Slashdot Mirror
Clinton's Private Email Was Blocked By Spam Filters, So State IT Turned Them Off (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Documents recently obtained by the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch show that in December 2010, then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her staff were having difficulty communicating with State Department officials by e-mail because spam filters were blocking their messages. To fix the problem, State Department IT turned the filters off -- potentially exposing State's employees to phishing attacks and other malicious e-mails. The mail problems prompted Clinton Chief of Staff Huma Abedin to suggest to Clinton (PDF), "We should talk about putting you on State e-mail or releasing your e-mail address to the department so you are not going to spam." Clinton replied, "Let's get [a] separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal [e-mail] being accessible." The mail filter system -- Trend Micro's ScanMail for Exchange 8 -- was apparently causing some messages from Clinton's private server (Clintonemail.com) to not be delivered (PDF). Some were "bounced;" others were accepted by the server but were quarantined and never delivered to the recipient. According to the e-mail thread published yesterday by Judicial Watch, State's IT team turned off both spam and antivirus filters on two "bridgehead" mail relay servers while waiting for a fix from Trend Micro. There was some doubt about whether Trend Micro would address the issue before State performed an upgrade to the latest version of the mail filtering software. A State Department contractor support tech confirmed that two filters needed to be shut off in order to temporarily fix the problem -- a measure that State's IT team took with some trepidation, because the filters had "blocked malicious content in the recent past." It's not clear from the thread that the issue was ever satisfactorily resolved, either with SMEX 8 or SMEX 10.
big boss tells IT to do whatever it takes to make THEM happy, even if it violates policy. Same story everywhere.
I thought the US government was concerned about Chinese made technology potentially giving up important information to the Chinese government. How is Trend Micro allowed in the State Department?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
of course IT did
I bet she used the same password as on my luggage.
You other two options are "damn the rules and do as I say" and "damn you all and do as I say."
I run my own server for my tiny company. I've spent maybe 40 hrs total configuring spam. I have options to whitelist, blacklist, auto greylist, and various other options. It is inexcusable they can't do simple whitelisting by IP.
So THATS why the Clinton's State Dept never sent help to Benghazi!
If it was anyone else. Executives at IT always demand crap like this.
Yes. IT peons are often overruled by executives.
But in this case, when this executive demanded crap like this, it was illegal.
Clinton should go to jail.
What a conniving bitch.... intentionally breaking the law and intent of the law.
SHE SERVES US.
This is all just her usurping the processes that we put in place to monitor the servants who serve us.
At this point it's literally contempt for the American people's right to read the email of a public official.
She disgusts me.
She did this to skirt FOIA requests. I'm not sure why there aren't any major news agencies with the balls to say it.
No gray matter at all.
Does she go to IT Jail for violating the SPAM filter Act of what 2008??
This is probably the reason that Clinton was using her own email server: the government email systems sucked because they were run by incompetent people.
Does this "excuse" Clinton? I don't know. But at least she did what she needed to do to get shit done, which is more than what you can say about many people in government.
Does she go to IT Jail for violating the SPAM filter Act of what 2008??
No, for many other things:
- using a private email system for official business to avoid mandatory govt tracking & archiving messages
- putting classified information on this private email system (and yes, she is correct when she said there was no information marked "classified", because that isn't a label used by the US govt - they use things like TOP SECRET, NOFORN, SAP, SCI, and the like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)
- telling her staff to remove classified markings from documents and send them this private email system
The Obama administration has put many people in jail for far less with classified info.
The officials made a policy decision.
Case and investigation seems closed if this is true.
"State Department officials by e-mail because spam filters were blocking their messages. To fix the problem, State Department IT turned the filters off "
We can quibble about document classification but classification is a result of policy
and the use or non use of a department mail server is also policy.
If those that make policy change it one way or another one place or another and even if that
policy was modified by HC herself the investigation is going to find a dead end at Kafka's
tombstone.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Incredible.
Check out my novel.
Sounds like they already did using a HW dongle. It's ok tho, they disabled it.
