Hacker Guccifer Claims He Easily and Repeatedly Broke Into Hillary Clinton's Email Server (foxnews.com) 416
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fox News: The infamous Romanian hacker known as "Guccifer," speaking exclusively with Fox News, claimed he easily -- and repeatedly -- breached former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's personal email server in early 2013. In the process of mining data from the Blumenthal account, Lazar said he came across evidence that others were on the Clinton server. "As far as I remember, yes, there were up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world," he said. From the report: "'For me, it was easy ... easy for me, for everybody,' Marcel Lehel Lazar, who goes by the moniker 'Guccifer,' told Fox News from a Virginia jail where he is being held. Fox News could not independently confirm Lazar's claims. The 44-year-old Lazar said he first compromised Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal's AOL account, in March 2013, and used that as a stepping stone to the Clinton server. He said he accessed Clintonâ(TM)s server 'like twice,' though he described the contents as 'not interest[ing]' to him at the time." Guccifer was sent to prison last month, which is when his potential role in the Clinton email investigation became apparent.
The only possible hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's what's clear to anyone and everyone who lives in America:
Hillary is untouchable. Elites in general are untouchable. This entire debacle won't amount to anything because we're talking about one of the most powerful and connected people in the world.
Is the Clinton Foundation a slush fund for the Clinton family? Of course. Is it a real charitable organization? Barely (15% goes to charity). Did Clinton intentionally set a server up in her house to allow her to do things outside the watchful eye of the State Department? Of course.
Doesn't matter. None of that matters.
There is one and only one possibility that this entire thing blows up:
A leak from someone at the FBI. And it's not all that unlikely either. The mood at the FBI is rumored to be frustration. Frustration because they know that they have a rock solid case, and it will go nowhere. That's a recipe for a leak.
Aside from that, this goes nowhere.
Rod Blagojevich (Score:2)
Does Rod Blagojevich have any thing on her?
Re: (Score:2)
Blagojevich
Bless you.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what's clear to anyone and everyone who lives in their mom's basement:
FTFY
Re:The only possible hope (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of "Correct the record" folks here tonight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Charity Watch, anyway, gives The Clinton Foundation an A [charitywatch.org], saying that 88% of donations goes to charity (the other 12% going to salaries, fund-raising, etc.).
Jesus Christ this whole scandal makes no sense. Every public figure and business should have a secure server. Really. But nobody does. If having an unsecure server is a felony, then just about everybody would be in jail, including the NSA, [vice.com] the director of the CIA [cnn.com], and the largest corporation in the world. [cbsnews.com]
Re:The only possible hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The scandal makes complete sense, unless you are a hyper-partisan who thinks it's OK when your side breaks the law. If any other federal government employee tried to hide her official correspondence with a hidden server, that person would now be on year 3 of a prison sentence. But, it's Hillary Clinton, so she didn't even get her security clearance revoked. You really don't get how outrageous the whole thing is? And if she does get away with it, it's just going to embolden thousands more government apparatchiks to take even more liberties with our already-overstretched laws?
Except that's not the standard, it never has been, government officials have used private emails for ages, John Kerry was the first Secretary of State to primarily use a state.gov address. The only way Clinton differed was she used her own server instead of a 3rd party server like AOL or Google, and I'm not sure a properly maintained private server (not that she had one) is a worse scenario.
And it's not clear that using the private server was an attempt to evade record keeping. Most indications are that Cli
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's not clear that using the private server was an attempt to evade record keeping. Most indications are that Clinton really wanted to keep using a Blackberry and wanted access to her current email and the NSA and State Department weren't able to accommodate her so she just gave up and did her own thing.
So your excuse is that she broke the rules because the people who understand security said "no", and getting her way is more important than following those rules?
Laws should be applied consistently, that doesn't just mean the rich and powerful don't get off easy, it also means you don't get to throw the book at someone just because you don't like their politics.
