Slashdot Mirror
Guccifer 2.0 Dumps a Bunch of Clinton Foundation Donor Data (engadget.com)
The hacker Guccifer 2.0 today released a large database of information reportedly stolen from the Clinton Foundation. The dump, Engadget reports, includes names, addresses, and emails of both individuals and corporate donors as well as their contribution amounts. From the report: This, of course, isn't the first time Guccifer or his friends at Wikileaks and the Kremlin have attempted to subvert the US political process during this election cycle. Just last month Guccifer released Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Tim Kaine's personal cell phone number. What's more, nearly half of the country's state voter registration systems have recently come under cyberattack, according to the DHS, though the FBI has not yet determined if those breaches originated in Russia. There are also a number of unanswered questions regarding Republican nominee, Donald Trump's, connection to these attacks. Four House Democrats recently demanded that the FBI investigate the nominee after he "jokingly" suggested that Russia find and release the 33,000 emails reportedly missing from Hillary Clinton's private email server.
And Trump's taxes. 2-for-1 deal!
Table-ized A.I.
I particularly liked:
There are also a number of unanswered questions regarding Republican nominee, Donald Trump's, connection to these attacks
So we're to understand that Trump is running these hacker groups? Hey, I suppose that's better than Hilary who can't even run a secure email server.
I'm also interested in these "unanswered questions"? I suspect the reason they're unanswered is because you haven't asked them. You're just implying that something is amiss about Trump without actually saying what is wrong or making any allegations.
They have a better chance of finding them than our own corrupt / incompetent / paid-for agencies do.
Is sad when you put more trust in a FOREIGN intelligence agency than your own when it comes to matters like this.
"Guccifer or his friends at Wikileaks and the Kremlin"
Just tell us what happened without participating in the propaganda will you? This is embarrassing for all reporters.
I'm so glad that: "Four House Democrats recently demanded that the FBI investigate the nominee after he 'jokingly' suggested that Russia find and release the 33,000 emails reportedly missing from Hillary Clinton's private email server."
I mean, that's the real crime--not what Hillary did. It's very important that the FBI get to the bottom of this--though maybe it will at least keep them too busy to be destroying more evidence that could indict a Clinton.
He implies there is some sort of correlation to banks making donations, and tarp funds being distributed. Does $1000 seem like an appropriate bribe for a billion dollars? And since when does the secretary of state have any impact on where tarp funds are distributed? And what's the freaking point when this money is used for charity anyhow, it's not like they are buying paintings of themselves with it.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
So, I get that the rapid response team has issued your talking points, but do you think it is worth mentioning the servers have a folder on them called "pay to play" or a spreadsheet tracking banks that got TARP money's large donations to top Dems? Or a file called "Wall Street money by committee" or a file tracking donors to Hilary's campaign? Does this sound like a charity or a PAC to you? If the Russians did hack it we owe them nothing but gratitude for exposing the Clintons. If she were not so monsterously corrupt, they would probably just find out she took normal tax deductions or something, and as we have seen, that's not a very effective attack.
You guys are making lots of fun of this, and maybe it's all false alarm, but then again some foreign intelligence agency might indeed try to massively influence your elections. I wouldn't consider that funny if I were you.
The article has been updated with:
The Clinton Foundation has denied the validity of Guccifer 2.0's claims. Speaking to Politico, a foundation representative said, "Once again, we still have no evidence Clinton Foundation systems were breached and have not been notified by law enforcement of an issue. None of these folders or files shown are from the Clinton Foundation." And, as Buzzfeed Senior Technology Reporter, Joe Bernstein, points out, it's highly unlikely that the foundation would name its own folder "Pay to Play."
If this is the case, all of you people who are still looking to stick a crime on Hillary will have to look somewhere else.
Chances are they could find them, and the smoking gun that shows Big Oil and Big Coal subverted our Democracy for their Saudi masters gain
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Publishing careful subsets can be very misleading.
If I (for example) go down the list of donations, and remove all ones to people I can identify as probably black or latino, that makes the donor statistics look very different.
Or if I remove information on companies that did not benefit from various policies.
The contact info of major corporations and donors is public information.
I invite people reading this to go take a look at the actual documents that Guccifer2 has released. I'll bet you'll see what's wrong with them right away. Go ahead, look at them now. I'll wait.
This Guccifer2 leak is what Assange was supposed to release at 3am, but then Assange noticed the same thing: the docs are a hoax. That's why there was no October surprise this morning.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Just watched how fast the "Russian's hacked us narrative" dies away.
Like Miss Emily used to say "Nevermind".
I still remember how during the 2012 debates Barry told us that the Russians were no longer our enemy.
but can you honestly say that there are no unanswered questions for Trump? Seriously how biased can you be? I will give you a hint, it rhymes with "Axe Concerns".
"Mister Burns"?
I think it's a Simpsons reference.
Maybe like, where does their money go to?