I heard that they set Hillary's computer to be the DMZ on the State Department's NAT router because she didn't want to deal with figuring out port forwarding or UPnP.
How else was she supposed to get bribes from all of those Third world nations with a normal spam filter?
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
If my grandma had wheels she'd be a go-cart. It isn't anyone else. It isn't some nameless executive for some random corporation, it's someone running for president who created the entire situation to begin with. The fact that she was unable to comprehend that technology existed to have TWO email addresses boggles the mind. I'm no spring chicken, and I have at least 4 email addresses that I use regularly, two for work and two for home. Oh yea, I'm a federal employee and at a minimum I would lose my security clearance and get fired, and quite possibly get to go to jail. Yea, we prosecute people all the time for willful security breaches, which this was.
So since The Bush Administration used an RNC Server to avoid mandatory govt tracking & archiving messages are they going to jail too?
They Physically destroy the Server is that smart or a crime?
If any of this bothered you back in the Bush days it might bother me now.
Note:
The Private sever was not illegal at the time.
classified is an opinion, Some thing obvious, others more a gray area.
The US has and issue with over classifying data.
Did Patreus go to Jail? To get Jail the standard (not then Law) is that the data is willfully transferred to the Enemy. Ask Manning and Snowden.
I think you need to look up illegal in the dictionary.
Hillary for prison 2016!
And yet, having your own email server wasn't against the law... So, good luck with that...
I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I do believe in a fair representation. What she did was against the spirit of the law and certainly shows an attempt at keeping communications private that should be part of the public record. But there is no proof that anything that she did broke the laws as written.
http://www.npr.org/sections/it...
Actually the point being made is dead on. At best she did not comply with regulations. Seeing as it took months for those that wrote them to figure that out, you can't blame her for not knowing. That's how compliance regulations work. If your out of compliance they tell you to fix it, then they comeback 6 months later. Nothing done was criminal in nature by itself. Know if she did it as part of another criminal act, say to falsify expenses, it could be. Anyone that thinks Clinton would be dumb enough to do anything illegal over email has not followed her career. She is crafty too a fault at times.
Obviously the emails containing top secret information wouldn't be subject to FOIA, and there are about a dozen other exceptions to FOIA, some of them quite broad.
* No, instructing her staff to remove the "Top Secret" marking from the document does NOT make the information no longer top secret. It only means she committed an ADDITIONAL crime.
Jeb, Colin, Rove, Mitt, et. al. have been known to do problematic things with email and/or computer equipment, YET Republicans didn't seem to care at the time. Now it's The Most Important Issue in the World!
It appears to be opportunistic drama-kinging* to me.
* Gender rotation to be PC
Table-ized A.I.
...in the safe room. But I'm waiting until you write your "tell all" book, declaring how Hillary personally ordered his murder because he was her gay lover, her being one of those weird Japanese hentai women with male organs
I'm sure you'll make a million dollars or so scamming all the wanting-to-believe teabaggers, and prompt some GOP congressman to ask very strange questions next time she's up on the Hill.
I cant believe that Americans actually have this woman as a presidential option. If she cant even follow basic security principles, imagine the non-compliance and disregard for laws and rights if she was the president? With the two main candidates being Trump an Hillary, the rest of the world is thinking that the US citizens just failed a simple IQ test.
- telling her staff to remove classified markings from documents and send them this private email system
See, here you're just making shit up by ignoring the context. The details are well known; the secure system was down, they couldn't get it to work, they needed the documents, and it was their discretion what was more important. There is no actual issue or problem. That's the only example. Everything else is stuff that becomes classified after the fact, because it related to her movements. But it her discretion to protect or reveal her travel plans as necessary for her travel and work to be accomplished. That is just basic stuff.
Yes, your argument sounds reasonable, if you have never been briefed on how to handle classified information. There is NO context that any leaking of any information is ever allowed. If it was deemed mission essential that the information be disseminated, she should have talked with the FSO to properly release the information in question.