Are you saying that if a low-level government employee ignored the legally mandated rules for handling sensitive data, they would not be charged with treason? You, sir, are full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If any other federal government employee tried to hide her official correspondence with a hidden server, that person would now be on year 3 of a prison sentence.
Sure, except for everyone else. [wikipedia.org]. Is is really so hard to Google before saying obviously false shit?
Re:The only possible hope (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not exactly what happened though, is it?
She had a private server and Blackberry phone. When she came into her role as foreign secretary they told her that she needed a more secure means of communication, but were unable to come up with anything suitable for her office. So she carried on using her private server. Didn't hide it, I mean it's pretty obvious that hillary@clintonemail.com is not an official government account and the payments made to the company running the server are part of the public record.
Eventually someone took a proper look at the situation and realized it needed fixing. She screwed up, but the lack of intent and the fact that other parts of the government knew and failed to take more immediate and decisive action makes it very difficult to prosecute her for anything. She would probably be able to argue that she delegated that stuff to others whose responsibility it was to ensure compliance with relevant record keeping rules.
I'm not saying she did nothing wrong, she clearly screwed up badly here, but realistically it doesn't matter who she is - there just isn't enough there for a conviction.
Re: (Score:3)
Man, all your posts are so angry...
It's not a lie, I was just pointing out that there was a discussion and it ended with her choosing to continue using her Blackberry. That was, as I stated, a mistake and broke the rules, but she definitely didn't hide it and that's the really important thing here.
If they tried to prosecute her she would just say that she asked about it, the relevant people were fully aware and the blame is thus shared out, and she could reasonably claim to have thought it was okay since no
Re:The only possible hope (Score:5, Informative)
Man, all your posts are so angry...
My posts are angry because your posts are shit.
It's not a lie
It is a lie.
I was just pointing out that there was a discussion and it ended with her choosing to continue using her Blackberry.
That is another lie. Stop lying. You said "When she came into her role as foreign secretary they told her that she needed a more secure means of communication, but were unable to come up with anything suitable for her office." Well, guess what? That is a lie, and it's your own words. You know better, but you chose to lie anyway, and now you're surprised that I'm angry about it? Stop lying, and then I won't be angry.
I'm not defending what she did
Then why lie on her behalf?
Re: (Score:2)
If having an unsecure server is a felony, then just about everybody would be in jail, including the NSA, [vice.com] the director of the CIA [cnn.com], and the largest corporation in the world. [cbsnews.com]
None of those servers had classified information (and your third link isn't even about a server, it's about jailbreaking an iphone).
The security level of servers with classified information is significantly higher, exactly to prevent the problems found in your links.
Re:The only possible hope (Score:5, Informative)
Charity Watch, anyway, gives The Clinton Foundation an A [charitywatch.org], saying that 88% of donations goes to charity (the other 12% going to salaries, fund-raising, etc.).
Jesus Christ this whole scandal makes no sense. Every public figure and business should have a secure server. Really. But nobody does. If having an unsecure server is a felony, then just about everybody would be in jail, including the NSA, [vice.com] the director of the CIA [cnn.com], and the largest corporation in the world. [cbsnews.com]
It is when you're violating the law to set it up to avoid FOIA requests.
And then direct your underlings to strip classification markings from secure data and "send it insecure".
Oh yeah, there are emails from Hillary!'s server where she tells an aide to to just that.
Grow some balls and Google "Hillary email remove classification".
Better yet, since you've obviously drank deep of the Klinton Kool-Aid:
In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure" [cbsnews.com]
Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."
Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
Well, no fucking wonder the classified emails that Hillary! saw on her illegal server weren't marked!
Hillary! told her aides to remove the markings!
Re: (Score:2)
The mood at the FBI is rumored to be frustration.
