Slashdot Mirror
FBI Director: Guccifer Admitted He Lied About Hacking Hillary Clinton's Email (dailydot.com)
blottsie writes from a report via The Daily Dot: The Romanian hacker known as Guccifer (real name Marcel Lehel Lazar) admitted to the FBI that he lied to the public when he said he repeatedly hacked into Hillary Clinton's email server in 2013. FBI Director James Comey testified before members on Congress on Thursday that Guccifer never hacked into Clinton's servers and in fact admitted that he lied. Lazar told Fox News and NBC News in May 2016 about his alleged hacking. Despite offering no proof, the claim caused a huge stir, including making headline news on some of America's biggest publications, which offered little skepticism of his claims. "Can you confirm that Guccifer never gained access to her server?" asked Texas Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold. "He did not. He admitted that was a lie," Comey replied. Lazar is currently imprisoned in Alexandria, Virginia, following his extradition from Romania.
Was this before or after you offered him a better plea deal Mr. Comey?
After all the FBI said it before congress ....
Would the last asshole claiming to have dirt on Hillary please present your evidence or kindly go fist yourself? I'm no fan of hers but I'm sick of these gutter sniping little shiats trying to play the kingslayer.
I'm really confident in everything the FBI director said ... seriously? I'm more confident in the dude with the "jesus is coming" signs on his bicycle. At least that dude heard voices without Benjamins to tell him what to say.
Did they ask him if Drumpf put him up to it?
Last I heard, he supposedly hung himself July 5th in his jail cell...
Alright, here's the deal. I'm voting for Hillary. She did some fucked up things with her email, but she learned that trick somewhere else, and everyone who wants to crucify Hillary today seems very happy to forget about their side doing the same thing at an exponentially bigger scale.
All of that said, FBI = False Bullshit Information. I don't trust a breath that comes out of Comey's mouth, and that includes whatever he's saying at the current moment. He'll change his tune tomorrow anyway. This man has lied in front of Congress, judges, the media, he doesn't give a fuck, he's a professional liar. As the old saying goes, you can tell he's lying when his lips are moving.
We should all be able to agree, no matter where we stand politically, that the FBI and its sister surveillance agencies are out of control, are unaccountable to We The People, and need to go.
Pior de tudo, é que uma merda judia dessas que está me impedindo de trabalhar.
All lies. All men are created equal except for these mother fuckers chained up in my field. This country is built upon the lie. Just put us all in prison you fucking liars.
or was this entire thing a disaster for the anti-Hilary camp. When they tried grilling him on Petraeus he was given the chance to defend his actions and provide evidence that Petraeus actions were willful. It's undermined the entire narrative. Meanwhile Trump's doing a lousy job with it too. Did they just botch the whole thing or have they given up and decided to side with Hilary rather than risk Trump?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Seriously.
I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
Let me get this straight.
An email server that had nothing critical on it was claimed to have been hacked so they extradited some person from Romania to stand trial for... What?
And meanwhile, Locky and other ransomeware runs rampant and the gubment does nothing?
My question is if a server is hosting nothing important - why would an extradition be needed?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
That's just sad. Hillary even ordered that remote desktop and VNC be accessible remotely since she denied the purchase of an ASA so they could use a VPN.
If his big hack of Hilary was a lie, why is he in jail? Shouldn't you let him go home? No crime, no felony, no jail. At least that is how it is supposed to work.
The Romanian hacker known as Trump (real name Marcel Lehel Trump) admitted to the FBI that he lied to the public when he said he repeatedly hacked into Hillary Clinton's email server in 2013. FBI Director James Trump testified before members on Congress on Thursday that Trump never hacked into Clinton's servers and in fact admitted that he lied. Trump told Trump News and NBC News in May 2016 about his alleged hacking. Despite offering no proof, the claim caused a huge stir, including making headline news on some of Trump's biggest publications, which offered little skepticism of his claims.
"Can you confirm that Trump never gained access to her server?" asked Trump Republican Rep. Blake Trump. "He did not. He admitted that was a lie," Trump replied. Trump is currently imprisoned in Alexandria, Virginia, following his extradition from Romania.
