Slashdot Mirror
Mike Pence Used His AOL Email For Indiana State Business -- and It Got Hacked (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Vice President Mike Pence used a personal AOL email account to conduct sensitive state business -- including issues related to homeland security -- as the governor of Indiana, according to a report from The Indianapolis Star. Not only that, but Pence's email account was also compromised last year, the report reveals. Because personal email accounts are not subject to same types of public transparency laws, it's up to the official and his or her transition staff to hand over any sensitive state-related messages for archiving. Emails from a state account are automatically stored on state servers and subject to public records requests. Pence's office claims the contents of his personal AOL account used for state business are in fact in the process of being archived. A larger concern, however, is security. By using a private AOL account to conduct sensitive state matters, Pence could have exposed sensitive state business. In the hacking incident last year, Pence's email account was compromised by a scammer who used it to try and extort money from members of his contact list by claiming Pence and his wife were stranded in the Philippines, The Indianapolis Star reports. This hack didn't appear to have had been designed specifically to breach Pence's office, which made clear that his AOL account could be compromised by relatively benign breaching techniques designed by spammers and low-level hackers. It is not illegal in Indiana to own and use a personal account while in office, nor is it against the law to handle work-related matters from a personal account -- so long as those emails are in some way archived. However, the Star reports that Pence made no efforts to preserve his AOL emails under after he left office and is only just now doing months after public records requests were first made. "Similar to previous governors, during his time as governor of Indiana, Mike Pence maintained a state email account and a personal email account," reads a statement given to the The Indianapolis Star. "As governor, Mr. Pence fully complied with Indiana law regarding email use and retention. Government emails involving his state and personal accounts are being archived by the state consistent with Indiana law, and are being managed according to Indiana's Access to Public Records Act."
Pence has the correct consonant after his name, so we don't need to investigate this any further. Only people with that cursed mark of the Devil need to be investigated (repeatedly) for offenses relating to email. We all know that Mr. Pence is the very model of morality and will be completely transparent and forthcoming on this innocent mistake.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Turn on a news channel (or Twitter) to hear Trump rant about how evil and unacceptable email hacks are any second now.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Will these morons never learn?
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
It is more disturbing if he was still using AOL last year.
Or is this an old abandoned account that someone dug up?
Back when AOL was new, it was the thing to use. Sadly, when you stop using an account, it can be a pain to get it erased.
1) How long ago was the last time he used this account.
2) How long ago did he use it for official business?
For a moment I thought there's really one area where the Dems are even stupider than the GOP.
The world is in balance again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hillary on the other hand broke federal law 1000s of times. Lock her up!
Queue the reasonable arguments regarding unsecure email habits by powerful politicians that avoid partisan bickering.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Did Mike share top secret information over his personal email? No.
Actually, we do not know what was shared. They are explicitly witholding "sensitive" emails.
Did Mike use his personal email to discuss P4P "donations" to a personal charity? No.
See above.
If there is no issue, then why is Indiana explicitly withholding emails due to sensitive nature?
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/pence-used-personal-email-state-business----and-hacked/98604904/
---
The administration of Pence’s successor, Gov. Eric Holcomb, released 29 pages of emails late this past week. But it withheld others, saying they are deliberative or advisory, confidential under rules adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court or the work product of an attorney.
Holcomb’s office declined to disclose how many emails were withheld.
Yeah, no one dealing with the State of Indiana could have ever used that information to screw Hoosiers.
If you are going to white wash the Administration, at least try to be intelligent.
. . . if they figure out where it is.
Somewhere near Chih-cah-go?
>scrub his email server hardware after the fact during an investigation
That's called destroying evidence involved in a federal investigation. It comes with a 20 year sentence for anyone subject to the laws.
And you missed lying under oath. 15 years ago, in a wholly trifling personal matter, got a president Impeached. Now our elected officials can be caught red handed destroying evidence against themselves in a federal case and be greeted by the press and public with thunderous applause.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The summary mentions that. However it's still an incredibly bad idea for an elected official to use a personal email for any type of official work as it provides an easy way to hide documents and correspondence that should be in the public record or at least archived. The fact that he only recently started archiving the work emails from his private account strongly suggests that he had no intentions to do so unless pressed for them. In light of the furor that Republicans built up after Hillary's email issue, the fact that someone high up in the current administration did essentially the same thing (no matter if it was allowed or not) smacks of hypocrisy.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Seriously, what do you expect from anyone his age? Back then AOL pretty much was the internet for average people, unless you had access to the real internet through a university or (sometimes) your place of work.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Fake News would imply the content was incorrect, invented or misleading.
This is not fake news, it happened. There is proof it happened. Just like most of Donald's "fake news" it's not that it's fake, its that he doesn't like it being made public.
Now, what Pence did is NOT illegal. You're not going to see an investigation into it because he hasn't done anything illegal. That doesn't mean it isn't a highly questionable thing to do. It also doesn't wash away the hypocrisy of being part of a ticket whose main selling point was that the main rival was unfit to rule for doing the exact same thing.
Absolutely not illegal what Pence did- but it's not fake news because it was a foolish choice he made and that partially reflects on his fitness to govern, just like it did, as his ticket pointed out, on Hillary's.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
The mere act of using a private email for government business is wrong and should be punished. However, let us not forget that the point of all of this anger isn't the fact that a personal email was used. The anger came about because of what was found on said personal email server. Let us compare between the two politicians:
Did Mike share top secret information over his personal email? No.
Did Mike use his personal email to share deleterious information about any of his campaigns? No.
Did Mike say or do anything particularly damning in his emails (pizza anyone)? No.
Did Mike scrub his email server hardware after the fact during an investigation? No.
Did Mike use his personal email to discuss P4P "donations" to a personal charity? No.
How do you know? He's had months to scrub the emails before he began archiving them. That's why politicians shouldn't use private accounts for official business whether it's illegal or not. Even if he didn't intend to, it gives the appearance of deception and clearly provides the opportunity to do so. Scandals are created and careers destroyed on the mere possibility of impropriety all the time. Look at Flynn.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
That may well be, but at least he uses punctuation in his writings.
In the U.S. we have Constitutional protections against this garbage!