For a long time, Julian Assange and Wikileaks have been promoting a massive data dump that they'd make today that would totally destroy the Clinton campaign. Instead, they had a sort of self-promotion-fest and a promise to drop some interesting data real soon now..
Bruce Perens.
I am so sick and tired of hearing about how Russia is trying to "subvert our election." Annoyed enough to bother logging in and not posting AC.
Yes, we get it, there are nebulous rumors of how the Russians are trying to "subvert our democracy." But it's just fluff: the bottom line is that what Hillary and the Democrats have done is at best unethical, if not strictly illegal.
Who cares who revealed it? If they weren't acting unethically, there would be no issue. But they are, and that's why it's a problem, and trying to bring Russia into this is purely a smokescreen.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
wiped (or had) with a cloth and bleachBit
What the fuck do you people think BleachBit is?
Isn't it what you pour in the bit bucket to get all your ones pearly white?
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Were Woodward and Bernstein "subverting the US political process" when they investigated Watergate and effectively ended Nixon's (duly elected by the people) presidency? Normally when these leaks occur the press takes the position that "the public has a right to know" regardless of where the leaks come from.
Sounds like someone at engadget misses the point of a free and independent press.
I think it was in Bruce Schneiers most recent newsletter, that there is always the risk of something artificial and damaging being added to otherwise original, authentic material, on the basis that if 99% of it it's true, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to say that other 1% isn't true either. Maybe it wasn't him, but I definitely read it somewhere and it really was interesting food for thought.
Actually she had a duty to preserve all documents related to her job as SoS. Of course, she conveniently forgot that she had any such requirement due to a head injury, of which she is still suffering effects. All of which should keep her out of any position in government for the rest her life, but people like you continue to try to minimize the crimes she has committed.
As for having ANY classified email on her home brew, basement dwelling server is also a crime (she sent and received )
As for deleting her server after it was subpoenaed is ALSO a crime.
If she is investigated for murder, it won't be because of some kid having SIDS in Kansas. There are plenty of murders of people that she was quite familiar with, which might have some relationship to her. Cute though.
Trump has his own issues, and people limited to binary choices rarely choose well. Vote 3rd Party.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
According to the American Institute of Philanthropy, which gave the Clinton Foundation an "A" rating, the Clinton Foundation spends only 12% of the money it raises on overhead. Politifact has a good rundown on this: http://www.politifact.com/trut... . Do some research before making wild claims, don't just go with wisdom from the blogosphere.
Does Trump actually have any criminal convictions? I looked, but couldn't find any in the sea of misinformation out there.
Also, there is a difference between deleting a copy of classified material (to prevent that copy from becoming compromised), and deleting the *only* copy of classified material (preventing our own government from having access to it).
I think the accusation is that she has done the latter. Since she shouldn't have had a private email server to begin with, deleting the emails from the server should have certainly happened eventually, but not while the only copy of those emails resided on that private server.
Deleting all the emails isn't a crime, and if she's "guilty" of storing confidential emails, deleting them is her duty.
WHAT?!!! Uh, NO .
If you ever hold a security clearance, the proper procedure for dealing with classified information leaks will be drilled into you. The very first thing you get taught - repeatedly - is you do not delete classified information if it leaks.
The process is pretty simple: you disconnect from the network, go into "airplane mode" if necessary, and then immediately stop using the machine. You don't delete anything, you don't close any open programs, you immediately call the security people and you let them clean up the mess.
This leaves a paper trail. But it also makes sure that the information spill is known, that how far it leaks is known, and that any potential spill to uncleared individuals is known.
So if Hillary did delete emails with classified information, she - well, broke procedure. I have no idea if it's a law or just an official process. But there's a process and procedure for dealing with classified information leaks, and deleting anything is 100% not it.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Informing the public about who's paying bribes to which Ruling Party candidates isn't subverting the process, it's benefitting the process.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
When TFA relates to another post (like in this case to Guccifer's "leak"), it would be good to have a direct link to that too.
Specially if TFA is clearly trying to steer people away from information that it is talking about.
But if you put too much they all turn yellow.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
1) Obstruction of justice. Doesn't matter whether the emails contain evidence or not. Law enforcement requested them and you destroyed them. This is a crime.
2) Destruction of federal property. The emails belong to the government. You destroyed them. This is a crime.
He was mocking Trump, who claimed she poured chemicals on the hard drives to erase them. After he heard about bleachbit.
This "leak" is so obviously fake that Politico pulled their story about it. Here's an article about how obviously fake it is.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
You didn't look, did you?
You are welcome on my lawn.
No that was perfectly Legal AT THE TIME.
I honestly don;t know the law well enough to have an opinion on whether her use of a private email server was illegal or not. It does seem as if it was against the governments own rules for it's own employees. And despite dancing around it, it seems Hillary has finally also admitted this (without any qualifications).
The FBI director explained his rationale for not indicting her, and it certainly wasn't that she did nothing wrong. My impression was that they have discretion over who they decide to indict, and choosing not to indict Hillary was in keeping with similar cases of treating classified material with negligence (as opposed to intentionally selling the information to Russians, etc.)