Doesn't it seem like some TLA with a lot more security sophistication than Hilary Clinton would have noticed that this email server existed and told her (or her boss) that it needed to be taken down? Don't you think that at least one of the TLAs could have done some friendly penetration testing on the thing and told someone if it was found to be insecure?
Look up "Fanatic" in the dictionary. Then look in a mirror.
Let me put it this way since this has become so heavily politicized people are having trouble thinking about it objectively.
Say you had your bank account login details, passwords, and credit cards stored on a password service like LastPass which is supposed to store it securely, and you later learned they weren't securing it at all and in fact were storing all your sensitive info in cleartext. Would you be satisfied and let the company off the hook if they claimed "but it's ok - no harm was done since we weren't hacked"?
The problem isn't whether or not that info was hacked. The problem is that sensitive info which was supposed to be handled securely was not. The only difference actually being hacked makes is a hypothetical outcome vs a real outcome, and is largely irrelevant. It just means you got lucky and dodged a bullet; it does not validate or excuse how that info was mishandled. This is like a 5-year old who runs across a busy street instead of waiting with you for the light to change, and when you berate him for not staying by your side and waiting until it was safe says, "but I made it across OK" as if that somehow justifies his behavior.
Absolutely shocked.
In other revelations, professional wresting is fake, something weird is going on with Donald Trump's hair, and people will uncritically accept ridiculous information if it reinforces their priors!
I stole this Sig
Neither Donald nor Hillary are fit for office. However, electing Donald is like playing Russian roulette with a revolver loaded with one cartridge. Electing Hillary is like playing Russian roulette with a revolver with all six charge holes loaded. We're fucked. Full stop. She will continue and worsen the damage already done to America over the last 8 years.
Let me get this straight. An email server that had nothing critical on it ...
Nope, wrong, the FBI director testified that there were over 100 emails that were classified at the time they arrived on the server. Hillary's claim that all the controversial emails were later reclassified after arrival was proven false.
And these 100+ only represent what was recoverable. Tens of thousands of emails were not recoverable. And we also know from the FBI investigation that Hillary's claim that these emails were all personal was also proven false. Several of these not handed over by Hillary and deleted from her server were also classified, they were found through other recipients government email accounts.
When a person make directly contradictory statements, one of them is a lie. But which one?
Was he lying then, or is he lying now?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Not true. He stated 8 had classification markings, all of which contained paragraphs marked with (c) designating them as confidential.
Now, for the umpteenth time, that was spent to prove, Clinton lied under oath. The proof was successfully secured and Clinton was punished for that perjury.
You aren't citing any such claims, so they probably have not been made. It is quite obvious, however, that FBI was leaned on — likely by the White House.
She needs to go to jail for mishandling classified information. FBI's report stated, she did it — suck it up, cupcake, while the rest of us are sucking up the sorry reality, that laws are for "little people".
We had problems with embassies before, but only after Benghazi was the Secretary of State lying to the public and Congress about it. Any I mean "lying" as in "knowingly telling an untruth".
We hate her — and you should too — for this lying. Her dishonesty is so bad, NY Times, of all publications, called her a "congenital liar" in 1996 — twenty years ago! Do you suppose, she improved with age?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Not true. He stated 8 had classification markings, all of which contained paragraphs marked with (c) designating them as confidential.
I think you are referring to emails that she personally sent. The GP is referring to emails that arrived on her server. Two different thing.
No, you are absolutely wrong. Do some reading before you make unfounded allegations.
So an alleged criminal is in prison awaiting trial and when questioned he says "no, never mind, I did not really do that criminal act you are asking me about that can add years to my jail sentence, I was just kidding earlier". And you just believe him, no further investigation needed? I guess when it benefits Hillary, then yeah, you just ask him to pinky swear and trust his every word.
Not true. He stated 8 had classification markings, all of which contained paragraphs marked with (c) designating them as confidential.
"In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.
Even so, Clinton and her team still should have known the information was not appropriate for an unclassified system, Comey said.
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said of some of the top secret chains."
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Markings are not required. Some information is classified by its very nature and does not need an explicit mark. State department personnel and other authorized to handle classified information are well instructed on these facts.
