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.
The fabricated whatdoesitmean.com story about Guccifer's disappearance was picked up a few days later by the Christian Times Newspaper web site...
Hillary Clinton is hardly the first Secretary of State to use back channels for communications and intelligence. Her method had some serious security issues, to be sure, and she's been rightly vilified for that, but to imagine that Secretaries of State since the office was instituted haven't used various means of varying degrees of (il)legality is absurdly naive.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Unless the angel that keeps telling him about jesus' second coming is also named Benjamin
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
its utterly important to know what the CHRISTIAN TIMES has to say.
I wait on their every word.
my day is not complete, etc etc.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
All the while Dennis Hastert was secretly paying all the boys he abused to keep quiet, so who exactly was the bigger hypocrite?
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.
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.
Fine, it doesn't matter. The underlying point remains the same: the system is so broken that we cannot trust it.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
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).
"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.
Zero to Ad Hominem in 2.3 seconds. Faster than a Tesla S.
And yes, my ancestors did anglicize their name. (Although not from Oogah Oogah. I'm not related to you. Thank $deity.) I don't consider it a slight to use either spelling. Hell, if I wanted to attack him, I'd call him some other things: Misogynist, Racist, Nazi, Narcissist, Fraud, Crook, Putz, etc.
Oh, wait, that's not an attack, it's just the truth.
And you? You outed yourself as another Republican Hillary Hater. I didn't mention her. You don't have a clue what I think about her, You made that leap all by yourself. So why did you bring her up other than to spread your brand of Hate? You have the nerve to chastise me for parroting late night comics, but you're guilty of the same thing, except it's not late night comics you parrot, it's the majority of the Republicans. Polly want a cracker?.
"sexual harassment in the workplace"... "female victims of her husband"
You make it sound like Clinton was a serial rapist or something.
It was consensual and completely legal. There was never any debate over that.
Clinton lied about it under oath. That was the problem.
There are roughly 300m people in the USA.
That you did have a father-son pair as president, and are now considering the wife of a former president for the role, speaks volumes about how undemocratic your system of government actually is.
You have already shown that you are an idiot so should anybody care what you believe?
Bullshit. The US legal system is one of the most trustworthy in the world. No it's not perfect but your ideas of secret deals from shadowy actors is a pure fantasy. Secret deals happen but for state security reasons, not for helping an individual candidate.
He admitted that was a lie
But you believe him when he says he lied to you last time? Why?
"sexual harassment in the workplace"... "female victims of her husband" You make it sound like Clinton was a serial rapist or something. It was consensual and completely legal. There was never any debate over that. Clinton lied about it under oath. That was the problem.
You make it sound like Clinton is blameless. Clinton lied under oath in regard to a sexual harassment case in which he was being sued. The fact that some people continuously try to make it sound like he lied under oath about something completely irrelevant is the problem.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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.
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.
You know John Oliver televised "Drumpf" because Trump repeatedly mocked John Stewart for changing his name, right?
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.
I'm tempted to see if I could register "A Pile of Rocks" as a write in candidate for president in MN. It costs nothing beyond a simple letter mailed to MN Secretary of State's Office. I've been telling people in MN who are considering voting Trump because he is the "lesser evil" to instead vote for Gary Johnson as this state won't go republican anyway. The same would apply for people in other very blue states, and the reverse in those very red states. Personally I would like to see the president be elected with only getting like 35% of the vote as it would make it clear that the general population doesn't want what they are offering.
Time to offend someone
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.
Yeah, I'll be looking into third party candidates, even though there's effectively no way they can win. I'm not big on 'protest votes', but I can't endorse either of these two. I simply can't do it. I can't vote a flip-flopping focus-polling stands-for-nothing-but-self-enrichment unindicted felon, and I can't vote for a jingoistic Dorito-tinted race-baiting proto-fascist who can't even grasp the basics of the constitutional government he wants to run.
This is going to be a frightening 4 years, where Congress will have the solemn responsibility to put the brakes on anything these two want to do. And that's the best case.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
So if he didn't hack it, why is he still in jail?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
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?
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.
I'm starting to think we should require "None of the above" to be an option on every ballot. If it wins, redo the whole election!
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 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.
But...but... they get their info from an omniscient being in the sky, ALL KNOWING!
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
The power relationship between President Clinton and a White House Intern precludes sexual contact between them. Just as a 15 year old girl can not 'consent' to sexual activity with an adult, a far-down underling in the White House can not 'consent' to sex with the President. Legally, it's a murky matter, but ethically it's clear-cut. President Clinton was responsible to shut down the exchange if/when somebody like Monica Lewinsky approached him. That's the ethical basis that up to that time had evolved and was strongly advocated by the Feminist movement. But when Horndog gets stiff, the rules are tossed out. And Horndog's wife acted vigorously as his enabler.
Those are the facts.
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.
No, it's her turn to be indicted and thrown in jail just like anyone else would be.
Look,
Have you gotten off of traffic stops when you had broken the law? I have at least a few times in my lifetime.
Justice relies on mixing common sense with laws.
That's one of the big problems with racism is that whites get treated with justice while blacks are
a) pulled over in the first place when a white wouldn't be.
b) searched
c) if something found, arrested often when a white wouldn't be.
d) more likely to be shot to death somewhere between a and c (even if nothing illegal was going on except a broken tail light)
e) convicted more often of the same types of crimes when younger than whites.
the answer isn't to treat whites like blacks and criminalize everyone (tho that would get heat/pressure to get the laws changed). the more reasonable answer is to only resort to criminal law when it's appropriate and give a little mercy otherwise.
Yes, we should be a nation of laws not men, but we have a crazy amount of laws and if you own a car, you break at least 3 laws every 15 to 20 minutes while driving in town (per the police). We are permanently criminalized- it's just a question of watching us to see which law we broke and then deciding to enforce it to make quota in this case.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.