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
The use of a private email server wasn't prohibited by federal government statues applying to Hillary Clinton either... but that didn't seem to stop significant public concern.
Use of privatized and hacked email servers seemed to be of great issue to the general public which significantly contributed to many voters decisions during the 2016 election. So, based on the general public's flawed logic of determining significance relative to elected officials, this information regarding Pence is also quite pertinent to know.
Coverage on private email server issues from both sides was/is idiotic, but maybe this type of information is needed to help educate the public for their future choices.
Amateur Dilettantes in the White House, what did you expect?
It will get much worse, mark my words.
Sensitive =/= classified.
Remember, Hillary repeatedly justified her use of a private server by claiming she "never sent or received classified material" (later amended to say "never sent classified material", later amended to say "what hard drive backups?")
The FBI investigation into her server did not focus on "sensitive" information, which is not a legal definition. It focused on "classified" information, which is explicitly defined in the statutes she was found to have broken.
Until such evidence that classified information was passed through an unclassified system, this is going to continue to look like the discordant screeching from a panicked and impotent leftist establishment that has been the story du jour of the past few months.
This may shock you, but the laws usually work the way you suggest. At least the federal records laws do. They define what makes something a government record, how such records must be retained and deposited for oversight, and the penalties for failing to do so. Notably absent is any reference to email, much less a distinction between government and private email servers.
There is the separate question of what administrative policies say, and what formalisms an official must follow to change or deviate from those policies. That's part of what tripped up Hillary Clinton: she wanted to change the rules but did not actually change them. I don't know how that applies here -- maybe Pence did violate some administrative rule.
The use of a private email server to handle classified information is most certainly prohibited by federal law. Might want to double check your facts here.
A large part of Clinton's problems were because her use of private email servers looked like an effort to avoid legally required oversight: avoiding use of any government email account, not depositing government records when she left government service, and only disclosing things when caught. None of those factors look likely in Pence's case, but maybe something will turn up yet.
In addition to AC's comment above, another salient issue is data retention laws, which is why official use of a private email account is such a red flag. I only RTFS, but it seems the personal account in this case was is still archived by Yahoo! and therefore searchable.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Did Mike share top secret information over his personal email? No.
Actually, we do not know what was shared. They are explicitly witholding "sensitive" emails.
AC conspiracy-mongering aside, we do know for a fact that he didn't share top secret information over his personal email for the profoundly simple reason that he wouldn't have had a top secret clearance at the time.
So there's no way he could have had top secret information to share -- unless, of course, Hillary emailed it to him.
I honestly can't tell if your post is a parody or not. Is this a case of Poe's law?
If You or your media outlet was one of the ones that defended or didn't criticize as a fatal flaw: Hillary Clinton and her most glaring case of using personal E-mail server to cause security exposures and Fail to deliver items ordered by the court,
Then you already lost any right to criticize Pence, Etc, for lesser cases Of use of a personal e-mail account.
That seems to be pretty much All people and All the media outlets, by the way.
I don't agree, but For some reason we as a society decided it was all OK, At least for anything that was going on before 2016.
The use of a private email server wasn't prohibited by federal government statues applying to Hillary Clinton either... but that didn't seem to stop significant public concern.
...
It's better to keep silent and let people wonder if you're an idiot than it is to open your pie hole and remove all doubt.
Because if you think putting classified data on a private, internet-connected server is not illegal, you are one 24-karat solid gold idiot.
Please don't reproduce.
Of all the complaints about her emails, this has to be the most mind-boggling to me. Allow me to explain why.
The claim is that the purpose of her use of a private server was to evade public records laws and scrutiny. This is directly in contrast to the chain of events that led to the discovery of her email server:
1) Congress sends State Dept. a subpoena for Clinton's emails.
2) State Dept. IT, aware that they don't have them, sends a request to Clinton's people for the emails.
Now, what would you expect someone that was trying to avoid scrutiny to do, at this point, when they received the first official request for those emails? I'm pretty sure the answer is anything but "promptly and immediately start handing them over." I guess you can quibble about the emails that were marked as personal and not handed over, but really, I've yet to hear anything solid about that other than "she's shady I don't trust her and she's probably got all kinds of dirt hidden in those 'personal' emails." Moreover, this is direct evidence of a massive double standard, when people give those like Pence the benefit of the doubt, but refuse to give any to Clinton.
Pence didn't have AOL/Yahoo! wipe his emails (like, with a cloth or something?), and there's no indication that he's tried to hide anything.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Hillary ran her own server in her basement and had her three stooges delete 30,000 wedding and yoga emails. Pence used an AOL account - the contents of which could have been obtained via subpoena at any time.
The former stinks of coverup - the latter just looks like an old guy using AOL because he didn't know any better.
Your facts are impeding the narrative, therefore they are racist.
EXCEPT, when this began coming out and she didn't turn them all over, Congress issued a subpoena for the rest of them. 3 days after she received the subpoena, yes exactly 3 days AFTER, she deleted 30,000+ emails from her server and all the backups she had. We even have the email requesting everything be wiped, with the date of 3 days after the subpoena.
So handing over stuff you know won't cause you issues is what you are claiming shows she is not guilty. Deleting evidence AFTER a subpoena is what I am saying makes her guilty of... destruction of evidence during an investigation, by definition.
There is a difference between using a commercial email service like Yahoo or Gmail and using your own email server. Hillary used her own private server so she could truly delete email she didn't want being made public. This issue doesn't exist if one uses Yahoo or Gmail.
Demoncrats are just searching. They're still talking about Russia.
What about Hitlery's:
Foreign govt donations while SoS?
Deleting email?
Election corruption in Detroit?
Connections with Saudis, Qatar?
DNC rigging?
They hosed themselves. Bernie would have won but good riddance. He's just as corrupt as the rest of them.
They are still in denial that the Midwest hated that pantsuit hag.
We liberals need to unify and defeat them in the polls. There is no other way. There is absolutely no point in trying to reason with them or find middle ground with them. Their game plan is to make the middle ground far into the right of center. We have taken our civil rights for granted. We have taken the hard won victories for granted. The confederates never stopped fighting. The confederates have defeated the Union 150 years later. It is time to take our Union back. We will. Or my children will.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
If he was using an AOL/Yahoo! account it is all backed up at the NSA, so there should be no problem making any of it public for review.