Sadly, a candidate with no brain actually seems like the safest bet this election.
right... because people just a a tingly spidey-sense when an email has classified information in it
That is why they did not attempt to prosecute, because none of it was explicitly marked.
I do not know how many long email chains you have ever been one, but it is not unusual to reply to people on emails and not know what every piece of text in the email says.
And for the 8 pieces that she received that were actually marked... then I say BRAVO, for only making a mistake 8 times out of 30,000 emails.
The deeper you fools dig into this the better Clinton comes out looking. I remember just a month ago when all of the righties were praising guccifer and foretelling Hillary's demise...
Comey is generally regarded by both parties and the public in general as being very fair, respectable, and non-partisan. It sounds like you're just angry that he's not towing the line for your political party of choice.
I thought we were all told that Hillary will be Double Plus Good. After all no matter how many times she lied, if was for the THE GREAT GOOD. THE GREATER GOOD.
Right. Whatever is convenient for the crypto-fantasists.
They say things and then threaten us it we don't agree.
Coming close to the limit...
right... because people just a a tingly spidey-sense when an email has classified information in it
No spidey sense required, people who handle classified info are trained in what info is classified by default, regardless of markings. Basically a marking must be there to say it is declassified, not that it is classified. For example references to undercover CIA operatives, even indirect references, which is one of the things found to have been passing through Clinton's server.
That is why they did not attempt to prosecute, ...
No, the FBI director specified that there was no clear intent, merely incompetence. Intent is a necessary element of a crime. That is why he offered as an example, firing people and revoking their security clearance, when they display such incompetence on the job.
And for the 8 pieces that she received that were actually marked... then I say BRAVO, for only making a mistake 8 times out of 30,000 emails.
No, its 8 out of 110.
He's in federal prison, facing federal charges that could put him away for decades. A guy in a suit visits, and says,
"we could drop some of those charges, or we could pile them on, your choice. Would you like to state for the record that you never hacked Hillary's email?"
The fix is in. This is just a bit of decoration.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Right. Whatever is convenient for the crypto-fantasists.
I thought crypto-fantasists are the ones who think the P curves are sound.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
... upon which he can claim being a "hacker", and just about every media outlet just believes that.
So if you read the transcript or excerpts now appearing on many sites...
Comey says that only one person has been prosecuted for gross negligence (what hillary is accused of) and in that case there was espionage involved as well.
Further...
12:12 p.m. Pushing back on Republican characterizations of his recommendation adhering to a "double standard" when it comes to Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey said it would instead be a "double standard" if the former secretary of state was prosecuted.
"You know what would be a double standard? If she was prosecuted for gross negligence," Comey noted. "She was negligent. That I can establish."
11:45 a.m. Comey told the House Oversight Committee that the decision not to recommend an indictment was unanimous among the investigative team.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton, some of the things he said in light of his scandal ("what the definition of is is") were ridiculous, and I believe it was reprehensible how the Clintons treated Monica Lewinski. That all said: the fact that Bill Clinton had to answer about this affair under oath at all is the bigger problem here. Yes, he lied under oath, but he didn't lie about something actually relevant, and he lied about something he shouldn't have been asked in the first place. So while it was definitely wrong for him to lie under oath, I think the bigger issue were the people asking him that question under oath. (A Parliament should have more dignity than the tabloids. But apparently in 1990s America Congress didn't.)
Contrast that to Europe: there were reports that David Cameron did some things with a pigs head while he was in college, but other than that there was some reporting about it, the media in Europe moved on to other things after a short amount of time. And there certainly wasn't a formal inquiry. Sarkozy was known to be a "ladie's man", but that was also something you would have to read about mostly in the tabloids. This obsession with sex when it comes to public officials in the US seems really, really weird to me.
As a European, it always baffles me how Americans are so hungry for time in jail for everybody. You can make a decent argument that she should be punished, and if you want to have part of that punishment to be that she'll never be able to get security clearance again, I think that's a defensible position. But sending her to jail for that immediately? What then about really serious crimes?