That's what brought on the whole Monica Lewinski thing. Kenneth Starr was investigating the real crimes that the Clintons had committed when they started a smear campaign against him. He was so furious with their dirty tricks, lying, and stonewalling ("It depends in what the definition if 'is' is") he went public with the cigar story.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is he in jail? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is he in jail and Hillary isn't? If anything, he's a whistleblower on major criminal activity.
Re:Why is he in jail? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is he in jail and Hillary isn't? If anything, he's a whistleblower on major criminal activity.
Two reasons:
1. "a report from Fox News"
2. "Fox News could not independently confirm Lazar's claims"
You need to improve your critical thinking skills before calling for the noose...
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but "hacking" in the way this was done is not hacking, it was more like being a peeping Tom.
Oh ok, let's just ignore the established legal definition and just go with what some anonymous internet guy thinks...
Re: (Score:2)
You might consider posting such things as AC next time.
It's just prudence; that's all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Same reason the guy who hacked Sarah Palin's Yahoo Mail account (proving she was illegally conducting official business on a personal email account) went to jail but Sarah Palin didn't. The elites don't go to jail in America.
Since when is Palin an "elite" in America?
Anyway, Palin didn't go to jail not because she is an elite but because her emails were incredibly dull, and nobody really cared enough about the little bit of mixing of personal and official emails, that there was evidence of, on the same account. Unlike Clinton, she didn't have access to top secret information. That is enough to make all the difference. It is enough to make these silly comparisons between Palin and Clinton completely pointless. Clinton is not bein
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Since when is Palin an "elite" in America?
She could see Russia from her front porch - that makes her an elite visionary.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that there is a different perception of "Elite" at play. Elite does not have to be intelligent or holding lots of power, there are useful idiots who are also elites. Often people play an idiot for effect (GW) which helps other Elites.
I think people have this perception that all of the elites are the same, when that does not seem to be the case. Look at a Bilderberg roster, most are the type you expect but there are always a few head scratchers on the list.
Oh, knock it off (Score:5, Insightful)
The big joke turned out to be Sarah's critics. The NYT even encouraged its readers to help go through all her PERSONAL email account contents (which she'd written assuming nobody would ever see them) and NOTHING illegal was found. They did not even find anything blatantly unethical. For all the hyperventilation about the contents of her e-mails, all the liberal press dropped the whole thing when there turned out to be no wrongdoing there.
Character is measure by what we do when we think nobody will ever see/know. By that measure, Sarah Palin has better standards and character than most people.
What do you think we'd learn from Hillary's e-mails? How about the 30K plus e-mails Hillary deleted when she realized there were lawsuits underway to examine them? Do we REALLY want a president who cannot measure up to Sarah Palin standards????
Does it even matter? (Score:5, Informative)
Hillary Clinton fired America's Ambassador to Kenya [politifact.com] over — among other things — his use of "commercial e-mail":
To have setup and used her own e-mail server for "official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information" is the height of hypocrisy — the greatest sin of a politician. That the server contained not merely "sensitive", but in same cases "top secret" [washingtonpost.com] data may be, what will send her to prison. But it is the hypocrisy, that ought to derail her presidential bid.
Whether or not her server was hacked by anyone is besides the point.
Re:Does it even matter? (Score:4, Informative)
The Clintons set up that email server to circumvent government transparency.
If she had used the regular Government State Department server, her correspondence would have been subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and eventually it would have ended up archved at the National Archives.
The fundamental reason for the private Clinton Email Server was to keep her correspondence permanently off the record.
Re:Does it even matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
why did she comply 100% with the request for a copy of all work-related email? The only things she deleted were about 30k personal emails.
She was supposed to use systems that would keep official copies of all her official emails. She used her own system, which didn't.
She was supposed to hand over all official materials she had in her possession when she stopped being Secretary of State. She had to sign a document to that effect. But she had copies of all those official emails (on the server), and her lawyer had more copies (on a USB flash drive). Who even knows how many copies there were... maybe her IT guy had some backup tapes.
