or likely that additional information came to light later. If so, great. I don't need a citation, since I'm content to take your word for it and don't care enough to disagree.

Re:Does it even matter?

[drinkypoo]

How did your mom get all those dicks?

Now, now, don't slut-shame my mom.

Re:Does it even matter?

[dywolf]

weasels words that overamplify their importance from essentially none to something.

he was fired incompetence, for mismanagement.
your article does NOT support you.
you engaged in deliberate misdirection and BS.
like saying a murder in person went to prison "because among other things he ran a red light", when what sent him to prison was the f'ing murder.

ie, you lied, again.

Re:Does it even matter?

[mi]

your article does NOT support you.

It is not "my" article. I linked to it, because it offered the large chunk of the IG's report not available on other pages popping up on Google. That their editorializing does not fully support my accusation is not surprising — they are firmly "in the tank" with Hillary and Democrats. But the facts they cited do support my accusation and I reposted the relevant text entirely.

like saying a murder in person went to prison "because among other things he ran a red light"

Except I did not withhold anything and cited the entire paragraph, which listed all of the things — the murders and the traffic infractions alike — that the report considered "most troubling" about the ex-Ambassador. Use of unapproved e-mail service among them. Madame Secretary read the report, but set up her own server anyway.

ie, you lied, again.

You obsession with me is troubling and unhealthy. But, if you find my ideas so intriguing, I once again invite you to subscribe to my newsletter.

Re:Does it even matter?

[TsuruchiBrian]

You seem very important. Has any of this bullshit worked on any girls yet? Or is it mostly for delusional purposes? I would certainly hope that any real whistle blowers holding the fate of civil society in their hands wouldn't be blabbering all over social media about it.

Re: False Scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Rod Blagojevich

[Joe_Dragon]

Does Rod Blagojevich have any thing on her?

Re:Rod Blagojevich

[wonkey_monkey]

Blagojevich

Bless you.

Meanwhile, in Australia...

[ChunderDownunder]

Prime Minister Malcolm accused of using private email too.

But I guess that's ok, he did invent the internet in Australia, LOL.

Re:Meanwhile, in Australia...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Does the PM of Australia operate under a law similar to the FOIA? Which requires all government correspondence to be done on government servers so that the information contained therein is available for FOIA requests?

If not, I fail to see the issue.

Re: False Scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is running against Hitlery. They can't be on the same ticket.

Re:Dear Slashdot

[jtownatpunk.net]

What? You click on the story title (the white letters on the left side of the green stripe above the summary) then click the "Post" button.

Re: Has it been proven yet that she ran her own s

[Anonymous Coward]

This, plus she already investigated herself and found no wrongdoing.

The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you are using the wrong metrics.

Hillary has taken millions from Wall Street banks. There's a word for this. It's called "corruption". You can say it's within the rules, but that only illustrates how corrupt the entire system is.

We need an outsider. Not a puppet of the oligarchy.

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[pchasco]

Do you really think Trump will be some incorruptible president? Trump will use his presidency to increase his wealth. Whether if be during his presidency or set up for a payday after his term is over, Trump will be as corrupt as the next.

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

That's actually fine.

Here's what Trump is going to do: He's going to enrich himself and his contractor/developer buddies by building massive new infrastructure projects. He'll probably completely overhaul the NY subways. He'll go on a bridge repair binge.

That's fine too.

Because the *real* threat facing America isn't Trump enriching himself by overspending on infrastructure. It's the ownership of government by the banking system, MIC and health-care industries.

Yes, Trump is a self-serving, rich-kid who's never the most worldly guy in the room.

But he won't do half the damage that an oligarch puppet with a gigantic right-wing neocon streak can do. Hillary is dangerous.

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[Imrik]

Where do you propose we find this outsider that wants to be President?

Re:The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[khallow]

I don't recall any proof that this server was completely without security or updates.

Exactly the prior poster's point.

To be honest, I could give a damn less if Clinton did a crappy job of email security.

I'm sure you don't give a damn about a lot of important things. So what? Here's the relevant matters. First, it looks like Clinton broke the US's laws on handling classified information multiple times, each time a felony. Second, there's a really good chance she created security holes which were exploited, which is what this thread is about. You might not care, but anyone who does care about the US's national security should be concerned at how sloppy she's been here.

Third, there's the matter of why she did that. Namely, that it appears she did so to evade laws that would have made her emails accessible to FOIA requests and archival by the federal government.

Seriously folks, why are we still bitching about email security? The choice is between Clinton and someone who would make the worst used car salesman blush. Trump has no redeemable qualities. He says one thing, then ten minutes later contradicts himself. Hell, most politicians keep the promises they make, or at least try. Trump doesn't even admit to what he said yesterday, or even admit that half the crap he shovels is utter unworkable nonsense, and he knows it.

Your concern would be more relevant, if Clinton didn't do the same thing and wasn't the same kind of beast. Trump just is just a bit more blatant about it. I wouldn't buy a used car from either Trump or Clinton, but at least Trump would be entertaining.

My view is that I'd take the complainers about Trump more seriously, if they were backing someone who wasn't crooked like a snake. But it's clearly an attempt at a lesser of two evils ploy. And like a lot of people, I just don't see that Clinton is the lesser of two evils.

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[silentcoder]

Here's the reality you're overlooking:

Domestically:
The next president however will likely get to appoint at least one and probably 2 supreme court justices, and gets free reign to appoint the heads of every government agency. That is substantial power right there. Just wait to see Trump replace the heads of every single regulatory agency with a puppet of the rich to ensure no corporation is ever again impeded from causing misery, mayhem and death for profit or even forced to spend any money to take reasonable precautions against calamitous events. Look forward to a supreme court where we won't be JOKING about the corporation always winning - it will simply be par for the course that the constitution be interpreted as meaning whatever the wealthier of the parties want it to say.