It seems to me like there is a legal gray area where someone might have broken the law but because they were not convicted, are not criminals.
Can you cite a source for your assertion that the FBI read all the "missing" emails? I'd be interested to read it.
Anonymous comments prefixed with "I'm not pro Hillary" or "I'm not for either" are made by people who actually are for that person. You prove the point in an easy to spot fashion, so if you are a paid troll give your boss back your check. You suck.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Clinton shill,
You precious American Institute of Philanthropy, now called CharityWatch, also put the Clinton Foundation on its watch list because of concerns about donations by foreign governments. The State Department itself had these concerns too, until Hillary used her power conveniently.
The 88% of money not spent on admin went where? The State Department wanted transparency for that at one time...
Well if it is fake (as it now appears to be), surely that is subverting the process by spreading misinformation, rather than the truth.
Actually she had a duty to preserve all documents related to her job as SoS.
She had a duty to delete confidential material. She did as required, and is accused of a crime of deleting documents, when she was required to, by law.
No, she has no such duty. Her duty is to stop using the machine and hand it over to the appropriate security officers to investigate the extent of the leak.
Stop just making shit up. It does nobody any good to just spout lie after lie after lie. I can see why you like her so much, though!
If Trump did not follow the law it would have been prosecuted and we would have a verdict. There is no such thing, and that fact bothers the shit out of people like you who find facts an inconvenience.
From 3 pages of taxes in the 1990s we have gleaned 1 fact, that Trump took a loss. Everything else is speculation. The one troll I saw on a similar post yesterday simply denied facts and claimed that the 90s were some great economic boom. Again FACTS can be used to prove that troll wrong.
Meanwhile, Hillary is guilty of several laws which the FBI has simply refused to prosecute her for. We know that the FBI gave complete immunity to staffers, the guy who setup and ran the Exchange server, and his boss had a secret meeting with the suspects husband and former ex President the Friday before the Monday dismissal. We KNOW that the DNC has been colluding with mass media to promote Hillary and we know that they used their influence to shove Bernie down in the elections.
I have plenty of things I could complain about with Trump too, but with all the media bullshit there is no way my complaint would ever be viewed as valid. Telling a crowd that maybe they can protect their 2nd amendment rights was turned into "Trump claimed Kill Hillary", and Trump satirically saying "maybe Russia can release those emails she deleted" became "Trump claimed he wanted Russia to hack America", and the Russian influence in the DNC and Clinton foundation are ignored, but "Trump loves Putin".
It is so contrived I honestly no longer feel like I'm living in my own Country.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
She has the full force of the Russians bearing down on her, trying to get Trump elected, and they had to resort to faking a leak. If they really couldn't find anything on her, and they don't have any political American overseers or bribes or whatever, Clinton might actually be better than we thought. God knows what would happen if these same hackers rooted around Donald Trump's stuff....
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
You're just making shit up. The problem for you is, her narrative has been that she didn't know any of it was classified -- the "I was too stupid" defense.
sig: sauer
"Trump shill" no, guess again. Trump is a buffoon. No one should vote for him. Hillary is a crook, no one should vote for her. You give one example of something done in foreign country. The State department wanted to know of a bit more than that.
He's mocking both Hillary and Trump. Hillary from when she was playing clueless old lady and 'joked' about wiping her server with a cloth when accused of deleting emails(which of course later turned out to be true), and Trump from thinking Bleachbit was a chemical that destroys hard drives.
Doubt it.
Apparently these aren't actually Clinton Foundation Docs at all, they're from previous hacks. There also seems to be some deliberate bullshit thrown in.
I'm not a fan of the corporate media, but they do tend to be more reliable then shit created by an ex-spy whose country invented Maskirovska.
By law?? Can you cite that law?? You can't because there is no such law.
I couldn't find a specific law but according to this article she was quite justified in destroying the Blackberrys and I could see the same reasoning being applied to the servers. Information is supposed to be archived and then the device deleted/destroyed as thoroughly as possible.
It's not a ridiculous line of thinking from Clinton (and her lawyer's) perspective. "Oh crap, we weren't supposed to be using X because of security concerns? Well we'll give you what you need off of X for your investigation and the official archive, and then we'll destroy X so there's no more copies to worry about".
Note that any smart politician, no matter how clean, would be wise to leave as little a paper trail as possible.
I stole this Sig
getting mad at Hilary for this crap is like getting mad at me for doing 70 in a 65mph zone. It's universal. Bush deleted 22 million emails to hide what were probably war crimes and nobody gave a rat's behind. Your rage is manufactured. Ask yourself who's manufacturing it and you'll know who deserves your ire.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
if there weren't some really, really shady dealings with Trump, Russia and Guccifer. It became a Trump story too when the source of the leaks pointed towards Trump's Russian friends. If you don't think that matters than I guess we can forget about that whole Watergate thing too (the real one, not this week's *gate).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Every Post in this chain made up a fact to make it a crime.