Now, did she do something criminal, that is a fair question. Violating a national security policy is typically grounds for dismissal, with some folks let go after walking into a facility with their cell phone too many times. But Clinton is in a special class of people, along with a national security advisor that was caught sneaking documents out in their pants https://fas.org/irp/congress/2... . Typically those people make an oops, and slowly fade into history. The difference is that Mrs. Clinton is not fading, and is attempting to gain access to even more classified information, which she has a proven track record of mishandling in the interest of personal expediency.
If anything, this story shows that Clinton was willingly deteriorating departmental security measures to maintain her ability to control her professional communications. Regardless of the why (Bug, Misconfiguration, contractor incompetence), she valued personal protection over protection of her agency. And this is the basic argument that I have against her current run. Every time she has been "tested," she consistently comes out dirty, but not "legally" responsible.
--WooooHoooo--
From the article it looks like she wouldn't let IT know her address to whitelist it - "We should talk about [...] releasing your e-mail address to the department so you are not going to spam." Which doesn't make sense unless they have some rule in place where a personal address can only be whitelisted if the owner fills out some paperwork saying "This is my personal email address", in which case it doesn't make any kind of sense for her not to do so.
Jeb, Colin, Rove, Mitt, et. al. have been known to do problematic things with email and/or computer equipment
Which, taken as a collection together, still don't even begin to rise to the level of deliberate FOIA-avoidance and actual law breaking exhibited by Clinton. Regardless, just for fun, let's assume that the minor levels of "problematic" activity you mention were full-on criminal behavior. OK, please by all means call for prosecution of those crimes. Does that make Clinton's deliberate law breaking and (ongoing!) lying about the matter somehow go away? Or are you really in the mode of "some politicians I hate did it, so that makes it OK for the person I want to be president to lie about doing it" ...? Really?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The Secretary of State -could- declassify some State materials. She can't declassify any material from agencies outside DOS. But she didn't declassify it. It remained classified as it shared classified information with friends, and sent it in the clear over the internet to her house.
I'm sure you are both an email lawyer and a mind reader. Congratulations!
Table-ized A.I.
Why does that make any difference?
All 3 choices were crappy:
1. Own personal server
2. Commercial service, like AOL
3. State Dept. regular email server (which got hacked, by the way).
Why should any one be elevated above the other? It's like a choice between a Yugo, Pinto, and Chevy Chevette.
Table-ized A.I.
It certainly wouldn't be news if it were anyone else. But she was approving drone strikes on targets via email, effectively handing out death sentences from her server in a bathroom... But hey, good thing it didn't have encryption turned on for several months. That would make it more difficult to spoof. Personally, I'm ok with enforcing higher security standards on email systems where orders to kill other people are issued and followed.
It makes a difference because commercial providers are presumably better at InfoSec than the nobody that ran Clinton's email server.
There was a memo sent out to all state dept employees, stating that personal email should not be used. The author of that memo: Hillary Clinton.
We have to wait until wikileaks publishes the mails, I guess.
"we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
That's questionable because it's potentially easier to buy an exploit on the black market for the common carriers than for a single one-off machine.
But even if you were correct, it's a rather subtle difference that I wouldn't expect somebody like Mrs. Clinton to grok. She could ask for expert advice, but likely would get different answers depending on who she asked, because there is no hard evidence either way. It's all speculative.
Further, the custom server argument could also be used against usage of the State Dept's regular email system, the one she "should have" been using.
These differences are all speculative and subtle, yet people's political beliefs seem to magnify perceived differences. Politics blinds people. I may be susceptible also; I'm human.
Table-ized A.I.
i thought it was snowflakes, not cupcakes.
It appears to be opportunistic drama-kinging* to me.
* Gender rotation to be PC
PC speech would be gender neutral, you disgusting misandrist pig.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Up until a year ago, Trump was a registered Democrat and good friend of the Clintons.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Hey, I loved my Chevette. It was a great car till the transmission locked up and burned the second clutch up.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
https://politics.slashdot.org/...