Foreign policy:
Let's assume that congress will block and overrule the veto to prevent Trump and the insane clown posse he would appoint as his secretaries from declaring war on every country that made fun o his hair. That's not much of a guarantee I'm afraid. It's ridiculously easy to start a war *against* the wishes of your own government - all you have to do is pressure the other country up to the point where they feel compelled to declare war on *you* at which point your government kind of has to fall in line. History is full of examples of that. A notable one was Britain circa 1897. The liberal government of the day opposed Rhodes's expansionist views and definitely didn't want another war. Cecil John Rhodes (genocidal madman) and his governmental puppet Lord Alfred Milner (governor of the British Cape Colony) wanted to take the boer republics by force, but parliament was adamantly against it. Under advice from colonial secretary Joseph Chamberlain they hatched a plan around that, making increasing insane demands of the boers until eventually - under extreme duress the Boer republics declared war on the British empire. A declaration that, in terms of military comparability was roughly on par with Kenya declaring war on the United States today. They didn't want a war, they were just pressured into believing one was absolutely inevitable and they had best try to strike first. Once war was declared UPON the British government, they kind of had no choice but to fight the war.

Do you think Trump would be above such tactics ? I sure don't. Hell, he's quite insane enough that, when the impossibility of actually building his wall comes home to roost he would blame it on the Mexican government and appease his supporters by causing a second Mexican-American war. The man has no respect for human life, and no qualms whatsoever about wasting millions of them to protect his own interests.

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[MBGMorden]

They all are, and always will be.

It takes a lot of money to run for almost any office. Heck even in LOCAL politics your town council members tend to be the wealthier people in the area (wealth being a relative term).

To realistically achieve the office of president you have to be rich already, because pretty much no one else can afford to gallivant around the country for a year or two for at MOST a 50/50 shot at getting the office.

That's why at best I consider Democrats hypocrites. Democrats and Republicans - they're all pretty much rich, but the Democrats are the group of rich people running around blaming all the countries problems on . . . rich people.

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[kilfarsnar]

We need an outsider. Not a puppet of the oligarchy.

That's true, but the Democrats weren't smart enough to nominate Bernie Sanders.

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[ganjadude]

man, and people think clinton haters come up with some crazy ideas

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[Altus]

You realize that this has been said about every presidential election for the last 20 years or so. Its always an emergency, we always need to be afraid of the boogie man. Maybe start nominating people that the huge swaths of independent voters will actually vote for and you wont have to worry so much about these crazy fringe candidates.

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[Altus]

There is another democratic candidate? What are you talking about? I watch CNN 5-6 hours a day, I'm pretty sure if there was another democratic candidate I would have heard about it by now.

Re:The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[Rob Y.]

How the hell you get from presumed incompetence to run a secure email server to "there's a really good chance she created security holes which were exploited". If you think HRC had any inkling of an intention to purposely 'create' holes to leak stuff she was obviously trying to keep private, you're insanely paranoid. If you think she had the technical sophistication to do it - even if she had wanted to - you're just dumb.

The simplest explanation is always the best. Hillary knew that if her email were subject to subpoena, members of the opposition party would spend her full tenure ginning up reasons to do it. Why? On the off chance that they'd find something they could use against her. And y'know what? She was right about that. So your FOIA avoidance explanation is kind of right - give the man a prize! - but you're kind of wrong on the reasoning behind it. Now, when she made up that excuse about not wanting to carry two devices - yep, she was lying. I for one, understand the lie and why she told it. Only someone paranoid enough to think she was intentionally trying to compromise US security could ignore this obvious explanation and go down that route.

Clinton has one overarching goal. To make history as the first woman president, and presumably, to do a good enough job at it to be treated well in those history books. And that's not the worst thing in the world, either. If she merely wanted to get rich, a Yale-educated lawyer could find much easier ways to do that. But if you're willing to entertain the fantasy that she (or anyone for that matter) would spend an entire lifetime accruing credentials (whatever you may think of her particular ones) to run for president - just to destroy the country...

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[nehumanuscrede]

While completely off topic, when the hatred of all things " Trump " flare up and cause folks to act irrationally remember this:

It was not all that long ago when Tom Wheeler was chosen to head the FCC. When the announcement came, everyone lost
their fucking minds.

They said:

" He's the worst possible person for the job ! "
" He's a cable industry shill ! "
" He'll destroy everything ! "
" He's on the payroll of Big Media ! "
" It's the end of everything as we know it ! "
" I like turtles ! "

Fast forward a few years to today. Once the guy was given the chance to show the world how he did things, there was not enough
crow to go around to balance out the hatred and stupidity that was preached early on. He impressed the hell out of everyone, including
the most vocal of critics. Much to the disdain of the Telcos and Cable Industries.

The moral of this story is this: Give folks a chance to show you what they're capable of when it counts. Sometimes, they surprise us all.

If their actions or the end results don't live up to their claims, then by all means give them hell about it. At least give them the chance to
prove us wrong.

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[silentcoder]

Not a word in there is half as crazy as trump's ideas. As evidenced by the fact that they are absolutely possible. Proven possible by the fact that it has happened before.

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[silentcoder]

The problem is that the most frightening thing about Trump is the possibility that he actually will keep his promises.

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[Bartles]

You mean the guy who has never had a non-goverment job?

Re:The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[Saanvik]

First, it looks like Clinton broke the US's laws on handling classified information multiple times, each time a felony.

It only looks like that if you don't know much about how classified information works. Read up on it from a source that isn't referring to Hillary Clinton, and then match that up to what she did.

Second, there's a really good chance she created security holes which were exploited, which is what this thread is about.

Where is the evidence that she created security holes which were exploited? An unreliable source is quoted as saying she did? Personally, I wouldn't trust a government server to keep my emails safe from prying eyes.

The last sentence is pretty key to this. We know the State Department email system was breached at least twice while she was Secretary of State.

Re:The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[khallow]

How the hell you get from presumed incompetence to run a secure email server to "there's a really good chance she created security holes which were exploited". If you think HRC had any inkling of an intention to purposely 'create' holes to leak stuff she was obviously trying to keep private, you're insanely paranoid. If you think she had the technical sophistication to do it - even if she had wanted to - you're just dumb.

Come on, this is basic stuff. Clinton is a high value target for several world-class intelligence agencies. I'm sure your close buddy, Putin would never dream of throwing a few hackers at this server, but maybe your close buddy, Xi Jinping would.

And one doesn't need intent to screw up security on an email server any more than one needs intent to drive into a ditch. That's so stupid even you should have figured it out before you wrote it. Things which are unintended happen, but they happen more often to the incompetent.