Stop just making shit up. You Too!
The Investigation was After the fact, not during.
the machine was out of service when it was requested.
The Machine was not requested till later.
If she was smart like the Bush Whitehouse, she would have destroyed the machine.
No telling what was on that one.
You Guys act like she was the only one doing this.
No.
Who is the appropriate security official? One of the complications is that as Secretary of State, she was an "authorized person" for approving her own email server. Anyone who says it was "unapproved" doesn't know what the meaning is. As for turning it over, she *is* the federal government (being higher in the federal government than anyone in the FBI that would respond to the call), so why can't she turn it over to herself, clean it, then release it back to herself?
The law is very unclear on these points, which is why she was following the processes set by the Bush Administration, and she violated no processes in place before she took office.
Learn to love Alaska
True, but it's really hard to go up to the top boss at your organization and say "here are the rules you must follow!" In the state department, good luck if you're allowed within 100 yards of the top boss. In other words, she may not necessarily have had it drilled into her in the same way that would happen with a junior executive. Remember also, that IT was a new concept for the government at that time, it was relatively new even in a some corporations.
It's a mountain being made out of a mole hill. Mistakes were made though. But because there are people who are utterly 100% convinced that Hillary personally ordered many assassinations on various people, they want this to be the smoking gun, the AHA! moment (similar to multi-year investigations into Bill that only turned up a single act of lying about an affair under oath but which resulted in an AHA!! moment). I don't like Hillary, but sheesh after 24 years it's time to give up and admit there aren't any bodies to be found. If the opposition wants her to lose the election they'd do much better with straight forward campaigning.
you immediately call the security people and you let them clean up the mess.
So you are saying that the Secretary of State isn't qualified to handle classified material? The position is one of the highest for classifications. What clearances and authority would the response team have that isn't held by the Secretary of State?
Learn to love Alaska
Her claim was, "I was too brain-damaged to even remember what I was supposed to do."
You cannot simultaneously use your own incompetence as a defense and use your job title as an appeal to authority. I mean you technically CAN but it sounds totally schizophrenic.
Speaking as a #neverhillary Bernie supporter, I just want to ask you: why do you feel compelled to defend this woman?
Ah, so you can't refute the facts, so you insult the speaker. I'm not a Democrat, and I'm not voting for Hillary. But that doesn't mean I can't recognize the lies and hypocrisy of the Hillary-haters.
Learn to love Alaska
Have any of his companies been found guilty of crimes?
If so please provide a citation, I'd honestly like to know.
By definition, anything on an email server *can't* be the only copy. They must have been sent from somewhere else or sent to somewhere else.
Sure every email could have had many other participants. The ones on Clinton's server could have been the only copy in possession of the US government for many of those emails. There is a reason that all official government email is supposed to go through a government server, and it's precisely because it's the only way the emails can be effectively archived. Yeah there are probably copies of many of those emails on in other people's inbox and sent folders, and many are probably already deleted, or only in the hands of foreign governments. We can never know the whole picture now.
Who cares if they beat up gay people? Who cares if they poison dissidents? Who cares if they bomb... wait... um... that was us. That's not unusual out there in the world. If that's cause for ramping up military aggression, then I guess you're planning on fighting Albania, Malaysia, Philippines, Colombia, China and about 2/3's of Africa.
You also seem to be saying the reason we're in Syria and arming Syrian rebels isn't the net trillion dollar pipeline value, but because we think Russia and Syria are "bad guys" and as a matter of foreign we should ... y'know.... remove baddies from power?
Further proof that the Clintonites are the new neo-cons.
>The timeline is that she was investigeated for Benghazi, and while being investigated, noticed improper emails. She wipes the improper emails, then later there's an investigation into the improper emails. The "evidence" was already destroyed, back before it was evidence.
The evidence was wiped after the state department asked for her emails:
âoeWe learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server,â he continued. âoeWhile it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department.â (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416125/hillary-clinton-defies-subpoena-wiped-her-server-clean-joel-gehrke)
And then after they found an archive of the emails after the subpeona, illegally destroyed the evidence AFTER it was evidence:
"On March 4, 2015, the House subpoenaed all emails from Clintonâ(TM)s personal servers, including a document preservation order.
PRN staff member X had a âoeconference call with President Clintonâ(TM)s staffâ on March 25, 2015, after which â" sometime between March 25th and 31st â" âoehe had an âoh shitâ(TM) moment,â when he realized he had forgotten to wipe clean the PRN server as he had been instructed to do by Mills in December 2014.
image: http://thefreethoughtproject.c...Ã--442.png
At some point during those six days, PRN wiped the server clean using BleachBit â" despite the subpoena from the House earlier in the same month.