I'm not going to address the non-criminal points you make. Those are character issues. I will address the one issue that is a matter of law:
Did Mike share top secret information over his personal email?
The reason she was never prosecuted was quite simple. She didn't actually break the law. The fact is that as best the FBI could determine, Hillary Clinton didn't knowingly share any secret information. If that were not the case you can be quite sure they would have prosecuted her after Trump was sworn in.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
Fake News would imply the content was incorrect, invented or misleading.
I think there are two different definitions of "fake news" running around. In the original "fake news" story it was about a left-wing activist who wanted to "prove" right wingers were dumb and will fall for stupid shit so he created a news blog with completely made up facts, like that protestors were being paid $3500 to protest against Trump. This wasn't true, protestors were being paid around $16 via craigslist posts by people affiliated with Moveon.org, but it's useful disinformation for those who don't pay too much attention. Mention some protestors are being paid, and someone can scream "that was fake news!" And they're half right because they heard about the $3500 fake news and not the $16 real news. Anyway, then he'd post his fake news site in the comments sections of right wing blogs, and immediately someone would say "don't spread this crap, it's fake." The author then goes on NPR and says "hurr durr Trump won because these right wingers are peddling all this fake news I made!" Uh, if the left wing hack weren't making the fake news there wouldn't be fake news, if he weren't spreading it fake news wouldn't spread, and nobody believed him anyway. It's literally the "I was just pretending to be retarded" meme.
Then we have the way the mainstream media does fake news, which is fake context. People don't think in terms of facts, they think in terms of narratives. CNN does shit like this where you have a true fact (the video of the sister) but a fake narrative ('urged peace;" she did not). Or this story, where they're trying to conflate Pence's legal use of a private email account for state business with Hillary's illegal use of a private email server for classified information. The facts don't really matter. They're working a narrative ("Trump's administration is full of sloppy crooks who are puppets to Russians/Jews/aliens/Lizard Men from the Hollow Earth") using confirmation bias. Put out enough scary-sounding headlines describing legal behavior or wild speculation and confirmation bias takes over until people unironically believe that ultra-nationalist Jeff Sessions is a commie-rooskie agent. This won't work on Republicans or most normal independents, but the left has lost their grip on reality long ago, and Dems are probably checking under their beds for Russians at this point.
I have no idea how to break people out of these hallucinations. I wondered when Trump won the New Hampshire primaries and HuffPo ran their headline, literally in all caps "WAR IN EUROPE" sized that "NEW HAMPSHIRE GOES RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBIC!!!!!" what would happen when Trump wins the general election? New Hampshire voters went for Trump because he said he'd get the $10 heroin off their streets, not because they're secret nazis. Would their readers snap out of it and realize HuffPo was misleading them? Nope. My FaceBook page is still full of hysterical women who think Russian Hitler is about to gas all non-straight white christian males. And the media just keeps adding fuel to the fire. How does this end?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Now, what would you expect someone that was trying to avoid scrutiny to do, at this point, when they received the first official request for those emails?
I would expect them to do EXACTLY what Hillary did: turn over a limited number of the requested emails and delete the remainder while claiming that the ones turned over were all of them.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Clinton and Pence both hired a law firm to determine which emails would be considered private and which emails would be subject to the records keeping act. It was not illegal for neither Pence nor Clinton to use a private (non-gov) account, as long as they submitted all "official business" emails for record-keeping. Both did.
There is no material difference between using an AOL account or using a private server. Indeed, one could argue that using a private server you can at least account for who have had access to the emails. In the AOL case, there is no way of knowing. A private account - on AOL or a private server - cannot be used for classified material.
In the Clinton case it *was* determined that she had sent
- some emails where the contents was retroactively classified. This is not criminal, as Clinton the material *was not* classified at the time.
- A total of 3 emails which contained classified information at the time. However, the "classfied" markings were non-standard which could explain why Clinton did not notice them.
It was not illegal to set up at private server. Clinton was clearly aware that she should not use it for classified material; otherwise you would see a lot of classified material with standard markings on the server. Which there was not.
Maybe she should have realized that there was a risk that she may accidentally send classified material. IMO the greater risk was that state dept. employees would send classified material *to* her account. Was it reckless? Possibly. Criminal? No.
If Pence has sent classified material from his AOL account, it is equally illegal, regardless of whether the account was "official". If he did not instruct aides to avoid sending classified material *to* his account, it would be equally reckless.
Fun fact: Pence was hacked. Clintons email server was not.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Fake News would imply the content was incorrect, invented or misleading.
This is not fake news, it happened. There is proof it happened. Just like most of Donald's "fake news" it's not that it's fake, its that he doesn't like it being made public.
Now, what Pence did is NOT illegal. You're not going to see an investigation into it because he hasn't done anything illegal. That doesn't mean it isn't a highly questionable thing to do. It also doesn't wash away the hypocrisy of being part of a ticket whose main selling point was that the main rival was unfit to rule for doing the exact same thing.
Absolutely not illegal what Pence did- but it's not fake news because it was a foolish choice he made and that partially reflects on his fitness to govern, just like it did, as his ticket pointed out, on Hillary's.
Well what Clinton did was illegal because there was classified data on her server. Whether or not what Pence did was illegal in Indiana, I can't say. But it should be illegal at all levels. If your city or county wants to enter into a contract to have its mail hosted by AOL, that is one thing. But all government communications should flow through a mail server specifically chosen by that government agency for record keeping purposes. Private email addresses should not be allowed
Yes, let the hate flow.
However it's still an incredibly bad idea for an elected official to use a personal email for any type of official work as it provides an easy way to hide documents and correspondence that should be in the public record or at least archived.
I agree, I think the problem is that when you're an elected official so much of your personal life is conflated with your private life it's hard to keep 100% separate. If you're emailing your wife about being late to your daughter's dance recital because you're "still in this meeting talking about the XYZ bill," oh no, now there's "details of official meetings" in your personal email!
