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.
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/
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.
He wasn't extradited for his claim about Hillary's server. He was extradited for:
In the United States, Lazar is charged in a nine-count indictment with three counts of wire fraud, three counts of gaining unauthorized access to protected computers, and one count each of aggravated identity theft, cyberstalking and obstruction of justice. ... Lazar hacked into the email and social media accounts of high-profile victims, including a family member of two former U.S. presidents, a former U.S. Cabinet member, a former member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former presidential advisor. After gaining unauthorized access to their accounts, Lazar publicly released his victims’ private email correspondence, medical and financial information and personal photographs. The indictment also alleges that in July 2013 and August 2013, Lazar impersonated a victim after compromising the victim’s account.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr...
Check the timeline. He claimed to have hacked Hillary's server in May. The DOJ press release above is dated April 1, meaning he was already extradited before making the claim. So they still have a number of charges to investigate.
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.
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.
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
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.
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".
Why the fuck do you think FBI decided not to prosecute then? It was pretty obvious the director doesnt think they would be able to convince the jury to convict, and it wouldnt hold water in court. The FBI doesnt have like a 93% conviction rate for no reason. Or do you think they should press charges anyway, because it serves your political agenda?
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.
"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.
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...