Also, if you're so fast to send her to jail for the things she did wrong: what about the things that other people did in office? I think you can make a really good argument that the last presidents all did things far worse than mishandling classified information via a server. In the context of Obamacare there was always this ridiculous right-wing talking point about "death panels", but the Obama administration does indeed have something like "death panels", when it comes to air strikes (be it via drone or fighter jet); I can't see any rational argument to defend "signature strikes" based purely on metadata. Then go back to George W. Bush and the people in his administration, who lied to everyone (just not under oath) about Iraq (there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before the US invasion in 2003, that came later in the power vacuum), and who organized a systematic torture program, plus detained other people without trial in Guantanamo Bay. Add all the Fourth Amendment violations committed by federal agencies (FBI, NSA, ...), both under Bush and Obama, and there's a lot with which you can IMHO prosecute just the last two US presidents. You don't need to stop there, but it'd be a good start.
And while all that goes unpunished, you are freaking out over a bit of classified information on a private email server?
Also, you're missing the actual scandal here: the fact that Clinton handled classified information over her private server was gross negligence, but not intentional. Think about why would Clinton want to have a private server? To circumvent the laws that require (internal) documentation of official communications. And why would she want to do that? This was never about classified
Monday last week: Bill Clinton meets Attorney General Loretta Lynch at Phoenix airport
Tuesday: FBI Director Comey recommends against charging Hillary Clinton
Wednesday: Attorney General Loretta Lynch announces there will be no charges
Thursday: FBI Director Comey says the guy who claimed to have hacked Clinton server actually didn't do it.
That's quite an amazing timing. Can anyone one really pretend the power that be did not decide that they were going to take a week to bury the Clinton email scandal? Can you imagine the coordination required to make all that happen the *same* week? Do they even care about how it looks?
So that Romanian guy that was very public about the fact he got into Hillary's mail, he didn't. And since the FBI conveniently has no proof about anyone else hacking her server... I guess everything is definitely dandy and 100% clean.
The level of "Move Along, Nothing to See Here" is so high it's not even funny.
Comey, clearly illiterate in all things digital, talked in response to a different question about getting the data back...
Ha ha ha. The dude thinks that if you get back a copy of a pile of 1's and 0's it means you have gotten it back...
THESE are the sort of morons who think we should trust them to run the planet.
Big governments, of ALL sorts, are dangerous, incompetent, and ultimately untrustworthy. THIS is the sort of people they hire and grant power to, and Hillary is the sort the great unwashed masses elect. Monarchy is no better: you get the results of cousins intermarrying.
Keep government very small and limit its power to the minimum needed to keep the public safe from outside threats.
Did your ancestors change their name from oogah oogah? Why do you think it's clever to attack Trump for the fact that his ancestors changed their name? It's positively the most lame political attack in US history - the sort of idiocy one expects from a Kindergartener.
Feel free to hate Trump all you want and shower Hillary with big sloppy kisses if that's what flips yer switch, but please stop dragging-down the average IQ of the human race.
If you have at least enough brain cells to rub together to generate a little heat, try an actual intellectual argument, rather than mindlessly parroting the comic-book-worthy blather of a late-night comic.
"He did not. He admitted that was a lie," Comey replied.
Hacker: "Hey, I hacked Hilary's servers!"
FBI: "Did you really?"
Hacker: "Err nope."
FBI: "Okay, cross him off the list, who's next?"
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
...I tell them, "I didn't do it - honest!"
"You lied?"
'Sure. Bragging rights, y'know?"
Lesser charge.
(I'd like to thank Costa Coffee for the use of their hotspot; and their customers for mistaking my laptop for the real Costa Coffee hotspot.)
Correction: Insider and know liar claims something politically convenient for himself and his masters.
Remember, this is the same guy who just wrote a report on how Clinton was technically guilty of all the crimes she is accused of, but he didn't want to anyone to prosecute her because, well, she was only grossly negligent. The less hackers who obviously have her data the better for this asshat.
Intent is a necessary element of a crime.