It seems a lot of government agencies at all levels probably need to review their email handling procedures. Law, particularly for technology and behavior of elected officials, doesn't move that fast. A lot of things that seem obvious because they're common practice in industry don't get written into law because there isn't that much of an incentive to do so.
The fact that he only recently started archiving the work emails from his private account strongly suggests that he had no intentions to do so unless pressed for them.
They might have been meaningless. See above with the dance recital example.
In light of the furor that Republicans built up after Hillary's email issue, the fact that someone high up in the current administration did essentially the same thing (no matter if it was allowed or not) smacks of hypocrisy.
Ehhhhhh no. You're mixing up the medium (email) with the crime (mishandling of classified information). Pence did not have top secret clearance as governor of Indiana and was not trafficking in classified information. Hillary did and was. This is a type of "fake news." True facts about Pence's use of personal email, but completely fake context to damage his reputation by tying his legal behavior to Hillary's illegal behavior.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Read what the OP said again. Don't Kelly Ann the conversation by changing it.
The use of a private email server wasn't prohibited by federal government statues applying to Hillary Clinton
That is a true statement.
The OP left out 2 things:
Things were done wrong, but just having a private e-mail server set up and secured by the Secret Service for the former President's use, and then used by Senator and Secretary H. Clinton was not what was wrong.
It was stupid to use it, but if no classified information had ever been sent or it wasn't done to skirt disclosure laws, then she would have just been embarrassed and not investigated.
The exact same thing applies to Pence. It is really dumb for him to use a private account for government business. If no Indiana "secrets" were revealed ( ie corn or soybean crop yields, pork belly futures), and it wasn't done to skirt disclosure laws, Then Pence is just stupid but not criminal.
Just as most of the Democrats still don't seem to realize that nominating one of the most despised figures in American politics as your candidate for POTUS is not a good strategy for winning an election, most Republicans don't seem to realize that being seen as acting exactly like the Democrats they're always complaining about results in the public despising Republicans as well.
The Democrats didn't win this last election, but neither did the Republicans. Trump won. Trump beat 12 Republicans on his way to the nomination. He wiped the floor with them. Some of them were extremely high profile, well funded candidates. Most of them were a waste of space. None of them stood a chance against Trump. Two years ago Trump was booed at CPAC, and Ted Cruz was held up as a shining example as the perfect, righteous candidate to lead the nation into its future. Trump walked all over "Lying" Ted Cruz.
Boehner, Ryan and others seem to act like they won last November. The Republicans lost. They lost a little less than the Democrats did, but Trump still whipped Republican @$$.
Sadly, both parties seem to be doubling down on the strategy of 'business as usual', which is a much greater threat to the country that the great orange one's erratic tweets.
The great thing about being an unthinking political automaton is that you don't have to show any originality. You just vomit out the standard response every time someone pulls your puppet string.
. . . which is why you failed to defend the fact that all of Clinton's emails were on her private server versus just some of Pence's on a private account.
All versus some, an account versus a server, and an investigation into illegal acts versus no investigation into anything illegal are big differences. Not to mention 1 of 50 states affected versus all of them in Clinton's case.
Not even closely comparable. Nice try though . . .
"Mike Pence Used His AOL Email..."
He uses AOL....I think we've heard all we need to hear. The man is clearly unfit for office.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
You will see an investigation - the investigation into the Russian collaboration with the Trump campain . You can bet that those emails will be requested.
With Hillary you have to pay attention to her exact words.
Ok, lets look at what she actually said:
“This is another instance where what is common practice — I need information, I had some points I had to make and I was waiting for a secure fax that could give me the whole picture, but oftentimes there is a lot of information that isn’t at all classified,” Clinton said Sunday on "Face the Nation." “So whatever information can be appropriately transmitted unclassified often was. That’s true for every agency in the government and everybody that does business with the government.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/265367-clinton-defends-telling-aid-to-send-data-through-nonsecure-channel
Later we found out that's because she ordered her people to (unlawfully) remove the markings.
As you can see, that's false. Furthermore, you've been corrected many times and continue to repeat that lie. You don't have any interest in the truth, only scoring points for your "team."
Of course in some cases they didn't remove the markings, so she did have stuff marked classified too.
There were only two emails that contained any markings.* They were her phone call schedules for the day that had been declassified and partial markings were incorrectly left in the middle of the documents. Her call sheets are only classified to begin with in case the calls aren't made so as to avoid embarrassing the other party that they were blown off by the secretary of state. You can see the two documents yourself in the emails released by the state department. Which is all the proof you need that they were indeed unclassified because "leaking" does not declassify a document, so the fact that they were published by the state department proves they were unclassified.
Here are the two emails, you can see the errnoneous "(C)" (for confidential, the lowest level of classification) on the individual line-items:
CALL TO PRESIDENT BANDA
KOFI ANNAN CALL SHEET
* state department press statement that there were only two such cases search for "aware of two" to find the part of the press conference where that is confirmed.
Who had Pence going to jail before Trump?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
I like Hillary but I think herein lies the problem. She didn't turn them all over. She had her own people go through and decide which ones were personal. Sorry once you mix work and personal emails this way, you have to turn over the whole trove. Presumably she didn't want to do that because there may have been embarrassing personal things. I'm sure my personal email would get me raked over the coals. But I don't mix work email with personal. It was a terrible decision to mix the two emails. That part is a bigger problem than the fact that it was a private server.
I have seen Bernie Goldberg make the argument that what media organizations do is simple bias, while fake news is stuff like Pizzagate. Except that media organizations make up stuff out of whole cloth, like the report about trannie suicides going thru the roof since Trump became president.
I'm actually glad that by slamming the MSM as fake news, Trump has blurred the lines b/w your average Michael Moore type of guy manufacturing stories out of whole cloth, vs the MSM doing it. Both have intentions to mislead, and both due to the same reason: their bias.
This doesn't bother me at all. Here in Florida, we have "government in the sunshine" laws. We don't have to hack politicians email accounts to see what is going on. The rest of the country ought to adopt the same way of governing. Then you could just have blank passwords.