Apparently, it wouldn't have even been hard to compromise her server as it had more holes than swiss cheese.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
This is ridiculous. She was the Secretary of State. If a document was classified, she needed it, and she couldn't get it through classified channels, it was perfectly reasonable for her to make the judgment call. She had some classification authority, how much I'm not sure, which most people briefed on how to handle classified information don't have. She was not trying to leak the information to unauthorized people, she was trying to get it herself.
The rules are different for people in different roles, and that's how it has to be for effective government.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yet another Slashdotter who convinced themselves that they can read minds.
Table-ized A.I.
I bet there's also a Yugo lover or two out there somewhere.
Table-ized A.I.
You're the one who has to call for the prosecution of those criminals for their crimes.
I didn't say the other had committed crimes (they didn't). I said that IF they had, it wouldn't be close to Clinton's abuses. I allowed for the prospect of those other people's actions being criminal as an assumption for the sake of the bogus point I was having to refute. I have no need to call for the prosecution of people who, unlike Clinton, didn't do anything illegal.
My accusation doesn't "fail," with regard to Clinton, because the facts speak for themselves.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Could be the filter worked as designed. It sensed the e-mail coming form Hillary was total bullshit so it blocked them.
Of course you don't have a need, you feel no need to actually show integrity.
So, your idea of "integrity" is to say that something one person did which is not a crime IS a crime, so that the person who has actually committed a crime won't look so bad from your perspective? Are you even listening to yourself?
Yes, the fact of your refusing to prosecute other criminals
OK, Mr. Integrity, please cite the specific crimes you had in mind. Which people violated which statures? Be specific, since you're all about integrity. We already know which of Hillary Clinton's activities are being actively investigated as crimes by people working for a Democrat president and his political appointees through DoJ and the FBI. Which FBI investigation of which crimes were you thinking of on the part of other people? Be specific.
Instead of making claims like what they did was not criminal, call for a full and thorough investigation
Should we also have a full and thorough investigation of your own criminal conduct including murder and rape? No? There's no indication that you've actually done anything criminal and thus no need for such an investigation? I see. That's also the case with the politicians you hate, unlike with your buddy Hillary Clinton - where there is ample evidence of her criminality.
you instead make people even more inclined to believe it's yet another politically biased witch hunt.
What? You're saying that I'm portraying the executive branch's current criminal investigation into Clinton's mishandling of above-top-secret information and her corrupt involvement in getting millions foreign dollars transferred to her family business while conducting the people's business in those countries as SoS ... you think I'm the one calling that political? You (as you know) have that exactly backwards. YOU are the one calling her criminal investigation political in an attempt to distract from her behavior.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
it's about making the prosecution actually look legitimate
Then all that's required is for a special counsel to get involved, so that Hillary Clinton's political endorsement from Obama doesn't present a conflict of interest with the people who work for him while conducting a criminal investigation of (at the least) her violations of federal records laws.
You make things look more political, not less.
Calling for her criminal investigation to be less under the influence of a politician is making things look more political? Do tell.
making people more inclined to believe it's yet another politically biased witch hunt by your current methods
Which methods are those? Pointing out that the meritless comparisons to past events is in fact politically motivated attempts at distraction by her political supporters is going to somehow make her current criminal investigation look like a witch hunt? How do you figure that? The people who are trying to portray her investigation as "just political," rather than the facts-based criminal investigation that it actually is - THAT is what contributes to the "witch hunt" atmosphere, which is exactly what her supporters, who don't actually care about the facts of her behavior, want. I'm taking the politics out of their disingenuous, false comparisons, and calling it like it is simply is. This annoys you, so you're attempting to pretend the opposite is true. Nobody is falling for that.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There's no equivalent gender-neutral word, so rotation seems the next best thing.
Table-ized A.I.
you aren't calling it like it is, you just want to believe that you are
Really. In which way have I mischaracterized her criminal investigation by the FBI? Specifically.
You'd do better to just call for the prosecutions, rather than continue to make excuses.