It is not. Statutorily in this matter as one of security of state, and the language of the law, intent is one of two bases for the law to designate someone has acted feloniously: the other is mere negligence period--it's a law regarding absolute duty and not one of mens rea. That said, if Hillary was prosecuted so would many thousands of other government officials (including the president): her unauthorized, criminal use of a personal server was known throughout D.C. and the world, and the Federal statutes don't just recognize the duty here not to be negligent, but to report unlawful acts like this. Given that and that her acts aren't precedented the guy probably figures he would either get knocked-off or couldn't win even if, per the law, he should. Then there's having to prosecute most of your friends and professional colleagues...none too appetizing.
You have already shown that you are an idiot so should anybody care what you believe?
He admitted that was a lie
But you believe him when he says he lied to you last time? Why?
....also said that Hillary, of the Clinton Crime Syndicate, didn't break any laws...
Too bad he ignored all the laws she DID break...
I wouldn't believe anything the FBI director says. Guccifer likely did get into Hillary's personal mail system....and the FBI is covering up to cover up the coverup they just did for Hillary.
On what grounds exactly did the US extradite him from Romania then, if apparently he didn't do anything?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's either arrogance or aa negotiation. I'm guessing she's getting some speaking fees in return.
Clinton is a square shooter.
>Markings are not required. Some information is classified by its very nature and does not need an explicit mark. State department personnel and other authorized to handle classified information are well instructed on these facts.
Sorry, this is wrong. Markings are *always* required. You have to mark shit or it's assumed to be of the highest level the facility you're in is capable of producing. Pretty much everything outside of scratch notes is paragraph marked. And those have headers unless the person is sloppy.
>No spidey sense required, people who handle classified info are trained in what info is classified by default, regardless of markings.
No we aren't.
>>And for the 8 pieces that she received that were actually marked... then I say BRAVO, for only making a mistake 8 times out of 30,000 emails.
>No, its 8 out of 110.
That's 8 failures to report a security breech. That's enough to lose a clearance and possible go to jail. Something we *are* trained in, is the responsibility to report *any* breech we see, whether we are involved or not. This means that anyone with a clearance has to report it every time a Sn*wden thread posts (marked) documents, for instance. If the Times takes a picture of a marked document and publishes it, we have to report. This *is* new(ish) and the EO reversing the declassification of publicly disclosed data was signed by Obama. Yes, it's dumb, but it's true.
Sorry to be so argumentative, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. Clinton is still guilty as hell, but you don't help your case when you make shit up.
No, the FBI director specified that there was no clear intent, merely incompetence. Intent is a necessary element of a crime. That is why he offered as an example, firing people and revoking their security clearance, when they display such incompetence on the job.
Uhhh, no. Intent is irrelevant to a crime. The guy who killed someone in a car crash may not have intended to kill someone, but he can still be guilty of vehicular manslaughter.
And the rationalizing continues:
"Yes, he lied under oath, but he didn't lie about something actually relevant,"
Hate to break it to you, a lie is a lie. A lie under oath is perjury. You may want to go to law school to understand that.
FYI the Feds brought down Al Capone due to tax evasion. Breaking the law is STILL breaking the law.
Intent is irrelevant to a crime. The guy who killed someone in a car crash may not have intended to kill someone, but he can still be guilty of vehicular manslaughter.
This example clearly demonstrates that intent is relevant to the crime. Killing a person with your car can be murder, if you intentionally chase them down and make sure they're dead; it can be manslaughter, if you didn't mean to kill them, but acted in such a way that put other people at unnecessary risk, or it could be an accident with no criminal charges at all, if, for example, a pedestrian jumped out in front of your car. Victim is dead just the same; culpability lies in the mind of the killer.
The problem with the phone is it's much easier to intimidate someone in person. That is what the Clintons do best is intimidation. You either do what they ask or you end up dying of some mysterious cause. Don't mistake the Clintons for anything less than the Mafia because that is what they are. I would vote for Deez Nuts before I voted for Hillary!
Really? Why is this rated as a "3" comment?
What's funny is how ONE PERSON, Hilary Clinton has all you Right Wing Morons all tied up in knots! Like - look out, the world's gonna end! What a bunch of tards.