I think there are two different definitions of "fake news" running around. In the original "fake news" story it was about a left-wing activist who wanted to "prove" right wingers were dumb and will fall for stupid shit so he created a news blog with completely made up facts, like that protestors were being paid $3500 to protest against Trump...
...Then we have the way the mainstream media does fake news, which is fake context...
The facts are in the article. Nothing factually incorrect is being stated. If you think a news site is highlighting certain stories or over hyping stories that to you are non-entities that would represent a "biased" news source, not "fake news". Using the term "Fake News" to refer to an item you think is biased against your world-view is disingenuous at best and a down right lie at worst.
There is plenty of biased news articles out there on both sides of the political spectrum. Let's call them what they are though. Biased, not fake.
Now in this case, as a moderate centrist myself, I do think what Pence is wrong. I think it makes him a hypocrite to boot. Am I fuming and jumping up and down demanding his resignation. No. I personally think he's a lousy pick for an executive of the country, but this latest story doesn't sound like a huge deal to me. I think it's important to be brought up as news, it's certainly not biased to mention it. The bias will be if this is still headlining a week from now- that will be making a mountain out of a molehill. I'd be very surprised if the media hasn't moved on to the next scandal by then.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
But using an AOL email account in 2016 should be a crime.
A total of 3 emails which contained classified information at the time. However, the "classfied" markings were non-standard which could explain why Clinton did not notice them.
Here is Comey himself testifying that they were incorrectly marked:
Director Comey: No, there were three e-mails. The “c” was in the body in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
Rep. Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what’s not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
Director Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.
In addition, they had already been declassified at that time (which explains why the headers were removed):
“Generally speaking, there’s a standard process for developing call sheets for the Secretary of State. Call sheets are often marked – it’s not untypical at all for them to be marked at the confidential level - prior to a decision by the Secretary that he or she will make that call. Oftentimes, once it is clear that the Secretary intends to make a call, the department will then consider the call sheet SBU, sensitive but unclassified, or unclassified altogether, and then mark it appropriately and prepare it for the secretary’s use in actually making the call. The classification of a call sheet therefore is not necessarily fixed in time, and staffers in the Secretary’s office who are involved in preparing and finalizing these call sheets, they understand that. Those markings were a human error. They didn’t need to be there.”
Source: FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified
So let me see if I'm clear on your two points:
A) According to some people the Obama State Department, as far as they know, only twice did they forget to remove the "classified" markings as requested.
That's an excellent point! Hillary's great if her staff only occasionally fails to correctly follow her illegal instructions.
B) According to Hillary, when she told someone to remove the markings and send nonsecure, she didn't think he'd actually do it - he knew better than to send classified material nonsecure.
So Hillary says she's okay, and her former staff say they normally managed to follow her unlawful orders without screwing up. Only a couple times did they leave the markings in place. That makes everything okay then!
Trump won, but his coattails are questionable, and I say this as someone who supports Trump over the GOP. Like in NC, the first candidate who ran in a primary linking her name to his, lost. Similarly, in AZ, Kelly Wirt lost to John McCain, despite it being an open secret of how Trump's last minute endorsement of the latter was more due to Priebus putting pressure on him
In the Congress, the Republicans can claim that they won. Like in the senate races, 2 of the Republicans who distanced themselves from Trump - Kelly Ayotte and another candidate from IL - lost, but other GOP senators and congressmen who ran despite distancing themselves from Trump due to the Access Hollywood tapes, not only won, but won convincingly. The GOP successfully defended every senate seat, but failed to win a few, like Harry Reid's, while in the house, they lost around 5, when they were expected to lose a lot more.
As for CPAC, Trump skipped it last year, and was the star this year, b'cos he came out w/ an even more convervative cabinet than Reagan - forget the Bushes. That, as well as his EOs. If one wins the way he did, one gets to redefine what's Conservative, and what's not.
*coughs* Lock Him Up! Lock Him Up!
Did Mike share top secret information over his personal email? We don't know because those who hacked his server didn't release the e-mails in order to sway an election.
Did Mike use his personal email to share deleterious information about any of his campaigns? We don't know because those who hacked his server didn't release the e-mails in order to sway an election.
Did Mike say or do anything particularly damning in his emails (pizza anyone)? We don't know because those who hacked his server didn't release the e-mails in order to sway an election.
Did Mike scrub his email server hardware after the fact during an investigation? What investigation? I guess being a man makes it unnecessary to investigate him and we can simply conclude there was no wrong doing.
Did Mike use his personal email to discuss P4P "donations" to a personal charity? We don't know because those who hacked his server didn't release the e-mails in order to sway an election..
I was under the impression she hired an external law firm to determine which were which, and did not use her own people.
Rational thought is the only true freedom
fake news is stuff like Pizzagate.
The way that got handled in the media was really weird. "Pizzagate" isn't even pizzagate. The media just came out and screamed "FAAAAAKEEEE!" with no explanation for the bizarre facts that made people think something weird was going on to begin with.
It was not made up out of whole cloth, it was a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are not "fake news," they're...conspiracy theories. Alternative narratives for true facts that do not mesh with the "official" or obvious, default narrative. It would be fake news if someone had said "okay, we want to smear various DNC people as pedos...let's make up a story about this pizza place!" But it came from people reading Podesta's emails and finding odd things that sound like code words, and then tracking connections to known pedos and things that appeared to be pedo-related.
If you saw an email that said "hey lets get together and smoke some grass and snort some snow," and someone said "hmmm...that doesn't seem right. I don't think anyone picks blades of grass and smokes them, nor does anyone collect frozen water that falls from the sky and inhale it. I wonder if they mean something else, like illicit narcotics?" would that be "fake news?"
So there was weird stuff in Podesta's emails like someone saying they found a "map handkerchief that appears to be pizza-related," and various other odd food-related statements and wondered what the fuck they were talking about because they made no sense in context. There have always been conspiracy theories about elite pedo rings, and plenty that have been uncovered (British parliament, Catholic Church, the BBC, Epstein's pedo island that the Clintons have visited), Dennis Hastert probably wasn't acting alone, lots of statements from Hollywood child stars who say they were abused but refuse to name names, there were people busted for international child trafficking in Haiti who were bailed out by the Clinton Foundation....is it that ridiculous that the DNC has such skeletons, too? And then people started tracing associates of the Podestas, found the Comet pizza place with the really bizarre photos and social media posts, and a few other things. And then the media completely froze the story, focused 100% on the Comet place, said "This is ridiculous, fake news!!!" without explanation for any of it and that was that. They pretended like the entire story was the pizza place, and never even mentioned the emails, the Foundation, the other connections.
