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]

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

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

[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

[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...

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?

[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: 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.

two words

[Swampash]

BENGHAZI

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.

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: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: 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

[Hognoxious]

Nor does Hinduism.

Apart from that killing widows bit.