I would disagree with you there. To me it almost seemed like James Comey's statements were him being told to produce one result but an attempt to tell the truth. I found the whole statement to be a laundry list of things Clinton did wrong in regards to this matter interspersed with lots of "lack of intent" statements. The law that everyone has been referencing that Clinton may have broken is 18 U.S. Code 793 (F) which doesn't require intent only gross negligence. So on one hand we have what appears to be rampant incompetence in her handling of e-mail as documented by the FBI and on the other a law that only requires negligence not intent and from these a recommendation to not proceed with indictment proceedings. This is one where it just doesn't' pass the smell test, and no I am not a Trump supporter as most of what comes out of his mouth doesn't pass the smell test either.
Time to offend someone
or other high level government officials, including past Secretaries of State, have ever had years of their email scrutinized by the FBI for possibly classified information? And anyone who watches Fox News knows that there has been a steady stream of leaks from the FBI on their investigation of Mrs. Clinton. Has anyone in the FBI been disciplined for the leaks? And was the NSA aware of Clinton's private e-mail server? Did they complain to her or her boss about it? If not why not?
>Markings are not required. Some information is classified by its very nature and does not need an explicit mark. State department personnel and other authorized to handle classified information are well instructed on these facts.
Sorry, this is wrong. Markings are *always* required. You have to mark shit or it's assumed to be of the highest level the facility you're in is capable of producing.
You prove my point. I am not saying markings are optional for the person creating the document. I am saying marking are not required for the person receiving the document, if the creator failed to mark then certain documents are still classified merely by the nature of their content. That the lack of a mark does not make a document unclassified.
Why would someone claim to have hacked Clinton's email when they hadn't, to the point where they get extradited and caught up in a legal case? It seems like now is a very strange time for backtracking.
Markings are not required. Some information is classified by its very nature and does not need an explicit mark. State department personnel and other authorized to handle classified information are well instructed on these facts.
Uhh... have you worked with classified information before, or do you have a source for this?
If something is classified and not properly marked, that means it is a mismarked document which should be corrected via whatever procedures are in place. All classified information is supposed to be marked and nothing is "it's obviously classified, we don't need to mark it."
Or maybe you meant that a unmarked document can still be classified information, and some of it is so obviously classified that anybody handling it *should* have known it was classified (and thus if they distributed it they were willfully distributing classified information)... in which case I'll agree with that.
So if he didn't hack it, why is he still in jail?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
bullshit. you know nothing. delete your account.
And for the 8 pieces that she received that were actually marked... then I say BRAVO, for only making a mistake 8 times out of 30,000 emails.
If she had used the properly secured network for her classified correspondence then it would have been zero data spills. This is a direct result of her gross negligence.
Intent is of varying importance depending on the crime, just like you said. Intent is not very relevant in the case of Hilary and the email fiasco because the law she broke has specific elements for both negligence and willful intent. What the FBI director claimed is that historically they don't charge people under the negligence element, but only for willful violations.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that if it had been applied universally no one would ever be charged with a crime because at some point someone has to be the first to be charged under any given statute. Simply because the director of the FBI thinks no has ever been charged with negligently breaking this law doesn't mean someone doing so shouldn't be charged. How does this affect any new laws that might be passed in the future, does the director think they're unenforceable because there is no precedent of prosecutions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick.
Also to quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations:
"Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993-2001), has been publicly accused by several women of sexual misconduct. Juanita Broaddrick has accused Clinton of rape; Kathleen Willey has accused Clinton of groping her without consent; and Paula Jones accuses Clinton of sexually harassing her."
There is more to Bill's history than Monica...
According to news reports: 7 of these e-mails pertained to CIA Drone strikes news which we insist on classifying even though they have been reported by news paper and news wires. The 8th one pertains to a visit from the new Malawi President. Matters related to foreign head of states are always classified as a rule.
YAWN.
It's quite obvious that the Government is at work at the highest levels behind the scenes to insure Hilary Clinton eventual Presidency. Our government is so corrupt that one wonders if there are ANY career politicians that aren't corrupt. Odd that an independently tasked investigative team, after months of research, found that Hilary Clinton acted illegally on many occasions, yet the FBI decided after only a few days that she did nothing wrong. Smells Manchurian to me.
According to news reports: 7 of these e-mails pertained to CIA Drone strikes news which we insist on classifying even though they have been reported by news paper and news wires. The 8th one pertains to a visit from the new Malawi President. Matters related to foreign head of states are always classified as a rule. YAWN.