In fact, PRN staff member X admitted to deleting the remaining emails despite being âoeaware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clintonâ(TM)s e-mail data on the PRN server.â" (http://thedailycoin.org/2016/09/04/clinton-email-server-wiped-after-her-subpoena/)
This is direct destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice, so naturally the FBI gave immunity deals to the people responsible, who then turned around and say Hill Dawg had nothing to do with it. It is fantastic (and I don't mean that in the good sense) how this investigation was conducted.
The Clinton foundation has been called "a slush fund by Sunlight Foundation — a "progressive" foundation promoting nonprofit transparency.
Additionally:
Last year, Charity Navigator, a nonprofit watchdog that rates charities, put the Clinton Foundation on its “watch list” as a warning to potential contributors because so much Clinton Foundation money was going to salaries, overhead and luxury travel rather than to fulfilling its stated mission.
Clinton and the Democrats have already done that. Wikileaks is simply shining a light on them.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Mostly 'cause the other side didn't have a chance to commit any yet. Give him time, you might think differently after the first four years.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
At least Wikileaks has a reputation to defend. Guccifer?
Wrong, as Sec State she set's the policies implementing the federal Laws pertaining to the protection of Classified information. But she is not able to just approve her own setup. She set's the policies, the IT and security depts. then implement them.
Stop trying to defend the indefensible. The moment classified information touched her unclassified system it became classified and property of the Government and the responsibility of the Security and IT depts. to clean and clear before returning to her. She broke the law. Her position did not exempt her from the law.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Since you are claiming that she knew that the documents were confidential and on a unauthorized computer that is totally wrong that she had a duty to delete them.
She had a duty to secure the machine and the material and report it. The people who she report it to have the responsibility of approving when and how the material is deleted or contained.
What criminal convictions does trump have against him? Also mentioning the charges against hillarys for embezzlement really don't help your argument. The problem with your thinking is that trump has been in the public eye and has been a very successful business man(around 99% of his businesses have shown a profit) in places that are known for being highpoints of liberal corruption. He had to deal with that and work with corrupt people, same way Obama is given a wave with his linkage in Chicago. Don't forget the lawsuit against trump for being an "American Indian Witch".
There is no way that she could of stolen the baby's breath, first it would take some competence and she has yet to demonstrate that.
No she was not authorized to approve her own email server. This was clearly written down in Obama and previous policy. Before you bring up Powel and his use of AOL he had written permission from outside the department of state to use it, and he was under rules that had changed after he left.
You are also wrong about the "authorized person" what that gave her as secretary of state was control over DoS generated material. She was not authorized to take material from DoD and decide it was unclassified. She was not authorized to decide what to government documents she had to turn over, federal law decides that. Go read US Code Title 18 for more info, don't believe this stuff you copied from hillarys web site and has been disproven in federal hearings.
The 22 million emails were deleted because they were campaign emails that were not legally permitted to be on the Government servers. As emails pertaining to and by his campaign there was no requirement to be retained and more importantly they had to be deleted from the servers.
In contrast Clinton's emails were required by law to not be deleted. but retained..
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
"This, of course, isn't the first time Guccifer or his friends at Wikileaks and the Kremlin have attempted to subvert the US political process during this election cycle."
1) Not a single shred or iota of evidence has been shown to substantiate a case that the DNC hacks or Wikileaks were the actions of Russia.
2) The leaker is NOT the one interfering or subverting the US political process. Rather, they are merely showing that Hillary and her corrupt cohorts are doing so.
3) Hillary is a sociopath who in the first debate essentially threatened war with a nuclear power over in order to cover up her DNC scandal. Frankly, even Trump isn't that scary.
4) I think every one with half a brain (which probably leaves the poster out) understood Trump's comment about maybe having Russia find Hillary's missing emails was satire, and a jest at her public accusation of the Russians without any provided proof. Guess what, in America that is illegal. In fact, I think the Russian government should file a personal lawsuit against Hillary for slander.
"What's more, nearly half of the country's state voter registration systems have recently come under cyberattack, according to the DHS"
Why is that? Could it be because so many apparently dropped a crap ton of Bernie Sanders supporters from the voter rolls? And hackers are trying to find out how and by whom?
"Donald Trump's, connection to these attacks."
Donald Trump's connection is that he has seen them talked about in the media, and seen a very stupid Hillary accuse Russia of the attacks. That's it...
And the OP is a damnable moron for trying to seek more from it. I mean really, why the hell is anyone more upset about the hacks than the illegal and corrupt actions on the part of Hillary's cohorts? This is like the hacker who retrieved the photos to prove the rape case, but faces 10x the sentence for doing so than the rapists. WTF.
"Four House Democrats recently demanded that the FBI investigate the nominee after he "jokingly" suggested that Russia find and release the 33,000 emails reportedly missing from Hillary Clinton's private email server."
Well gee, considering the FBI is in Hillary's pants as are those four Democrats. I mean, the FBI basically came out and said "We found gross negligence and multiple violations, but because it is Hillary we are not going to prosecute." And this occurred shortly after a chance meeting between the Attorney General and Bill Clinton, which was no frigging change meeting.
Sorry, Hillary and Trump are both unacceptable candidates for presidency.