I AM calling for her prosecution, because she's demonstrably violated multiple federal statutes. Or are you thinking I should be calling for the prosecution of somebody else that hasn't violated any? Which person is it you think I should be asking to see prosecuted, and which statutes, specifically, did they violate? There's no confusion here, just your continuing attempt to pretend that there's some equivalency between Clinton's contemporary law breaking and ongoing lying about it, and the actions of someone you won't name breaking some law you can't muster the intellectual honesty to spell out. Nobody's confused, you're just trying to misdirect, exactly like all of Hillary's supporters are doing, knowing now what they know about her.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Is there some reason you're asking about the FBI's conduct? Or Obama's? They're not on subject here, you're getting off tangent.
No, that's what Clinton's PR machine (and you) keep insisting, in an effort to distract from the fact that she's done things that would have already resulted in people who worked for her (and thousands of other government employees) seeing felony convictions. You are so transparently desperate to attempt to make her conduct appear the same as anyone else's (and referring to anyone who points out the enormous gulf between those things as being on a "witch hunt") that you can't even acknowledge that the existence of an FBI criminal investigation of her conduct is an indicator of exactly how much of a fantasy world you're living in.
The rest of your attempts at condescending ad hominem just make you sound like the pompous Clinton shill you are. Hint: more than half the country finds her to be unlikable, untrustworthy, and asked to pick one word to describe her, use "liar." You get that, and it's why you're trying to wish away her criminal investigation and stamping your feet about how unfair it is that people who didn't do what she did should be prosecuted so her failings and criminal activity feel somehow normal enough for her progressives critics to hold their noses and vote for her. You need to attend a better quality deflection seminar, because what you're trying to do is childishly transparent.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You're so cute! You should link to some kitten pictures or something - maybe that will deflect the attention away from the criminal investigation you're trying to pretend doesn't exist.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Why don't you want to call for the prosecutions of any of your political associates
Let's see if you have yet to muster the intellectual courage to say who, specifically, you mean and which statutes, specifically, you're proposing a prosecution under? Names, and laws. Specifically. No? Right. You're continuing to evade that simple request because you know you're just trying to distract. On the other hand, we know exactly why Clinton is being criminally investigated, and which laws are in question.
you know doing so will be the only way to validate any other charges you make
OK, let's try this on for size: you watch your neighbor break into your car and steal stuff. You call for that person to be prosecuted. They argue that the only way that would be a valid prosecution would be if you also called for the prosecution of your OTHER neighbors, first. Does that pretty well fit your phony model of how criminal investigations should be conducted? No? Why not? That's what you're telling me I should say. For that matter, I suppose it's really not appropriate to prosecute any criminal unless you personally are also prosecuted, right? No? You didn't break any laws, and so that makes no sense? Right.
Are you afraid of what will be revealed
About who, under the investigation of breaking which specific laws? I know, you can't actually answer that question, because you're just practicing lazy, juvenile rhetorical techniques in hopes that someone will somehow fall for your hand-waving vagueness as long as you sound sure enough about it, but carefully avoid ever mentioning any specifics. You do realize how silly you sound, don't you?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Did you think I forgot that I already provided you with an explanation?
You did no such thing. You're sticking with your deliberately vague "You can't approve of a criminal investigation of my favorite candidate's violation of very specific statutes unless you also call for the sweeping prosecution of everyone you like on whatever non-existent violations that I'm implying they've committed but won't enumerate."
Heck, are you just afraid to have a conversation with me so much that you can't even respond to my post without cutting off a good portion of the words?
What's the point? The entire premise underlying all of your cowardly anonymous blathering is completely nonsensical. Until you acknowledge that and say what you really mean, all of the other attempts you make at sound condescending and finger-wagging are just silly. You've doubled down on that by expressly avoiding any specificity, because you know you can't actually provide any. As a result, you're stamping your feet and still attempting to distract from your central error. Your mistake is assuming that nobody would call you on your BS, and point out that your attempt to imply law breaking where it doesn't exist as a distraction from where it DOES exist is just typical pro-Hillary shillary on your part.
Seriously, are you afraid of what would happen if you did start looking?
