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?
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.
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.
something about a blowjob
I think you mean that history will remember an extremely hypocritical and self-effacing reversal by the 'progressive' Feminist community on the matter of sexual harassment in the workplace. An enabling First Lady who actively worked to strike down and discredit the female victims of her husband. Said First Lady attempting to become a figurehead for the Feminist movement in the form of the First Woman President.
It's so weird that if, say, a Gloria Steinem feminist in 1975 was asked if it could come to be, they'd say you were out of your fucking mind.
But anyways. It doesn't matter. It's Hillary's turn to be nominated.
Republicans have a bad habit of overbidding their hand.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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.
"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.
How did we even let it get to this point? There are apparently a LOT of actual people supporting these two clowns?!
Is it just the "I'm only voting for Hillary because she's not Trump" crowd versus the "I'm only voting for Trump because he's not Hillary" folks or what? That and the "we need to elect the first woman president" crowd (though frankly, we could easily do a heck of a lot better than Hillary if the only true qualification is a vagina).
I can't even imagine the kind of screwed up mindset it would take to actually be excited to elect either major party's presumed nominee and there is essentially zero chance of a third party getting elected, so maybe voting for a brainless jellyfish ("turns out, you don't need one") would be just as productive. It might even send a louder message than just trying to go with the Green Party or Constitution party or Libertarian. Imagine if enough of the US electorate voted "A Brainless Jellyfish" for it to actually show up in the returns (even if just a fractional to low single digit percentage).
Unless you are one of the conspiracy theory nuts (which in most cases believe in multiple directly contradictory fantasies) the logical solution is that he was lying before. Otherwise there should have been evidence of the break-in and it would have been added to the severe criticism in the FBI report.
For a nut though it's just evidence for a cover-up. But for a nut everything is evidence for a cover-up...