Trump is an arrogant bigoted asshole.
Hillary is a corrupt lying oligarchist warmonger.
Since Congress wrote the law that also covers themselves they added the word "Willfull" That mean you need to prove she knew, not that she did, that she knew it was wrong and did it anyway. A very hard case to prove. Unless you lie about it, or get caught and lie like Petraus. And he is not in jail.
Hillary, just like every other American citizen who holds a security clearance, was briefed and signed documents affirming that she understood the laws and penalties associated with the handling of classified information. The FBI investigation turned up quite a few emails that contained classification markings. At least one of her aides admitted to being instructed by Hillary to strip classification markings from messages before sending them to her. How a reasonable person could conclude that she didn't know she was wrong in doing what she did, escapes me completely.
As for Petraeus, you're right; he's not in jail. But he will never work in a sensitive position again. I'd be satisfied if similar punishment was imposed upon Hillary Clinton.
Obviously Clinton hopes people don't look at a world map. If only her followers had half a brain...
Also, there is a difference between deleting a copy of classified material (to prevent that copy from becoming compromised), and deleting the *only* copy of classified material (preventing our own government from having access to it).
The law does not distinguish between the unauthorized destruction of the *only* copy of classified material, and the unauthorized destruction of one of many copies of the classified material. And no, despite being Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton did not have the proper authority to authorize destruction of classified material.
They may not be legally able to do so.
Real estate values would remain depressed through 1995, when they would return to growth.[8]
Do you need me to point out the 2nd paragraph of "Recovery" for you, or do you think you can stop selectively reading when facts don't back your position? If the latter, you are the problem not myself or Trump.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I thought it was an investigation into how JFK Jr's plane developed a mechanical failure.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I said there is a difference. The difference being that one is destroying the information forever and the other isn't. Whether there is a legal difference in terms of classified material is irrelevant to my point. There is an actual difference in reality.
Deleting all the emails isn't a crime, and if she's "guilty" of storing confidential emails, deleting them is her duty.
The only part of this that isn't straight forward is that the Presidential Qualifications are Constitutional defined and not limited by this law.
Additionally;
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Campers: did any of you actually look at the folders or data? Everyone seems to assume this is legit. Hard to believe it is. A Russian state-sponsored hacker -- known to be trying to influence US election -- releases supposed files with names like "Pay to Play" and others showing donations as percentage of what donors supposedly got in TARP funds. Really?? This is a really bad, absurdly clumsy, Boris and Natasha skit. Even assuming the Clinton Foundation somehow takes bribes, do you really think they'd set it up so blatantly?? Also, if you actually understand how their foundation works, you'd find this is even more absurd. C'mon people, show a little healthy skepticism.
She had a duty to not remove confidential information from secure systems in the first place, as per 18 USC 793 (f)
Stop being an apologist. The law was broken. Many times.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
False.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.
- FBI Director James Comey, in a nationally televised speech about the investigation. 110 emails containing classified information at the time of sending.
One hundred and ten is far more than "none"
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Perhaps, but at the time of the hardware wipes I think they legitimately thought there was no classified information on the server.
It's easy to understand why, classified intel was supposed to be clearly marked and on a completely separate system. No one was supposed to be emailing classified information to Clinton, even if it was a State Dept email address, and none of the few pieces of classified information on Clinton's server was clearly marked as classified.
The documents are not classified because they are marked, they are marked because they are classified.. When HCR stated that her attorney, who has no security clearance nor need to know, read each email, she admitted guilt to a felony that has a 10 year prison sentence attached to it, if just one classified email slipped through the cracks and onto her server. Using personal hardware in a classified job is just insanity.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
False.
Please point to the word "willful" in the text of the law. Here, I'll quote it for you:
18 USC 793 (f):
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
I'll give you a hint - you can't be 'willfully negligent' because it's not negligence if you do it on purpose.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Remember in 2000 when Sam Donaldson was fired for claiming a deferment letter for Bush Jr was from the late 60's, but it was written in a proportional font?
This is the same thing:
"...it's highly unlikely that the foundation would name its own folder "Pay to Play.""
Bahahaha!
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
There was a lawsuit in the 1970s about discriminatory housing practices which was settled, with the standard clause of not admitting wrongdoing. But we all know that if there wasn't anything there, they would not have settled and paid the government shit.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Ahh, the "but but but BUSH!" defense.
You know what? Indict his lackeys too then. Send them all to Federal prison. They can play tennis together behind very tall fences.
The whole "he did it too!" defense didn't work in kindergarten, why would you think it works in presidential politics?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
won't anyone leak the email backups I accidentally deleted, or my boss' cell phone records just once....
P.S., Gucifer 2.0: I'll pay handsomely for Bill Clinton's or Donald Trump's Google/Reddit/xhamster search history. Hillary's, not so much.