If I did start looking at what? Which highly scrutinized public figure's conduct under which specific statute are you referring to? There are two choices: you have specific knowledge, that nobody else has, of lawbreaking along the lines of Hillary's but in some other camp ... or, you are perfectly aware that years of public scrutiny, including congressional hearings of all sorts and extensive FOIA disclosures show no such thing, and you're really, really hoping that nobody else remembers that, so you can continue with your disingenuous bit of theater.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Nope, I did. Here it is again
Hilarious! You say, "here it is again," and then promptly once again avoid doing anything. You say there are people who need prosecuting in order to make the ongoing criminal investigation of your candidate legitimate. But you are pretending to be too much of a coward to name the people in question or the laws in question. Why? Because that (cowardice and laziness) is easier to explain away than outright lying. But, that's what you're doing. Why? Because that's exactly what the candidate you're shilling for routinely does, as well. Lie, deflect, pretend that a shrill, condescending display of taking umbrage is anything other than cheap theater ... anything to avoid actually backing up what you say.
So: to summarize. You think that your boss's criminal investigation isn't fair because you're sure other people have done other things. In order to deflect non-critical thinkers from parsing that simple sentiment and recognizing how morally vacuous it is, you insist that other people do some other vague things and if they question your vagueness, you chide them for not communicating. Here's the thing: nobody falls for that crap, except perhaps some of the very fellow supporters your candidate has sown up, no matter how many times she looks them in the eye and demonstrably, blatantly lies. All of your theater is wasted on anyone who can think and thus see that you're just posturing and hoping to run out the clock on a conversation that's actually challenging your crappy propagandizing and juvenile attempt to revise history.
I know, it's annoying when people don't get distracted by your hand-waving vagueness, but I do appreciate the entertainment value of you saying you're once again providing detailed information that, in the text that you then type, doesn't mention a single name or statute. Let's try it again - you can just fill in the blanks:
ANONYMOUS COWARD'S LIST OF PEOPLE TO PROSECUTE:
Name:___________ Violated Statute:___________
Name:___________ Violated Statute:___________
Name:___________ Violated Statute:___________
Name:___________ Violated Statute:___________
I'm sure you can come up with four, right?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So you consider my plainly mentioning the ongoing criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton to be contributing to a witch hunt atmosphere that can only be mitigated if I randomly mention politicians I support and randomly choose criminal statutes under which I think they should be investigated even though I have no indication, whatsoever, that they've done anything wrong? We have ample evidence of Clinton's criminal activity, so I talk about it. I have no indication of criminal activity on the part of any politicians I prefer, but you think I'm under some "burden" to fabricate some some you'll feel better? Are you even listening to yourself?
Never mind, of course you know how ridiculous that sounds. But in order to continue this conversation, I think you need to first call for the criminal prosecution of Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. The burden is on you to name the crimes, of course. Why? Because I think you have that burden in order to make your recommendations to me sound less like a witch hunt. Rational, right? No? Right. Of course you know it's nonsense, but your hypocrisy won't let you back down from your phony adoption of self-contradictory premises.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So, you want me to name people that I support politically, and then name crimes that they haven't committed so that they can be falsely prosecuted so you'll feel better about Hillary Clinton being actually criminally investigated right now, for real, by the FBI. Do you grasp how irrational you sound?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's your burden
I have no burden. Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation on multiple fronts. I didn't make that up, you know it's true. It's simply reality. This reality bothers you because you are shilling for her, and it makes your job harder because it's difficult to explain away her obvious lying, and even harder to explain your own support of it. If there is ANY burden, here, it's on the people who praise her for her lying to explain what it is, exactly, that they find so appealing about it.
and I'd give you an open path
An "open path" to do what, exactly? To observe and mention reality? You seem to think that by someone denying reality, you make it go away. And that as long as you maintain the position that I haven't met your criteria for being able to mention reality, that it makes reality subjective, and you can dismiss it. There are doctors who specialize in dealing with people who are that out of touch with reason. You know you're BSing and making a phony stand, because your real problem isn't actual cognitive denial, it's that you've painted yourself into a rhetorical corner and you're angry that someone is pointing out THAT reality, along with the reality of 150 FBI agents working on a criminal investigation that you wish you could characterize as a "witch hunt" in order to distract from the underlying Clinton behavior that brought it about.