Very strange. Usually when there's a conspiracy theory ("I saw flashing lights in the sky that moved too fast and erratically to be an airplane! It must be aliens!") the g-man is supposed to come out and say "no, that was just swamp gas reflecting off a weather balloon, nothing to see here, move along." In this case they screamed "FAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKEEEEE!" with no explanation. If you want to debunk the conspiracy theory you need to provide the true narrative and explanation for the odd facts. "Oh, this is what a pizza-related map handkerchief is, don't you feel silly now!" Nope. Never did that.
What the fuck is a pizza-related map handkerchief?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
If irony was a mineral deposit, the Republicans would be sitting on the next goldmine.
Prove it or get modded to Hell and back. The State Dept. policy manual is not law.
Table-ized A.I.
This the GOP's SOP - do as we tell you to do, not as we do.
Ah, pizzagate.
What the fuck is a pizza-related map handkerchief?
I found lots of handkerchiefs with maps of various places and whatnot. However, this one seems to be close to what we're looking for. We should have wrenbirdarts locked up since that handkerchief clearly proves they're a pedo.
I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you people? You've taken the "loli haet pizza" meme to a new level of stupidity.
Who knows, but the media also has responsibility to dip down to tabloid stories like this. If there was a shred of evidence that could be investigated, maybe there would be a story on it.
Yes she did, there were emails containing classified information, obviously classified information. Whether she sent or received them the fact that they were in her email account, makes her a felon. Either for sending them and thus either deliberately compromising classified information, or through negligence and thus failing to protect classified information. The second charge has no requirement of intent. Or if she received said emails and failed to report the person who sent them, then she is again guilty of failing to protect classified information by not reporting the compromise.
She is guilty and needs to face charges. There is no two ways about it. You encounter classified information on an unclassified network and you have a clearance you had better be calling your Security officer to report it or you are in trouble. It's either your fault for putting the info on the unclass net or your fault for not reporting as soon as possible.
She wasn't prosecuted because Bill and Loretta worked out a fix on the Tarmac in AZ.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Yes, you are very clever. You parse your facts well. All-the-same, you must know that Hillary Clinton's personal email server was discovered during the investigation into the 9/11/2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. ambassador to Libya and his staff. Hillary (et al.) responded to the attack with rants about a "video." This was a very disturbing response to the attack. It sounds like a "red herring" that a guilty party would use to try to deflect blame. If we were able to read Hillary's emails related to the development of this speech we may be able to find why she tried to deflect blame for the violent attack. What was she trying to hide? We may never know because those emails have been deleted.
In all seriousness:
Millions of people have personal and work e-mails. That's perfectly normal. We can even use the personal ones for work-related issues, as our work and personal lives are often intertwined.
Hillary Clinton's crime was in using her unsecured server for classified information — in willful and reckless disregard of the law and the security requirements.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The "three stooges" were lawyers, and they were responding to not a subpoena, but a Freedom of Information Act request (so a much lower bar). That does not stink of coverup, especially since there was apparently plenty of
If you want better examples of coverup, look up the Bush email scandal, or the current Trump administration's (meaning the White House) use of "secure messaging" apps. Or the fact that many of them have gone back to using RNC email servers the the majority of their communications. Any bet we see another failure to backup of those emails when they get subpoenaed?
But more importantly: while then-Goveneor Pence was on the campaign trail criticizing Hilary Clinton about her use of a private email address, he was actively using his own for government business. The hypocrisy runs think there.
I say if true, convict.
I said the same thing of Hillary.
There, now everyone reading this can't say "Where are those people who said to investigate Hillary now that a Republican is in trouble?" Right here. Now shut up and stop playing sides.
Questions could be asked. All I want is somebody to bother asking Podesta and/or the people he was in contact with to give some context to the weird language in the emails. "What did you mean by a pizza-related map handkerchief?" "What did you mean by 'playing dominoes better on cheese or pasta?'" or whatever that was. The weird language is the "shred of evidence," and I'd like it explained. No one ever asked, though, the media just screamed "NOTHING TO SEE HERE FAKE NEWS!" and that was it.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Neither of those are a pizza-related map handkerchief.
I'm not saying the pizzagate thing is real, just that the media reaction is bizarre. You would think "lots of pedo connections, weird artwork, creepy pictures, odd phrases" would be enough for the media to even ask the question if there was something going on (elite pedo rings are hardly unheard of), but nope, just dismissed it out of hand and mock anybody who brought it up. What the hell is the point of journalists if they don't even investigate shit? Even just explaining what the real facts are, and the process by which people can be fooled into believing they're indicative of nefarious behavior would be a good story, right? "Here's the innocent explanation, here's the crazy misinterpretation." But you need the real innocent explanation, so you'd need to ask Podesta specifically what he was talking about in those emails.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
He believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old. I'm surprised he can tie his shoe laces in the morning.
The FBI and numerous sources state that it's probable it was hacked. Left wing source and Right wing source just in case you are biased in one direction or the other. Why can be found here, or talk to a security expert who has dealt with forensics if you want the technical details.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Directory Comey stated in testimony that the action was illegal. He stated that he did not recommend pressing charges since intent could be proven. You can find the testimony in front of Congress during questioning by Representative Trey Gowdy.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Even if she hired a law firm, that doesn't really change anything. That law firm will have a conflict of interest in wanting to meet their client's needs. Turn them all over to the investigators and deal with the consequences and don't mix work/personal email again. Even when separate email accounts are used it's often hard to decide where the official business ends and the personal stuff begins. But when using separate email you get to insert your opinion at the time of the communication. If you fail to do that, you don't get to decide in hindsight. Hillary handled this in the worst way possible and it's one of many things that may have cost her an election despite having the more popular policy platform and that's a shame.