Simple. We refuse to acknowledge terrorism and play nothing to see here. But there has to be an enemy, or people stop paying attention. Russia is the perfect candidate, they are the old enemy from the Cold War that we pretended was ten times our size... when they were 1/10th our size... resulting in trillions of dollars of legal bribes paid.
Of course the real enemy is anyone who convinces you do to stupid shit because of some straw man enemy but if you're that easily duped there's little hope for you anyway, please keep repeating talking points devoid of common sense.
Murphy was an optimist
I'm not a lawyer, but I think even if Trump had lost in court rather than settling, this would have resulted in a civil judgment against him or his company, not a criminal conviction.
They should have hired Yahoo; they are quick and incompetent.
Table-ized A.I.
you're focus is a little off too. you should also emphasize the "returned to the state department" 110 emails containing classified information at the time of sending- that they fucking forgot to sanitize before returning to body investigating them for wrong-doing.
It used to, anyway. Assange pretty much destroyed it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There was nothing illegal about Clinton using her own email server for government work. It would be illegal now, but that law was passed a year after Clinton left State.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Got a link? Why is someone a shill for stating a fact: https://www.charitywatch.org/r...
Um, since when was it in the least unusual for a celebrity to give a private speech to an organization in exchange for speaking fees (no scare quotes necessary)? And what the heck would the Secretary of State be doing administering a Treasury program like TARP?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Could you point me at the law here? This sounds fishy, the sort of thing that would be in the UCMJ or contractual arrangements.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Does Clinton? I guess neither are criminals.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I did check on the law concerning email servers. It would be illegal now but wasn't when Clinton was Secretary of State. I would feel better about it if it had been well administered, since I have no particular faith in government IT security.
Legally, she hasn't been convicted of a crime, so she's not a criminal. Neither is Trump.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Please point to the word "negligence" that doesn't occur with the word "gross". There's a difference between "negligence" and "gross negligence", and I'm not enough of a lawyer to sort that one out. The fact that there was only about a hundred classified documents among tens of thousands suggests negligence but not gross negligence to me, but I'm not an authority.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Realistically, Clinton was probably not briefed intensely, and that probably applies to all Cabinet-level officials. I'm also inclined to give a lot of leeway for operations at that level, since those people are supposed to be able to make decisions in the interests of the country. That doesn't mean I'll give any of them a pass for violating the rights of individuals, but handling classified material is a government function that doesn't violate anyone's rights.
Is anyone sure that Powell didn't have classified documents at some time on his private email account? I wouldn't be surprised if he did. I also wouldn't particularly care.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And Clinton had personal emails deleted. Apparently insufficient care was used, because some government emails got deleted also.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Well, the Secretary of State should be qualified. She showed she isn't. That's the difference.
I'm not defending her. I'm attacking her attackers. There's a difference.
Learn to love Alaska
She's not qualified because you don't like her, so every action take by her is proof of incompetence. Like Benghazi, the Republicans in Congress cut the security budget, so Clinton's at fault for sticking to her reduced budget, and she should have violated the Constitution to spend more than budgeted in defense of Americans. I can't find anything bad that's happened in the past 30 years that Hillary didn't personally do.
Learn to love Alaska
No, she definitely doesn't have any criminal convictions. I was only unsure of whether Trump had been.
The CF was hacked in August http://www.reuters.com/article... The people working at the Clinton Foundation were sent copies of DNC docs or work for both and just copied the docs right over.
If people somehow think the Clinton Foundation keeps completely separated systems from the DNC they are completely lost. Clinton couldn't even keep work , personal and classified separate.
That's impressive. It's almost like you have causation reversed. I didn't dislike her until I heard about the things she did. In fact, before I heard about the things Bill did I liked him a lot and had little opinion on the first lady. I don't even understand where you came up with the BS in that comment.
I did check on the law concerning email servers. It would be illegal now but wasn't when Clinton was Secretary of State. I would feel better about it if it had been well administered, since I have no particular faith in government IT security.
Do you have a citation for that?
That is another piece of information I could not thus far find a reliable source for.
Comey sure made it sound as if he was using his discretion, and precedent to decide not to indict Hillary. To me this implies that he already knows which laws he would accuse her of having violated if he did decide to pursue the case, otherwise he imagine he would have said something like "We can't indict Hillary (even if we wanted to) because there are no laws that she has broken".
Whether she actually violated those laws is obviously for the courts to decide if the FBI had decided to pursue the case. But the fact remains that because the FBI did not pursue it (not that they should have), we don't actually know if she broke any laws, only that she has (still) never been convicted of any crimes, and is therefore (still) not a criminal.
But I think it is still important to have good information as to whether she indeed broke any laws, independent of whether she was actually convicted of any crimes.
Legally, she hasn't been convicted of a crime, so she's not a criminal. Neither is Trump.
That's basically where I am at right now, barring new evidence to the contrary.
Citations needed.
Which should be trivial, as the top employees of both the DNC and the Foundation are public record.
Politifact was busted in DNCleaks , guilty of bias and constant straw-man arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Except the CF doesn't , all the CF expenses pay other Clinton charity groups,which pay other charities and down the line. Hardly any of the funds go to actual charity.