A political group filing Freedom of Information Act requests eventually figured out that there was almost no FOIA-available email from her; the government just said "we got nothing" and didn't explain why. Thanks to the Guccifer hack that came to light, the existence of her personal email server also came to light. Then a court ordered her to (finally!) turn over all those emails that she was supposed to have turned over already and wasn't supposed to have any more.
Then she didn't turn them over. She instead went through her emails and picked and chose what to turn over. She says that she deleted personal emails but turned over work-related emails... next time the IRS audits you, just give them part of what they ask for, and explain that you deleted the rest because it was personal. See how that works for you. In case the analogy wasn't clear: when a court orders you to turn stuff over, you don't get to pick and choose what to turn over. Unless your name is Hillary Clinton I guess, since she got away with it so far.
Oh by the way, she (or people working under her direction, same diff) printed the emails on paper, and handed over the paper. This senseless destruction of trees was just to make things harder for the people trying to sift through her emails, but of course all it did was waste some time; the feds have document scanners and OCR, and turned the paper back into searchable data. It was just sort of a little "fuck you" from Hillary to the people filing FOIA against her.
So, the US government doesn't have a complete record of her emails, but any spy agency that figured out what she was doing could have cracked her server and downloaded everything. So odds are good that the Russians and the Chinese have full copies of everything, whereas the US government is having to work hard to try to piece it all together.
So yeah, she cooperated 100%. 110%!!
P.S. A Marine is in huge trouble for sending a classified email with a personal laptop, and having a couple of classified documents on it. His defense is that secured laptops were hard to come by in a combat area, and the email was an attempt to save lives. The Marine Corps kicked him out over this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/1/hillary-clinton-emails-far-more-egregious-than-dat/ [washingtontimes.com]
Do you support one standard for the little people, and a looser standard for Hillary Clinton?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There have been multiple instances where the people she was corresponding with for work turned over copies of conversations they had with her that contained e-mails she had failed to supply, and there are large date ranges missing from the copies she supplied (particularly around times when suspicious activity may have been taking place, such as the stuff related to Benghazi), despite the fact that the government procured copies of some of the messages she sent during that time from other sources. It's well
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, I'm going to need a citation for the claim that "there are large date ranges missing from the copies she supplied (particularly around times when suspicious activity may have been taking place, such as the stuff related to Benghazi)". As far as I'm aware, the only confirmed "missing" emails are 15 from Blumenthal. Everything else has turned up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it is the hypocrisy that ought to derail her presidential bid. /quote
If hypocrisy derailed presidential bids then Ron Paul probably would have been our last president elected unopposed, and Sanders would be the only candidate running this election, for either party.
Re: (Score:2)
To have setup and used her own e-mail server for "official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information" is the height of hypocrisy ...
The US Govt's "Sensitive but Unclassified Information" category is a a flaming piece of bullshit itself.
SBUC labeling is an attempt to hamper or foil FOIA requests—Period. It has been around for much longer than Hillary, so don't blame her. It is abused by basically every US Govt arm, as an attempt to keep the populace as uninformed as possible.
SBUC really just means: "This is just ordinary communication, but we want to exclude it from FOIA requests anyway – because otherwise the plebes might
Re: (Score:2)
if that's true (and I suspect it probably is) then this is the real crime. the fact that our government is so anti-open and goes to great lengths to hide stuff from the people, that's the much bigger elephant in the room.
HRC or anyone else - only diff is the name. people come and go. its not about any one person.
our system is broken. our system gives personhood to business and defers most recently created laws to business or to other positions of existing power. pushing power further upward, creating e
Re:Does it even matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
You have understood the point absolutely, and entirely.
Congrats. I guess... as it it not a nice realization.
I have worked in Academia, Industry, the US Government, and within the US 'Military-Industrial Complex (MIC)'. I left the latters for the primary – Academia.
One of the first lessons (LECTURES) I was given as a government and as a MIC-employee was that I should label every report, internal publication, memo, or even a fucking email setting up a meeting time – as SBUC. Just as a matter of course. "It's just hygiene," they told me.