And your post misses an obvious point. An email server on the State Department's network can still get hacked, but they have a lot more brainpower, manpower, and firepower to throw at any detected intrusions than the people Clinton employed. By making her own server, even if the people setting it up were awesome, that server is not protected like official servers would be.

The simplest explanation is always the best. Hillary knew that if her email were subject to subpoena, members of the opposition party would spend her full tenure ginning up reasons to do it. Why? On the off chance that they'd find something they could use against her. And y'know what? She was right about that. So your FOIA avoidance explanation is kind of right - give the man a prize! - but you're kind of wrong on the reasoning behind it. Now, when she made up that excuse about not wanting to carry two devices - yep, she was lying. I for one, understand the lie and why she told it. Only someone paranoid enough to think she was intentionally trying to compromise US security could ignore this obvious explanation and go down that route.

Well, there's an obvious solution here. Throw Clinton in jail for a few years and future Secretaries of State won't use that as an excuse to blatantly break the law. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Of course, you tried to use that as an excuse for Clinton's actions, because Republicans. And of course, your close buddy, Clinton would never lie to you about the reasons she needed to evade FOIA requests.

Clinton has one overarching goal. To make history as the first woman president, and presumably, to do a good enough job at it to be treated well in those history books. And that's not the worst thing in the world, either. If she merely wanted to get rich, a Yale-educated lawyer could find much easier ways to do that. But if you're willing to entertain the fantasy that she (or anyone for that matter) would spend an entire lifetime accruing credentials (whatever you may think of her particular ones) to run for president - just to destroy the country...

Another profoundly stupid paragraph from the peanut gallery. I neither said or implied that Clinton was trying to destroy the US. I find it remarkable how the tools trying to defend Clinton come up with the dumbest arguments. You are truly a hammer in the proverbial bag of hammers.

Look, maybe you ought to just let the grown ups talk, kay?

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[KenHansen]

building massive new infrastructure projects

And this differs from either Democrat candidate's plans should they Rae office how, exactly?

Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[Coren22]

Outsider? He is a Senator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[Coren22]

https://politics.slashdot.org/...

Yeah, her server was totally secure, no doubt about it.

Also, you don't give a damn that she exposed classified information to foreign people (at least this guy, most probably Russia and China)?

Re:The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[Rob Y.]

Come on, this is basic stuff. Clinton is a high value target for several world-class intelligence agencies. I'm sure your close buddy, Putin would never dream of throwing a few hackers at this server, but maybe your close buddy, Xi Jinping would.

And one doesn't need intent to screw up security on an email server any more than one needs intent to drive into a ditch.

I wasn't saying her server didn't have holes - I was pointing out that your language seemed to imply that she 'created' those holes for some purpose - presumably to welcome in enemies of the US. Now maybe you didn't intend to say that, but you sure seemed to be implying it.

Throw Clinton in jail for a few years and future Secretaries of State won't use that as an excuse to blatantly break the law

Except there's no evidence that she broke the law at all. The current rule that would render her server illegal was enacted after she left office. Now, it's possible that the classified info that made it to her server (inadvertently, and retroactively classified, I might add) adds up to having broken the law - that's what the FBI is trying to figure out. You seem to have figured it out for them - based on either your brilliance, or your political preferences. Not, however, based on the law.

I neither said or implied that Clinton was trying to destroy the US

No, you just said she 'created security holes'. I read into that some implication of intent to create security holes - but maybe not. In any case, I was just posting my thoughts on why - like her or hate her - it's much more likely that Clinton's purposes are benign - and yes, self serving (it's possible to be both), but not evil. Perhaps that's so self-evident as to be 'stupid', but in the light of much that is said about HRC, it's more sad than stupid to have to point out that every politician you don't like isn't necessarily out to destroy the country. And that's all I was doing. It's not smart or dumb - or even an argument per se. Just a call to consider that your vitriol might be misplaced. And your concern for national security may be more of an excuse to bash a politician you don't like than any genuine concern.

Re:The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd

[khallow]

I wasn't saying her server didn't have holes - I was pointing out that your language seemed to imply that she 'created' those holes for some purpose - presumably to welcome in enemies of the US. Now maybe you didn't intend to say that, but you sure seemed to be implying it.

I write for reasonable people. It would not have seemed that way to them.

I neither said or implied that Clinton was trying to destroy the US

No, you just said she 'created security holes'.

Ok, seems to me just fine. I don't see here any implication of my words that Clinton was trying to destroy the US or even create security holes. Once again, outcome doesn't imply intent.

Except there's no evidence that she broke the law at all. The current rule that would render her server illegal was enacted after she left office.

There are many more laws in the US than just that one. She maintained an unauthorized server on which classified information was passed on, and didn't notify anyone about those breaches of security. That's felonies right there. She instructed employees to strip classified headers from an email. That is a felony as well. If she evaded FOIA requests for any reason, including because Republicans, that's a felony.

it's much more likely that Clinton's purposes are benign

Whistling past the graveyard.

Questions

[wwalker]

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?

Re:Questions

[Gussington]

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...

Obama pardons her and she still gets the top job. But it'll never get that far, the stability of the country is more important than a political witch-hunt.
I know this topic incites rage among Hillary haters, but for most everyone else it's a non-issue. Every candidate has dirt on them in one form or another. You don't get to the top without some blood on your sleeves.

Re:Questions

[Okian Warrior]

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?

It's really unclear what would happen.

Nothing in the constitution prevents a felon from running for president.

However, apparently(*) many states have laws about felons running for office. Apparently(*) in some states, to run for office you must be registered to vote, and many states do not allow felons to vote. Also apparently(*) some states do not allow their electoral college representatives to vote for convicted felons.

Although the constitution doesn't prevent a felon from running, an elected felon could be immediately subject to impeachment, viz:

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

There's no clear standard as to what "other high crimes and misdemeanors" is, so it's effectively what a majority of the House thinks is relevant at the time.

If a chosen candidate is unable to continue to the election (dies or has medical issues, for example), the vice-presidential candidate does *not* automatically assume the candidate role. The rules are complicated on both sides, but effectively the parties get to choose new candidates.