You're sleepy. I suppose that's why you didn't look into the other 102 classified emails.
""In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received."
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Or maybe you meant that a unmarked document can still be classified information, and some of it is so obviously classified that anybody handling it *should* have known it was classified (and thus if they distributed it they were willfully distributing classified information)... in which case I'll agree with that.
Yes, I'm referring to the recipient's perspective only. A lack of a mark does not make something declassified. Some content is inherently classified, mis-marking does not change that. People handling classified info are specifically trained on this point.
Yes FBI Comey that is why he hung himself in a cell with a rope; oh yes, where did he get a rope?
Just another body to add to the Hillary Collection.
He admitted his earlier anti-Petraeus testimony was erroneous.
The whole "Petraeus his stuff under the insulation in his attic" theme was a bad memory on his part - go look at the congressional records (something the lazy press rarely does)
It did however raise a question in MY mind at the moment he said it to the congress: Comey should have been immediately asked "did your investigators of Mrs Clinton use a similar level of thoroughness to look under the insulation in HER attic?" and then the natural second question to the members of congress: "why didn'tyou automatically ask THAT question of Comey?"
Then NOBODY could ever be prosecuted for violating a law. Consider:
Any time a law is new, NOBODY has previously been prosecuted for violating it!
If, over the course of many years, people use various dodges to avoid getting prosecuted under it (involving things like plea-bargaining to avoid the full penalty for risking a conviction) it could then be said that "nobody has been convicted of it in {x} years"
The rich-and-powerful, in a desperate attempt to prosecute and control all the nobodies in society while protecting themselves and each-other are destroying the fundamental rule-of-law, the basic concept of "equal justice under law". The politically-connected in BOTH parties look out for each-other while feigning outrage at the acts of their faux-opponents. Speaker Ryan can complain all he wants for the TV cameras and his party base, but he is POWERLESS to actually DO anything - he gave away all his leverage over Obama when he gave away the primary tool the founders and the Constitution handed him: "the power of the purse". When he signed that 2-year budget deal with Obama, he gave away any leverage he had until the second year of the next president. Every thing he does now to pretend to be angry is just phoney - theater to make the Republican voters think he is acting for them, and theater to help Nancy Pelosi's Democrat voters get angry and think she is standing up to him and resisting an actual threat (which he is not). It's all bi-partisan fakery. They help each-other orchestrate the theatrics, which help the entrenched Republicans with their voters in their safe districts AND help the entrenched Democrats with their voters in their safe districts.
FLUSH! There goes all the legal advances of Western Civ, right down the toilet, for the convenience of the rich and powerful. If normal middle class people do not get up-in-arms about this and drive all these jerks out of politics no matter which party they are in, then we will all end up as powerless disarmed serfs at the mercy of a police state run by rich elites who exist above the laws.
You do not need to prove intent. She committed a felony crime. There is another instance of a Marine who is being
prosecuted for using a server to warn some troops to watch out for a duplicitous person. They were killed and
the Marine is being prosecuted?
Lazar did hack Hillary, but it is said (Media Hype) that he recanted. Too late, he hanged himself with a .doesn't that sound funny? One more dead body
convenient rope laying around in his cell. Hmmnn . .
to add to Hillary's regime and climb up the ladder.
Yes folks - some times the truth is a Troll.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That the same FBI director whose testimony you depend on for your joy over Hillary not getting indicted included the following:
1. that she is actually guilty of the violations (they just choose not to prosecute, because she's not like most people who they WOULD charge)
2. that nearly everything she has publicly said about all this for over a year has been a bold-faced lie.
3. that her statement to congress and courts under oath about all this were purjury
4. that she is too ignorant and unsophisticated to understand "classified" information.
5. that she is reckless and careless with national security.
Ah, but for YOU, all that matters is that people outraged by all this are angry that she is getting away with it.
That's just really warped, dude. Downright sick.
Why can't we just put an honest, sincere leader into office: Bernie Sanders?!
Why do we need to persist in avoidable drama that is pointless and a waste of the people's most valuable time and concern?!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.