Just look at the CF charity expense reports, the basically all directly pay another clinton charity.
Clinton Health Access Initiative $128,845,117 64.0%
Clinton Global Initiative $23,176,059 11.5%
Clinton Presidential Center $12,308,704 6.1%
Clinton Climate Initiative $8,293,416 4.1%
Clicking on any of the other Clinton charities brings you right back to the Clinton Foundation report.
She's been hated for 30 years, and under constant investigation for almost 30 years. If you are only hearing about it now, that indicates a high level of ignorance. Did you not know she was named in Whitewater? The hatred for her started many years ago, and you'd be the first person I've met who didn't have any opinion on her prior to her appointment to Secretary of State. You held no opinion of her whatsoever in 2008? You do know, this isn't the first time she ran for president, right? Or are you saying that you didn't have an opinion on her until you heard her tried and convicted in the media, and then formed your opinion of her after that?
Learn to love Alaska
You're still making things up. My negative opinion of her started when she purchased her Senate seat by pre-establishing a nomination in a guaranteed Blue area that she didn't live in, buying a house, and winning based on the predetermined outcome. I didn't have any interest in the first lady, so yes, not knowing things is literally ignorance. I learned about her after the things she did while I was paying attention.
Plenty of hillaryclinton.com over hear. Oh I guess you are saying the Clinton Foundation never sends anything to hillaryclinton . Nonsense https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...
My negative opinion of her started when she purchased her Senate seat by pre-establishing a nomination in a guaranteed Blue area that she didn't live in,
Ah, yes. We called that "pulling a Cheney" at the time. Everything she's hated for she just copied a Republican.
Learn to love Alaska
Yeah, you realize they're both evil parties?
That was some time ago, and I'm not remembering where I got that.
However, the legality of the email server has nothing to do with the legality of anything done with it. She may well have broken the law doing things on a perfectly legal server.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you'd done what Clinton did, you would have been disciplined administratively, perhaps losing your job and/or your clearance. That is what the FBI director said, and I know of no case where negligence in handling classified materials resulted in a felony conviction. If you know of a case, I'd love to hear of it.
Federal records don't have to be available on-line at all times. Clinton handed over the federal records from her server, although it looks like there was some carelessness there also.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I can't point to law, and I'm not sure it's exactly a law with a USC number (it could be derived from a few different laws or simply policies regarding handling of classified information), but anyone who has ever had a clearance _and_ worked in a secure facility can tell you that. If you plug a thumb drive into a secure computer, that thumb drive can't leave the lab. If you connect a laptop to a secure network, that laptop can't leave the lab. Further, neither could be then connected to an unsecured network.
I didn't mean to suggest that simply having an email server was illegal (even for a secretary of state). The internal rule she broke was using this private server for official government business. I just don't know if breaking this rule was also illegal.
Moreover it appears that she took it upon herself to delete emails she claims were of a personal nature before handing over her server to the authorities. If true, this seems pretty bad to me. Even if she is telling the truth, about having only deleted personal emails, she should not be the one to decide which emails were private and which are not. If there is a conflict between her privacy and independent oversight of the sanitization of this email database of personal email, her privacy should lose, because she was the one who decided to use a private email server for government business.
Being in the defense industry myself, we are subject to all sorts of rules, where breaking them would violate not only company policy, but potentially constitute a crime where I *may* be subject to fines and prison time.
I was also under the impression (I think I heard on NPR) that she was indeed subject to new rules (which she broke) that past secretaries of state were not (because they didn't yet exist). I don't know if these are the same new rules you are referring to.
And just to be clear: I hope she beats Donald Trump. I am not someone who wants to see her in prison out of partisanship. I don't want to see her in prison at all, if she just screwed up and did not do anything wrong intentionally. But I don't think she should get a pass just because she's a powerful politician and the only one who can beat Trump.
It's important to note the headline is a lie from the hacker: the "dump" is a collection of docs from the previous DNC hack and has nothing to do with the Clinton Foundation.
The ploy clearly worked though - too many people stop at the headline.
http://arstechnica.com/securit...
Why on earth would the Clinton's charitable foundation have be on the same network as the Democratic National Convention? Are . . . you suggesting they're like in the same office building or something? Like maybe some dentist's office in the same building also had their files ganked because it was all shared? That's just bizarre.
The main problem here is that none of the leaked documents are _from the Clinton Foundation_. If it is from a CF hack, the only folder they got was "Stuff from DNC and DCCC."
The assertion in the article that CF donor lists are in the dump is false, just part of the red herring. There IS a donor list in the dump . . . from the DCCC.
Unless you can prove to us that you showed similar indignation over Bush, Cheney and Rove deleting literally millions of emails proving they raped the US Constitution, you should probably STFU, because your hypocrisy is sickening to decent people.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
Care to "correct the narrative" some more? Or are you calling James Comey a liar?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?