It's conceivable that a felon serving time in prison would be considered unable to continue, and in this case the parties would step in and choose another candidate. Apparently, the new candidate is at the discretion of the party leaders, and *not* automatically any of the runners-up.

(*) I couldn't get a clear answer for this whole mess online, if someone has a clear answer I'd like to hear it.

Re:Questions

[GlennC]

I'm afraid you don't remember correctly.

The President is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. That means he can directly order any military officer or enlisted person.

As to the choice between Clinton and Trump, if we're going to go to hell anyway, let's just vote in Trump and get it over with. Clinton will take too long.

Re:Questions

[KGIII]

Just so you know, that bit about the Marines being the only branch of the service to blah blah blah and not needing things like Congressional approval - that's not actually correct. There's some strange misinterpretations going on out there based on "and other orders as the President directs." (I think that's verbatim.) However. No. That's not what that means. Not even remotely.

Now, the Marines might listen - I suppose. I really doubt it. We're sworn to uphold the Constitution and, believe it or not, we take our oath(s) seriously - as we do our traditions. I'm trying to think of a realistic situation in which that might happen and I just can't come up with one - it's never a lawful situation, regardless. And no, this hasn't changed since I was in. I spent eight long years enlisted in the Marines in order to pay for college (and to be able to survive while attending college. I had a family at the time.)

Yet, I oft hear this repeated. I do not know why.

Let me put this to you straight. The President can not, really, just order the Marines to do things willy-nilly. Yes, he is the Commander in Chief. Yes, he's the boss. However, the Marines aren't even their own department - they're a department of the Navy, for starters. I know - it said it clearly on my paycheck. Because of the beating my body took, I'm also eligible for a fair-to-middling (about $1400/mo) stipend for disability. I do not accept that money, I have no need for it and do not wish to deprive others who are more entitled than I. So, I've never applied but I'm told I'm quite eligible. I'm also not positive but I believe *that* money would also come from the Department of the Navy.

No, no the Marines can't be ordered to go hang around and annoy Congress. Well, they probably could be given that order but it would be unlawful and would not be obeyed. There's some reference to it going back to deal with some Barbary pirates but, again, that's taken out of context. This is one of the strangest misconceptions that I've ever come across.

Finally, I could be wrong. I am not omniscient. If you've documentation that shows that I'm mistaken then I'd love to read it. I'm pretty sure you'll only find some opinions and some VERY wrong interpretations by conspiracy nuts. I can't imagine that very many Marines would even listen to such an order even if it WERE lawful - depending on the circumstances but that's a subject for another day and one I don't really feel inclined to discuss with you. (Nothing personal.)

Re:Questions

[Straif]

The DNC and RNC dont' generally get to choose who appears on the ballot, they merely whittle down potential people they will back to 2 people and have the political apparatus in each state to make sure that choice can meet the requirements to be listed. If one of the 2 people they decide to back gets on the ballot but then drops out (for whatever reason) they don't generally have the option to just add another name. There are legal requirements to put your name on a ballot in all 50 states and timing is usually a very important one.

If the decision to drop out (or felony conviction/indictment) happens past the deadline to put your name on the ballot then simply put, either the original persons name remains on the ballot or no name is placed on the ballot representing the party in question. If Hillary is charged and the DNC decides to drop her like a hot potato there is a very real chance they would have to run a 'write in' campaign for their pick in several states.

This summary does not make sense...

[NicBenjamin]

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)...

Re:This summary does not make sense...

[KGIII]

Umm... You're not only not a lawyer but you're not actually familiar with the judicial system - are you? I'm not sure that any of the things you stated are correct. As I read it for a third time, I'm pretty sure that none of what you said is correct - including the first sentence.

What prompted you to make your comment? What makes you think she can't be charged for violating an executive order, for instance? The next bit about statutes? Well, that's not even wrong - it's just gibberish. Finally, I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say at the end.

I've seen you post before and you're not normally retarded. Am I missing something? I mean that, you're literally normally sane and reasonably correct. WTF is this shit from you? It's gibberish - most of it's not even wrong and what is wrong is just so bizarre that I'm not sure how the hell you reached these conclusions.

So, I'm sitting here thinking that I must be missing something - you're not normally retarded. For lack of a better solution, I'm going to have to ask for some citations and, well, I think I'm going to need to see some precedent and court findings - those should be easy to find to support your claim(s). Trust me - I went and looked before typing this. I thought that I must be the one in error.

Re:This summary does not make sense...

[NicBenjamin]

Ignorantia juris non excusat - ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It's actually foundational to US law. You're a fucking idiot.

And your reading comprehension needs work.

"This was not willful," is not an "I didn't know that the offense I am charged with is illegal" defense, it's an "I didn't know I was doing the offense I am charged with" defense.

In this case Hillary's lawyers would be arguing that, as a baby boomer non-technical person, she figured if a private email server was secure enough for Colin Powell it would be secure enough for her too. So for the Prosecutor to win on that basis he'd need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a) somebody in her camp knew that using a private server would violate the statute, b) she was actually told this by that person, c) a rational Hillary Clinton would have believed that person and not the fact that the other Secretary of State who used email prior to her had used a private account with no legal grumbling, etc.

Re:This summary does not make sense...

[NicBenjamin]

"You can't be charged with violating an Executive Order" is confusing? I thought it was pretty simple. If you are charged with a crime in Court, the piece of paper that announces the government thinks you fucked up, and should be put in jail, will not have an Executive Order on it. It will have a statute. There is probably some circumstance where Obama could drag somebody into Court for violating one of his orders without referring to a statute, but damned if I can think of any*.

Now depending on the precise situation; the statute they're talking about, which generally includes powers Congress has delegated to the President; etc.; the Court may end up talking about an Executive Order a lot. But "fuck that Executive Order, the actions the government is alleging don't violate the statute" is always a valid defense you can use.

Which is a huge reason I think Hillary is likely to get off. I looked into the actual statutes, and mis-storing classified info requires you did that shit "knowingly", which means that if you can argue you thought it was fine (perhaps because Colin Powell stored classified material the same way) you have by definition not violated the statute. You may have violated the fuck out of the Executive Order, but the Court's job does not involve enforcing Executive Orders.

