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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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.

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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[Anonymous Coward]

And there you go. The ends justify the means.

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?

[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: 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.

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: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.

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

[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

[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.

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: 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: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...

two words

[Swampash]

BENGHAZI

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.)

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????

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.

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

[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: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.

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: 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

[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.

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.

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:Now we have established that you know nothing

[SadButResolved]

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

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

[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

[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.

Re: False Scandal

[Hognoxious]

Nor does Hinduism.

Apart from that killing widows bit.

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: 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: 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.