I wonder if anyone thinks at all, about the difference in security between a federal account heading the secretary of state, and an account for anyone working at a state level...
I don't think ANY state communication would be classified secret, much less top secret.
Also did anyone ASK Pence if he used public email account? Because a big part of Hilary's issue (beyond just the federal crime of using an unsecured server for Top Secret documents) was that SHE LIED ABOUT DOING SO (Hello, Nixon!!) - and DELETED THOUSANDS OF EMAILS. Pence didn't delete anything, it's being archived as it should.
Both the Democrats and the press have gone mental trying to equate a number of email uses to the vastly different degree of security required between accounts... it's mind-boggling they keep trying to run up these different uses of email as equivalent.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Now, what would you expect someone that was trying to avoid scrutiny to do, at this point, when they received the first official request for those emails? I'm pretty sure the answer is anything but "promptly and immediately start handing them over."
This is a convoluted way to say "When asked for the emails, Hillary Clinton promptly and immediately handed them over." And I can only say: [citation needed]
If you are going to claim this, please provide references documenting this prompt and immediate handover.
I claim the opposite: that Hillary Clinton did not promptly and immediately hand anything over, but late and grudgingly. And I will provide references.
The gold standard is Sharyl Attkinson's timeline:
https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/
The Benghazi incident happened right before the election in 2012. Judicial Watch filed an FOIA request immediately after this, and Sharyl Attkinson filed one as well in December 2012. These FOIA requests included requests for Hillary Clinton emails related to Benghazi. So our clock starts ticking in November 2012.
February 2013: Judicial Watch sued the State Department for failing to respond to the FOIA requests.
August 2013: the Congress subpoenaed Benghazi-related documents.
2014: Judicial Watch files another FOIA request, then files another lawsuit when it gets no response.
Now, the key happened in December 2014. I'll quote it exactly instead of paraphrasing:
So two years after the first FOIA requests, Hillary Clinton finally turned over emails... printed on paper with minimal email header information. She and/or her team deleted literally tens of thousands of emails and then wiped the server. She claimed that these were personal emails, not work-related, but wiping the server was highly improper (actually illegal, I'm pretty sure, but nobody took action against her for it).
Note that the federal document retention laws required her to turn over copies of all work related communications on or before her last day as Secretary of State. She did not turn anything over until forced to, two years later, and she turned over printed paper. If she had simply used the government email system, the government would already have had all her emails; that's why she was supposed to be using the government email system. (She never asked for or received permission for deviating from the normal way of doing things, but those who knew what she was doing never did anything to stop her.)
And then, the FBI revealed that they had found another 15,000 work-related emails that Hillary Clinton had failed to turn over (she turned over 30,000, so that's not a small number of emails). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/22/the-fbi-found-15000-emails-hillary-clinton-didnt-turn-over-uh-oh/
In the 30K emails turned over (printed on paper) there weren't any emails related to Benghazi. In the 15K emails recovered by the FBI, 30 Benghazi-related emails were found. That means Hillary Clinton deleted Benghazi-related emails rather than turn them over, and of course the original FOIA requests were specifically looking for Benghazi-related emails.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/293837-fbi-recovers-30-clinton-emails-involving-benghazi-attack
Quote from that article:
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Searching the Web is not that hard. CSPAN video here.
Let us see if you are mature enough to stop lying, or if you close your eyes and years yelling "nuh uh"
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
In the Clinton case it *was* determined that she had sent
- some emails where the contents was retroactively classified. This is not criminal, as Clinton the material *was not* classified at the time.
- A total of 3 emails which contained classified information at the time. However, the "classfied" markings were non-standard which could explain why Clinton did not notice them.
Try 110 emails containing classified information, including 65 "Secret" and 22 "Top Secret", as well as the spy satellite emails that any sensible person would know was extremely secret. Also, as Secretary of State, she had the power to write emails that would be classified, and she was supposed to know how to handle such emails.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
Also, Hillary Clinton was required to take classes on the handling of classified documents. She was required to re-take th class each year. We know she took the class once but there is no evidence that she ever re-took the class in later years. Then she testified to the FBI that she had no idea that the mark "(c)" might refer to a document being classified.
Fun fact: Pence was hacked. Clintons email server was not.
How do you know Hillary's email server wasn't hacked? Nobody can check it, since she had it wiped (despite being under subpoena to turn over everything). We know that Microsoft Exchange Server is prone to being 0wned and we know that the IT guy Hillary had working on her server asked Reddit for help when he couldn't get security patches to apply. So there was a period where security patches were not applied to the server, and its IP address and domain name were posted on Reddit.
http://truepundit.com/hillary-clinton-it-guru-posted-servers-security-keys-on-public-forum-opening-door-for-hackers-to-access-emails/
Microsoft Exchange, known to not have all security patches applied, IP address posted on Reddit, and the Russian and Chinese and Israeli spy organizations had to have figured out that she was running her own server. In my mind the only question is how many different people or organizations cracked her server, not whether it happened at all.
I saw a news story that said "logs from the wiped server did not show any signs that a spear phishing attack had happened" which of course means that nobody ever cracked the server ever by any means. Right?
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Shouldn't he be arrested for believing AOL still exists?
www.GeekCrumbs.com
potential innocent explanation
Okay, so since there are potential innocent explanations for any contact between Trump campaign officials and Russians, we never have to hear about the stupid "Trump is a Russian puppet!" conspiracy theories again, and no one should ask about them anymore. Agreed?
I'm not saying we burn Podesta at the stake. I just want someone to ask him (or the people he was emailing), what the actual innocent explanation is. Not for a potential one! Of course potential ones exist. I want the actual innocent explanation.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
on his job as Governor and now VP, is mainly that he still uses AOL
*"Cogito Ergo Liberalis"*
With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
She (and her stooges) broke the law - but did so "without intent". So the next time you are arrested - just tell the cops you didn't "intend" to break the law.
I suspect that if your last name is not Clinton - it will not go well for you.
work/personal split on mobile devices is a solved security issue.
its mostly a question of convenience now, and people choose convenience over security every time... unless they are publicly shamed?!!
I am pretty sure Hilary would never want to setup a personal server for govt work... and perhaps so will pence if he is shamed enough.
may be they will be two big enough examples after all the shaming that when IT (security) wants to implement security people will go like... ok.