*Altho he can fuck you up using non-Court-related Powers. Just ask all those poor mother-fuckers he droned. But that's all extra-Judicial.

Final authority

[Okian Warrior]

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!

Re:Final authority

[Straif]

The SoS can only (de)classify materials that originated within the State Dept. They have no authority to change classifications on material originating from other sources and most of the details that have been talked about in the press originated in the CIA/NSA/FBI or Dept. of Homeland Security.

Imagine....

[inode_buddha]

Imagine a threesome with Janet Reno and Margaret Thatcher. There, now you need brain-bleach.

Re:Dear Slashdot

[Gussington]

Do you not know how the Post button works?

Re:Good question

[Gussington]

Sorry, but "hacking" in the way this was done is not hacking, it was more like being a peeping Tom.

Oh ok, let's just ignore the established legal definition and just go with what some anonymous internet guy thinks...

Re:Dear Slashdot

[whipslash]

POST a comment with the POST button. You may even be FIRST.

Gag me with a spoon

[ChunderDownunder]

Moon Unit Zappa, who recorded the song Valley Girl back in 1982 with her dad, is now 48.

Re:Gag me with a spoon

[Sir Holo]

Moon Unit Zappa, who recorded the song Valley Girl back in 1982 with her dad, is now 48.

That's like, so, oh my gawd!

What-ev-er...

Re:Gag me with a spoon

[stealth_finger]

Barf out!

PMITA for u

[Sir Holo]

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?

Re:PMITA for u

[KGIII]

He's in a documentary that's from before he was shipped here and while he was serving time in Romania. It's called something like, "The Most Dangerous Town on the Internet." It's worth watching and is easily found online at your favorite torrent site - it was free in a bundle thingy (I think) but I'm sure there are many ways to get it - there's probably streaming versions.

Re:PMITA for u

[Sir Holo]

He's in a documentary that's from before he was shipped here and while he was serving time in Romania. It's called something like, "The Most Dangerous Town on the Internet." It's worth watching and is easily found online at your favorite torrent site - it was free in a bundle thingy (I think) but I'm sure there are many ways to get it - there's probably streaming versions.

There are two of them. Almost the same titles. Links below. Both produced by Norton(TM) == Symantec (TM) Antivirus. Nonetheless, they were both worth the 20 minutes of each – time well spent. Just keep in the back of your mind, while watching, that Symantec produced them both, and that Symantec has a stake in having people scared. Even for those in-the-know, you will find the videos informative---They are mostly interviews of people, black-hats and white-hats, so you can hear their voices, watch their body language, and hear (an edited version of) what they have to say. . . and why they do what they do.

Before the links, I recall a trojan that I wrote in 1987, and uploaded to my local BBS, which updated daily with BBS's in other States of the US. It was a seriously damaging trojan, but only potentially so. It was so clumsily written (in BASIC on DOS 3.3) that I doubt that anyone ever clicked on the "Yes, Format my boot-up drive" button. . . or text-entry "Y or N?" line. (I forget which.) I was just trying to get my $50 bounty from Norton for 'discovering' a new malware 'in the wild,' for which they advertised so heavily in computer magazines back then. They never paid me.

LINKS (not embedded, but you can copy-paste, can't you?):
http://us.norton.com/mostdange...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:PMITA for u

[KGIII]

Yup. It's from Norton - I'd only seen the one. I seem to recall it came with a "bundle" that was something being popularized by the makers of the BitTorrent torrenting application. It was an interesting watch and well worth the time invested - not long. I didn't know of the second but I'll be sure to watch it now that I'm aware of it. I don't watch much real television (read none - since the 1980s and wasn't even big on TV then but the increase in commercial time irked me enough to just find other things to do) but I do like documentaries.

I watch a lot of them, documentaries that is. So, for me, the 'net has been a great thing. There are many documentaries available online. There are enough so that I will probably never run out of things to watch. I like to find a YouTube video and then let it autoplay and pick the next one for me. I also use the playlist function in the search - a whole lot. Between playlist and setting the settings for "long" it means I get some pretty good stuff. My preferences lie with history and science - subsets being military/war and tech/physics - some nature too.

It means that I really don't need to pay for Hulu+ and Netflix but I still do. My kids use both of those more than I do. I haven't logged into either for many, many months but the kids like 'em so I keep paying for them. I understand that they and their mates enjoy it so I've not bothered to cancel. I did find that both of them had a number of good documentaries but I burned through those pretty quickly. I haven't checked for new content lately - I probably should.

Re:PMITA for u

[Sir Holo]

I don't watch much real television (read none - since the 1980s and wasn't even big on TV then but the increase in commercial time irked me enough to just find other things to do) but I do like documentaries.

I watch a lot of them, documentaries that is. So, for me, the 'net has been a great thing. There are many documentaries available online. There are enough so that I will probably never run out of things to watch. I like to find a YouTube video and then let it autoplay and pick the next one for me. I also use the playlist function in the search - a whole lot. Between playlist and setting the settings for "long" it means I get some pretty good stuff. My preferences lie with history and science - subsets being military/war and tech/physics - some nature too.

I ditched TV in 2001. For the 10 prior years, I would only watch with my finger ready for the 'mute' button. Got to where I could just close my eyes and hit 30, 60 or 90 seconds by practice. Usually, at 90, I'd un-mute, hear an ad, and mute-back for another 30 seconds. All with eyes closed and resting. very annoying, especially as the content just continued to go downhill.

Thanks for the Tip on YouTube settings – for selecting long videos. Nice filter idea. I've watched wood-turning videos, docs of all sorts, and many "bad" documentaries by conspiracy theorists. I use those to keep my BS-detector tuned, calling out every straw-man, appeal to the ancients, and so on. I am a PhD scientist, so that type of documentary is just like having a refresher. Vice releases some great gonzo journalism pieces.

I have HBO GO, not by choice but by FiOS bundling. It's pretty great. If you want to find great collections of Documentaries, message me with your town or City, and I will tell you where you can find stuff that no company will ever digitize from VHS, but the places hold onto them. Big Public Libraries, main branch, are a good place to start.

Oh, and books-on-tape?!?!? Fucking gold-mine of scientific biographies, great literature, and stuff that NetFlix or Audible won't serve-up.