all you have to do is name whoever you can identify as your own political associates, and list whatever offenses you want, as long as you support them being prosecuted
Prosecuted for what? What crimes are you talking about? I don't know of any politicians I support that need to be prosecuted under any criminal statutes. This angers you, because the politician you support HAS violated numerous statutes, and is being actively criminally investigated as we speak. So, in a completely disingenuous and childish attempt to distract from that, you're still insisting that I name laws that haven't been broken by people that haven't broken them before you're willing to acknowledge what 150 FBI agents are spending their waking hours doing right now. If it wasn't obvious that you're just faking your way through this phony display of pretending you don't understand the words you're saying, your insistence that someone else describe non-existent crimes before you'll acknowledge real ones would be a cry for help from a shrink. But you know you're making no sense, and are sticking to it because changing your childish, irrational demand would mean admitting that you made a childish, irrational demand in the first place. I'll let you off the hook: we both already know you did, so there's no point continuing to embarrass yourself.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
OK, let's have you provide some actual words that can be responded to. Which crimes are you suggesting that which people committed, so that you can feel better about yourself as your candidate is under criminal investigation? The words you need to provide are names, and statutes. If you once again cannot muster the courage and the intellectual honesty to do that, we'll just take that as confirmation that you have indeed painted yourself into a craven little corner out of which you can't escape by simply mentioning names and laws. But if you do, those will be some actual words to which a response is appropriate.
But we both know that you're too much of a coward to fabricate that sort of stuff, because such things can be fact checked. So you will, of course, again try to pretend that the problem is with the person who is calling your bluff. That's transparent nonsense, so we're back to you naming names and laws. Which of course you can't do, which takes all the fun out of your irrational little foot-stamping session. Why the cowardice, though? Really, what do you have to lose at this point? Are you afraid that someone will think less of you if you fabricate some non-existent laws to cite people breaking, after all of the other nonsense you've said? You really have nowhere to go but deeper in to the silly little hole you've dug, so you might as well go all the way with it and make up some of the laws you're so desperate to hear somebody say that politicians you don't like have broken. So, get on with it: show some backbone. Grow a pair. Pretend you believe your own BS and name names. Looking forward to it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Oh, look! The coward is still unable to admit that he can't come up with a single name or broken law that he insists - by pretending they exist - place a burden on someone else to admit to. The names don't exist, the laws aren't broken, so the burden you wish to place on someone else doesn't exist. That's a lot of trouble to go to in order to avoid talking about the multiple criminal and corruption investigations being conducted on the candidate you're shilling for. But Hillary fans are nothing if not persistent in their blind devotion, so no real surprise, of course. Still, you certainly are a coward. As a reminder, pasting your own words over and over again doesn't make them mean anything different, it just makes your look even more ridiculous.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No surprise, because you just can't bring yourself to it. You can only refuse.
Right, I can only refuse to do the same thing you're refusing to do: name the politicians and the laws you're saying they've broken. Since there are none (not counting the one you're working for), it's as simple as that: I'm refusing to make something up out of whole cloth. Why should I? It's YOUR burden to name names that you know about, which I do not. But you can't because you also know they don't exist. So, you're still having your irrational tantrum. That's fine! Every bit of irrational cowardice you display just shows how juvenile you're being. Carry on!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Why should I support the prosecution of people who haven't done anything wrong? Do you understand how strange your standards are, all so you can distract from the serial lying and recklessness of the candidate you're working for?
... very peculiar. You won't admit she's a liar, but you insist that other people tell lies in order to confront reality yourself. Very strange.
Your strange cognitive problem in insisting that others must fabricate fictional crimes in order to exploit a "path" that you've provided them to (what, exactly?) getting you to admit that your candidate has just been shown (AGAIN) that she's lying to you
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.