There is ZERO evidence of a "cover up". The FBI retrieved some of the "deleted" emails that H's team deemed "personal" originally using various methods, and there was NOTHING nefarious found in that sample. There were mistakes in reading to determine "personal", but the pattern fit sloppy reading, NOT an evil plot.
Table-ized A.I.
I'm actually glad that by slamming the MSM as fake news, Trump has blurred the lines b/w your average Michael Moore type of guy manufacturing stories out of whole cloth, vs the MSM doing it. Both have intentions to mislead, and both due to the same reason: their bias.
WTF? In all the popular instances where Trump has called out something as fake news, it hasn't actually been. That's the whole point.
Tangentially, he's doing it to discredit actual reporting on his actions.
I have no right to demand an explanation. But the fact that the media has consistently made false claims about the nature of Pizzagate is interesting, and I wonder why they aren't more curious. Every piece of mainstream media coverage I've seen about Pizzagate has either claimed that it was a joke that got out of hand or that it was invented out of whole cloth as a smear. Neither of these are true. It developed organically by people asking questions about bizarre things in Podesta's emails, and then strange social media posts by known associates of his. No one was joking, and it did not start with a conclusion to smear Podesta as a pedo. It started with verifiable facts and ended with speculation of the existence of a pedophilia ring.
Why is the media reporting it incorrectly?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Sorry, I just hear a bloviating politician pretending to be the prosecution in an imaginary court case.
ZERO clear evidence was given of intent, period. If you heard otherwise, then I question the logical or linguistical functioning of your brain and suspect you either have a low IQ or are highly self-deceived due to bias.
As far as "one device", the decision over the server was made early in her tenure. She may have LATER used other devices for various reasons. R's seem to expect her to predict the future. I agree she should have been probed for more details on the timeline of that, but so far we don't have sufficient info to model exactly how the quantity of devices was analyzed in her decision process.
Other opinions welcome.
By the way, here's one interpretation as a mock trial:
http://econ-ecoff.blogspot.com...
Table-ized A.I.
No, it was literally people going through Podesta's emails, finding bizarre things that made no sense in context, and then speculating as to their meaning. One possible explanation to the bizarre content was "pedophile ring," which isn't really that preposterous when you consider all the other high-profile pedo rings that have been exposed like at the Catholic Church, the BBC, UK Parliament, etc.
We still don't know what the true meaning of the bizarre things were. No journalist has ever asked Podesta to explain them for us.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
But what's a "map handkerchief that might be pizza-related?"
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I voted for Trump, and I'm *not* giving Pence a free pass on this. One reason that I voted for Trump was because of H. Clinton's carelessness with security, using her personal mail server. This, and carelessness with phone security, are just as bad.
I'm not for a particular party or politician. I'm for the US. I want conversations "including issues related to homeland security" to be secure, no matter who the politician is.
They're not covered by the same records keeping act, so your first sentence is wrong. Clinton's lawyers were incompetent at finding her work-related emails, leading them to not turn all of them over. It remains to be seen whether Pence's lawyers will do better.
Other people have debunked your other fake claims, so I won't repeat that. Clinton's use of a private server was a violation of policy that her staff strictly enforced for other people at State. Keeping Federal government records after she left government service, without depositing copies with the National Archives, was illegal. Sending emails with classified information, whether marked as such or just things she should have known were classified, was also a crime. Not reporting the mishandled classified information is a security violation, which would get normal people fired. Deleting emails after the fact was spoilation of evidence.
Fun fact: The FBI said that because the Clinton camp was incompetent at running their email server, and didn't let anyone else see the server, the FBI couldn't tell whether it had been hacked, but the FBI was pretty sure it had been targeted. Which means it was probably hacked, but nobody found out.
Stop lying.
From the FBI news conference:
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.
At the time of sending or receiving. Either you are grossly misinformed, or intentionally lying in order to "correct the record." Either way, never post the old "what every other Secretary of State has done before her" horseshit again - because it's patently false according to the people that would know.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Except that Trump lies about having contact with Russians and there is evidence that proves otherwise. I don't see Podesta lying about eating pizza
We must not have a soybean-yield gap!
Trump has never lied about having contact with Russians. You gotta stop listening to that fake news, friend.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Right, he just called the ones that suggested it "fake news" or "conspiracy theories". Huh, you just called them fake news too.
Clinton had a private server; Pence used AOL. Isn't there a difference as to hackibility?
I just... can't get past the fact Mike Pence uses an AOL account. I mean I know conservative politicians are typically behind the times socially, economically and morally but even technologically. What kind of PC you rockin at home Pence a 486?
I am perfectly aware that IP address for an email server is not a secret. It's how you send email to the server.
I stand by my belief that it is unwise to say "Hey, entire Internet! Here's a Windows server that does not have all its security patches applied! By the way, it's the server of a Very Important Person."
But I don't know what the unapplied patches were. There may not have been any remote exploits among them; I can't say.
Still, I'm certain that the spy agencies of Russia, China, Israel, United Kingdom, and others had all figured out that there was a server called clintonemail.com and that the Secretary of State was putting a lot of traffic on it. I believe it is nearly certain that at least one of the above and probably several used a remote exploit to crack the server and pull all the emails from it.
I kind of wish that the FBI had also cracked the server and pulled down all the emails. With a properly-obtained search warrant of course. Well, too late.
P.S. The above is the context of Trump's famous joke about Russia finding Hillary Clinton's emails. I'm pretty sure his joke was that they probably already have them, and he wasn't publicly requesting that they put their spy agency to work attempting to crack US servers.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
douse the R's in the same shit they gave hillary. DROWN them in it. let them realize that any weapon you use, the other side will use, when its THEIR turn.
Nope. That's the same kind of thinking that gave rise to Fox News. Left-bias in mainstream media? We'll show them some biased reporting. Escalation ensues. Retaliation doesn't teach anything you intend it to teach.
Now parody and satire, they may be good for something. They may actually raise awareness if done skillfully. But responding in mindless kind just loses eyes and teeth.
Bob Stein, http://bobste.in