Re:PMITA for u

[KGIII]

Yeah, the other is playlist - that's excellent. You can also get a start on some good automatic selections by selecting long (at Google's video search) and heading into YouTube that way. I do allow it to track an account (it's not my name or anything and I only allow the cookies there and only allow the tracking scripts there) so it appears to actually have figured out that I prefer full documentaries.

The 'net has been a great thing for me in these regards.

Funny you mention the books-on-tape - I was just mentioning that to Jason Levin here the other day, in some thread or another. It's a great way to get in some 'reading' when you don't actually have time. I find it a little distracting while driving but it's not too bad if I'm either out in a rural area or if I'm on a freeway and outside of traffic.

Fortunately, I guess, I could rely on my car to warn me of any dangers and actually zone out a little but I don't do that - I'm too much an enthusiast to do so. 'Tis a long story so I'll skip the details but, suffice to say, I own a bunch of automobiles and have taken a great deal of advanced driving instruction - in multiple, disparate, geographic locations. So, I don't do that but I could... Even on 'boring' drives i still pay attention to the road but some books are more difficult to do that than others.

Still, it's a great way to get in some extra stuff. I've been thinking about seeing if I can just find a way to get text-to-speech and then have it crunch and record it so that I can put any text material into a computerized voice. It'd be missing inflection but I'm okay with that. There are a lot of things that haven't been read aloud and recorded but I'd still like to have time to absorb. My reading time is cut short these days.

Re:Good question

[Sir Holo]

You might consider posting such things as AC next time.

It's just prudence; that's all.

No Surprise Really

[Ferretman]

If I were him with his skills I'm sure I would have too.

Ferret

Re:False Scandal

[irving47]

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.

Re:Stop Smoking that Stuff!

[Sir Holo]

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.

No.

"Excellent" or "Perfect" Karma only gets us (your intellectual overlords) a +1.

two words

[Swampash]

BENGHAZI

Re:Dear Slashdot

[Khyber]

Quite often, clicking on the story title just redirects you back to the front page.

You'd actually look smart if you had a copy of slashcode in front of you and knew about its behaviors like I do.

Re:Dear Slashdot

[Khyber]

Not correct, Whipslash.

Quite often, clicking on a headline with NO POSTS just brings you to the front page of slashdot.

In fact, oh, look, hovering over one story right now with NO POSTS shows the URL link at the bottom to be THE FRONT PAGE OF SLASHDOT.

In fact, right now, clicking any link in the Firehose just expands the story, and never takes you into the actual submission itself.

Please read and understand your own code base before being silly like that again. I've been here way longer than you and know every change about this site (including having a ripped copy of the BETA slashcode. I know all this site's shitty issues.)

Re:Dear Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd actually look smart if you had a copy of slashcode in front of you and knew about its behaviors like I do.

Much arrogant! So stupidity! Wow!

So what about you quit whining and post the fix here? You have the code and the smarts!

Oh, knock it off

[Anonymous Coward]

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????

Re:Oh, knock it off

[quantaman]

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.

Yet FOX News and the GOP still hyperventilate over Clinton's imaginary crimes around Benghazi.

Re: False Scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think he wants to keep Christians out. Actually, is there a religion that doesn't oppress women?

Like Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Like Hitler

[drinkypoo]

I can say the same thing about Hillary and Bernie.

So, to paraphrase something I heard recently on a comedy show, how is Bernie like Hitler? Socialized medicine? That's not what we had a problem with Hitler about. That part was OK. It was the genocide that was an issue.

Story is complete BS

[quantaman]

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.

Re:Story is complete BS

[drinkypoo]

1) Guccifer hacked by guessing security questions, that's all he did.

Look, stop here. If it was that easy to get into the server, you can't possibly say anything more damning about it. If this dildo can manage it, then some foreign security agencies will certainly be able to.

Re:Story is complete BS

[KGIII]

He does. As I mentioned above, there's an independent documentary with him in it from back when he was in a Romanian prison and not yet extradited. His story is pretty consistent. It's called "The Most Dangerous Town on the Internet." Watch it. Then comment.

The reality is, we know about her server (initially) because of his actions. Yup. We've kind of whitewashed that and we now claim it came to light via different means but the time line indicates otherwise.

Re:Story is complete BS

[Straif]

I'm assuming you're the same AC posting this same debunked claim from above so here's the same response;

Point #1, the suit in question wasn't against Fox news, it was a Fox tv affiliate. Point #2, the suit wasn't about the right to lie, it was a simple wrongful dismissal suit in which the fired couple made the claim the TV station was trying to lie.

Simply put, two reporters didn't have their contracts re-upped and they claimed it was due to their complaints about how the editors at the station edited one of the their stories. The final judgement was based on whether the firing was legal and had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the story (which the FCC classified as just a difference in editorial style and not an intention to mislead).

If you're going to try and make a point about how some entity is untruthful it would at least be a good idea to be using an example that itself isn't based on a lie.

Re:Story is complete BS

[thejynxed]

This is the guy the DOJ had extradited because he had/has possession of full dumps of the 30,000+ emails that Clinton had wiped from her servers before turning them over to the FBI. I wouldn't poo-poo him for a bit of attention seeking, because there is obviously some fire to be found where his smoke is coming from.

Re: False Scandal

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Dear Slashdot

[phantomfive]

Quite often, clicking on a headline with NO POSTS just brings you to the front page of slashdot.

That bug was fixed a while on the front page.

In fact, right now, clicking any link in the Firehose just expands the story, and never takes you into the actual submission itself.

Yeap, that bug is still there, and it's there for journal entries, too.

Re:False Scandal

[stealth_finger]

Why do you say Hillary is above the law?

Because she's really Judge Dredd

Re:Dear Slashdot

[wonkey_monkey]

Do you know that after hitting submit the "Working..." thing just keeps spinning and never goes away?

And the "Disable advertising" button - which I don't know why I have to click every few weeks anyway - hasn't been working for a while.

Re:False Scandal

[jandersen]

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.

Now we have established that you know nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Now we have established that you know nothing

[MysteriousPreacher]

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.