Fuck that. I have been a Federal Whistle-blower. TWICE. Why yes, they have tried, through illegal means, to destroy my professional reputation (I am anonymous here on /.),as well as my personal and financial lives, in retaliation for whistle-blowing.
I am not dead yet. The third, and biggest, whistle-blow is imminent.
I've already mentioned their names. I DO HAVE a "Dead-man's Switch" set up, which will, in the case of my death or long-term coma, release the headline-making shenanigans of the bastards who have intellectually raped me available to The Intercept, Wikileaks, The Guardian, as well as some others.
These assholes have already fucked with me. If I die, it will be 100x worse for them. The 'perfectly organized' data-dump is already armed. If I fail to log in to my "Dead Man's Server(s)" on a periodic basis, the full contents of illegal activities of my intellectual rapists will be exposed in one large chunk. The media outlets can then tranche the information as they see fit.
These people have ignored the First Rule. (DNFWM)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BUT, what makes you believe the alternative was any safer? [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
the height of hypocrisy â" the greatest sin of a politician
Are you kidding? Hypocrisy is the least of all political sins. It's so common no-one cares any more. It pales in comparison to a nice juicy sex scandal or some recreational drug use.
The say that patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel too, but actually it's usually the first.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait wait wait....
seriously....
you didn't read your linked article AGAIN!?
Somehow you turned "he wasn't fired over email" into "he was fired over email"....
Shuster said Gration was forced to resign because of his use of personal email accounts.
That was one issue State Department officials raised. But just one of many. The State Department Inspector General’s report paints a much more troubling picture of an embassy in disarray under Gration’s leadership. In the words of the auditors, Gration "has lost the respect and confidence of the staff to lead the mission." Gration ranked at or near the absolute bottom among other ambassadors assessed by the department.
His use of email was an issue, but according to an ambassador with much experience, it was a relatively minor one.
We rate the claim Mostly False.
Are you SURE you aren't doing a Colbert style parody act of a RWNJ?
Also, commercial email is not the same thing as a private email server, now is it?
Surely even your puny brain is aware of that?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he got a score of 2 (and it should be -1) because even his own link proves him a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
Pot makes you paranoid.
If you don't know how things work, starting points are based on Karma. A high Karma level will start posts at a default score of 2.
No.
"Excellent" or "Perfect" Karma only gets us (your intellectual overlords) a +1.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
While there are certainly elements of Slashdot who are liberal progressives and use moderation to censor, there is also a strong showing of Libertarian/Conservatives who will balance things out.
Interesting. I'd say it is the exact opposite. For example, any of the following will get you a guaranteed down-mod, often Toll or Flamebait:
- There should be more controls on guns
- Freedom of speech trumps your right to feel comfortable
- Feminism
In any case, there is a problem with the moderation system as it stands. A tweak to how down-mods work would improve things greatly.
Re: (Score:2)
While there are certainly elements of Slashdot who are liberal progressives and use moderation to censor, there is also a strong showing of Libertarian/Conservatives who will balance things out.
There are also plenty of liberal progressives who don't use moderation to censor, and plenty on the right wing that will. It's interesting that you chose to miss out those two.
. Vaccine debate and God/Atheism immediately come to mind where if you are not progressive you are a "troll" almost without question.
Vaccines
Meanwhile, in Australia... (Score:3)
But I guess that's ok, he did invent the internet in Australia, LOL.
Re: (Score:3)
Does the PM of Australia operate under a law similar to the FOIA? Which requires all government correspondence to be done on government servers so that the information contained therein is available for FOIA requests?
If not, I fail to see the issue.
Questions (Score:2)
So, here's my question. If Hillary gets indicted, convicted, or goes to jail, etc., after the DNC picks her as the candidate, but before the general elections, does Bernie get to be on the ballot? Or nobody from the Democratic party goes on the ballot? Is that the Republican's strategy all along?