Oh yeah, equal value. It just happens that women are notably absent from historical church leaders, and not permitted to be priests in the largest denominations. It's one thing to have different roles that are complimentary. It's quite another to simply say only men can occupy these positions for no reason other than gender. The Mormons get flak for having forbidden blacks to become leaders in churches, yet the Catholic church does exactly the same thing on the basis of gender. That's their choice, and I'd defend that. I just wouldn't be so dishonest as to claim that Christianity isn't practicing gender discrimination. The bloody thing begins with a woman leading a man astray, and that's a recurring theme. And that women, depending on which creation story you read, was created merely as company for the man.

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.

I'd agree that prohibitions on contraception are largely a Catholic thing, but aren't Catholics the single largest Christian denomination worldwide by a long margin?

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.

Women had value because men wanted them and they could product offspring. Offspring in those times were both a retirement plan and your legacy. It's no wonder there were moves to protect women.

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

Re:Now we have established that you know nothing

[SadButResolved]

Or you could be wrong: if-you-sell-your-daughter-as-slave

Re:Now we have established that you know nothing

[Hognoxious]

I'd agree that prohibitions on contraception are largely a Catholic thing, but aren't Catholics the single largest Christian denomination worldwide by a long margin?

Sometimes correlation does imply causation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Now we have established that you know nothing

[Hognoxious]

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.

I'm sure Her Holiness The Popina and all the Bishopesses agree with you.

Re: Now we have established that you know nothing

[drinkypoo]

Catholics know woman are MORE than equal. Just different. And that's okay.

So riddle me this, why don't they let them be priests? You think they don't let 'em do it because they're too good? Afraid they'll turn into child molesters, too?

Re: Now we have established that you know nothing

[funwithBSD]

You are conflating a Church with a Religion.

Re: Now we have established that you know nothing

[drinkypoo]

You are conflating a Church with a Religion.

Uh no. That's not me, that's them. The Catholic church and religion are inseperable, because of their unholy papacy.

Ha ha, aren't YOU the dumb one!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Stop Smoking that Stuff!

[stealth_finger]

Just look at it. AC are mostly at 0 and logged in are lots of 2s. Your post is at 2 but I doubt it's been modded. This probably will be too.

Re: Has it been proven yet that she ran her own se

[MysteriousPreacher]

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.

Re:Dear Slashdot

[Hognoxious]

While you're here, the "s/quotation mark/a with a hat bracket TM close bracket/" crap is still happening.

I copy-pasted something from another site and got the same effect, but unlike your "editors" I used the preview and spotted it.

Test it yourself: http://www.bartleby.com/73/151...

Re: False Scandal

[kqs]

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.

Re: False Scandal

[johanw]

Is Sarah Palin still available? :-)

Re:False Scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

The party of "personal freedom" has quickly turned USA into the worst police state in the western world.

Re: False Scandal

[DoofusOfDeath]

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.

She used a private server for classified email...

[ctrl-alt-canc]

...but she didn't inhale. Ducks...

Re:Stop Smoking that Stuff!

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Interesting. I'd say it is the exact opposite. For example, any of the following will get you a guaranteed down-mod, often Toll or Flamebait:

- There should be more controls on guns
- Freedom of speech trumps your right to feel comfortable
- Feminism

In any case, there is a problem with the moderation system as it stands. A tweak to how down-mods work would improve things greatly.

Re: False Scandal

[Feral Nerd]

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.

Sounds legit

[ThatsNotPudding]

Marcel Lehel Lazar, who goes by the moniker 'Guccifer,' told Fox News from a Virginia jail where he is being held.

One unbiased party passing along the information of another honest party.

Re: False Scandal

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re: False Scandal

[danbert8]

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?

Re: False Scandal

[KermodeBear]

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.

Re:Stop Smoking that Stuff!

[serviscope_minor]

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.

There are also plenty of liberal progressives who don't use moderation to censor, and plenty on the right wing that will. It's interesting that you chose to miss out those two.

. Vaccine debate and God/Atheism immediately come to mind where if you are not progressive you are a "troll" almost without question.

Vaccines work. This is a scientific issue not a partisan one.

Hacker

[bobf0648]

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.

Re: yachts all the way down

[Hognoxious]

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...

In other news.

[silentcoder]

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 ?

Re: False Scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: False Scandal

[stealth_finger]

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?

Re:Stop Smoking that Stuff!

[tom229]

If you don't bow at the feet of Apple in that FBI case you don't have much of a chance either.

Re:The Constitution...

[drinkypoo]

The Constitution does not deal with political parties, which are private clubs/associations.

Yes, and that was probably the founders' second most singular failing. They thought they could derail them by simply not writing them into the political process. That was naive at best, or alternately, intentional! Their worst failing, of course, was the interstate commerce clause. You can never leave an open-ended power available to those in power. They will always abuse it. Perhaps that was less obvious then? It's quite clear now.

Re:Stop Smoking that Stuff!

[tom229]

The biggest issue is people modding with one account and posting with another - a real scumbag move. It goes something like this:

- Disagree with something
- Mod down, even though "-1 Disagree" isn't an option
- Sign in with second account to post highly emotional response that derails the conversation
- Sign back in with first account to mod yourself up.

There is nothing to detect or stop this type of scumbaggery it seems. This is compounded by the default filters hiding anything under 1 or 2 (can't remember exactly).

Re: False Scandal

[drinkypoo]

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.

Oh slashdot.

[flitty]

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.

Re:Dear Slashdot

[Khyber]

"That bug was fixed a while on the front page."

Yet it's still occurring right now as I'm typing my reply to you.

Firefox, Chrome, IE, and Edge, so it's not the browser having the issue.

Re:False Scandal

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Dear Slashdot

[Khyber]

Ain't my property and I'm not getting paid to do it. I've contributed to this site more than enough over more than a decade. I'll start charging for my work, thanks.

Re:She used a private server for classified email.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Maybe if she did Bill wouldn't have strayed.

Re: False Scandal

[DarkOx]

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.

Re: False Scandal

[funwithBSD]

How many female Shinto priests are there?

The ban on female Shinto priests was only lifted 60 years ago.

Re: False Scandal

[DarkOx]

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!

Re: False Scandal

[DarkOx]

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.

Re: False Scandal

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re: False Scandal

[Rob Y.]

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.

Anonymous releases video on Clinton

[clifwlkr]

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....

Re: False Scandal

[Hognoxious]

Nor does Hinduism.

Apart from that killing widows bit.

plausible deniability

[Hognoxious]

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

Re: False Scandal

[KGIII]

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. ;-)

Re: False Scandal

[KGIII]

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.

Re:Dear Slashdot

[KGIII]

Unlike the rest, I will actually help you. Hit refresh - you may need to hit it twice. I've never had to hit it more than twice. They link will then show up and not be a link to just the damned main page. It has been a while that this has been going on. So far, that's worked. I can tell that it works because it no longer has the image in a brighter white (not gray-ish) but I use a modified theme for the site so I can't say what that will look like on your screen.

Re:Dear Slashdot

[KGIII]

He's right Logan. It's been ongoing for a while now. I told him how to work around it. When the old refresh system went away, new threads still get listed. They sometimes just link to the main page. If you refresh then they turn into the right links - usually. Sometimes I've had to refresh a second time. I can replicate this daily - multiple times per day. Why? I leave a tab open to Slashdot at all times. Sometimes, nearly every link will be that way until I refresh.

Re: False Scandal

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Stop Smoking that Stuff!

[KGIII]

You can turn it off - I often do unless someone's decided to mod bomb me and then I only turn it on just to piss 'em off. I'm not actually sure that is possible to reduce my karma below the rating of excellent - even with a concerted effort, as such a concerted effort has been tried.

Re:Stop Smoking that Stuff!

[KGIII]

Let's test that...

- Freedom of speech trumps your right to feel comfortable

I just picked one because you said "any" - and you have the benefit of having said it would be so.

Fox "News"

[tgrigsby]

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.

Re:Stop Smoking that Stuff!

[s.petry]

The part I'm not sure of is if you can turn off Karma when it's negative. We do have a few old timer (3-5 digit) accounts who start negative.

Re: False Scandal

[danbert8]

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.

Re:Fuck this garbage.

[KGIII]

About 15 years ago, they added the politics section. And, I guess, rightfully so as politics does have an impact on technology. So, I'm going to have to disagree and I'm not sure why you'd play the idiot game of "I'm sure this won't see the light of day." Are you the same 'tard that's been running around lately saying stuff like, "Oh, I'm sure this will get me moderated -1?" 'Cause, if so, you're an idiot.

You're an AC. You have no say. Your opinion is the lowest of values. We care not what you think and generally don't even care what you say. Hell, I'm about the only one who'll talk to an AC and that's just because I know all of you aren't functionally retarded. In fact, there's one (two, sort of) that I'm in regular communication with - who are very much not retarded. (Hi "AC" who's real name I'm not going to use.)

You can tell him, the one I speak of, by the way he calls me by my first name. In fact, when I first bumped into him I thought he might actually have been someone who used to work for my company but that's not true.

But the rest of you? Shit... I've seen more insightful posts on Yahoo Answers.

Re:Prove it loser.

[KGIII]

So you're advocating that more people break the law by further disseminating classified information. I'm starting to think you're an idiot.

Re:Stop Smoking that Stuff!

[KGIII]

Nope, as far as I know, if you have a negative modifier then it is not something you can disable in your settings. I have this on good authority - from a poor guy who'd made (I checked) one comment that got them mod bombed into hell. He's limited to something like 4 posts per day and they must be an hour apart.

I didn't believe him so I went through is posts and he really did make one comment - not even a bad comment but it was wrong. It seems some folks took offense and I learned something new.

Just because it stops at -1 where it shows? The -1 mods STILL impact their final kama score. In other words, he was moderated to -100 (or lower) from one comment even though the -1 was all that showed.

He'd made a comment about the TSA only being allowed to search certain baggage and that there were some things you could do in an airport that you can't actually do. You USED to be able to do those things. The bit about the TSA was wrong. He also said it in a way that came off as reading cocky - but I don't think it was, I'd read their earlier posts and really spent some time looking at it.

He well and truly got fucked by the system. He indicates that the notification system had him at at least 100 downvotes - even though it stops displaying them at -1.

I had no idea it was possible but there was proof. I went through a TON of his comments since and prior. He was fairly new, only a few comments prior.

I told him to burn the account and get a new one. I think they're the only one I've ever suggested do that. I have no idea if they did but I hope so. I mean, seriously, he was needlessly bombed. I don't know if the practice continues to this day but it's crazy. He posts at -1 by default, can not change it, and I'm going out on a limb to say that he surely didn't deserve it.

Yes, he was wrong. Yes, he was (seemingly) snooty about it. At the time, it was a very emotionally charged subject. I suspect you can recollect when that was an important and emotional subject for everyone here. But, I don't think he got treated fairly. I think he's the only one I feel sorry for - part of that is from reading his other comments. He's not really snooty, it's just that his writing style is easily interpreted as that. It looks like one person took offense and then the rest slammed on him. He didn't even have a lot of follow-up comments (maybe three or four) and that was the end of his account. He'd only had a few comments prior. He still used the account YEARS later. I didn't discover this person (or their history) until after the start of 2016. Yeah, he's been posting with that limited account and, according to him, exclusively with that limited account ever since.

I gotta respect that part of it.

Again, he was wrong. There's no doubt about it. Part of what he said had been right up until just a little while before the date of his post - as in six months prior he'd have been correct. He said that he got "more than 100 downvotes" (not verbatim) and has been that way since. I think that's unfair but suggested he just generate a new account. He was sort of hell bent on trying to get his account back to normal. If I moderated then I'd have moderated in a biased fashion just to try to help him out. I do not moderate, however. So, that didn't happen.

That's gotta suck.

Was also on a watchlist

[bigsexyjoe]

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...

Another crude, ugly, and sexist Clinton supporter

[bigsexyjoe]

What the fuck is wrong with Clinton supporters like this? It's so disgusting, I wonder if David Brock wrote it himself.

Re:Another crude, ugly, and sexist Clinton support

[silentcoder]

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.

Kinda confused...

[KenHansen]

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?

Re:False Scandal

[jandersen]

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?

Re:False Scandal

[drinkypoo]

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.

Selective criticism...

[GPS Pilot]

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.