Re: (Score:2)
So, here's my question. If Hillary gets indicted, convicted, or goes to jail, etc., after the DNC picks her as the candidate, but before the general elections...
Obama pardons her and she still gets the top job. But it'll never get that far, the stability of the country is more important than a political witch-hunt.
I know this topic incites rage among Hillary haters, but for most everyone else it's a non-issue. Every candidate has dirt on them in one form or another. You don't get to the top without some blood on your sleeves.
Re: (Score:2)
So, here's my question. If Hillary gets indicted, convicted, or goes to jail, etc., after the DNC picks her as the candidate, but before the general elections, does Bernie get to be on the ballot? Or nobody from the Democratic party goes on the ballot? Is that the Republican's strategy all along?
It's really unclear what would happen.
Nothing in the constitution prevents a felon from running for president.
However, apparently(*) many states have laws about felons running for office. Apparently(*) in some states, to run for office you must be registered to vote, and many states do not allow felons to vote. Also apparently(*) some states do not allow their electoral college representatives to vote for convicted felons.
Although the constitution doesn't prevent a felon from running, an elected felon could
This summary does not make sense... (Score:2)
I would not describe a hack of an AOL email address as a stepping stone to hacking another system.
But the original has a much better description. He's claiming he saw clintonemail.com's IP while reading Blumenthal's emails, and then used a port scanner to identify vulnerabilities in her server.
If it's true, and can be verified from server logs, it could be important. Hillary Clinton cannot be charged in Court with violating an Executive order, so the law everyone says she broke [whitehouse.gov] is almost completely irreleva
Final authority (Score:4, Funny)
We've all been told that the final authority of what is classified rests with the Secretary of State.
Since Hillary was Secretary of State at the time, it's OK if a Romanian hacker and about 10 others got into her E-mail server. All the documents on it were declassified, because she said so.
Nothing to see here, onward to the presidency!
PMITA for u (Score:2)
Well, it sounds like it's going to soon be PMITA prison for you...
[Sir Holo RTFA's]
Oh, you're already there. Is it really all that PMITA prison, or just a bunch of UFIAs?
two words (Score:5, Funny)
BENGHAZI
Story is complete BS (Score:3)
So a "hacker", who was really just a guy who used social engineering to guess the answers to security questions, suddenly claims to know how to use exploits says he used those to do an actual hack into an email server!
And his "technical" explanation of the hack contained gems like this:
In the process of mining data from the Blumenthal account, Lazar said he came across evidence that others were on the Clinton server.
"As far as I remember, yes, there were up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world,” he said.
I hope he'll explain how he could identify who logged into Clinton's server by looking at Blumenthal's AOL account!! (Ok, maybe the reporter is just incompetent and related the explanation wrong, meaning she wasn't qualified to vet the story)
Oh yeah, and this "hacker" with his previously undisclosed and unused hacking skills, hacked into the email of Hillary Clinton, probably the 2nd best known politician in the US, and figured... "meh, this is boring, I guess I'll try to get famous by bragging about my hacks into such luminaries such as former FBI and Secret Service agents, the brother of Barbara Bush, and former Miss Maine Patricia Legere [wikipedia.org].
I'm sorry but this is a stupid story and /. should be embarrassed for posting it.
1) Guccifer hacked by guessing security questions, that's all he did. There's no reason to think he had the technical skills to do what he did. Look at the interview, it's seriously just "port scanner", "open port", "proxy server", "ya I hacked in". He didn't even think to throw in "unpatched software" or "rootkit"!
2) Guccifer loved to brag about his hacks. That he would have hacked into Clinton's email at the height of the Benghazi freakout and tell no one is absurd. On the other hand he's exactly the sort of person who would seek media attention by claiming to have done the hack that the entire country was speculating about for months.
3) There is absolutely zero evidence that he did what he said, there's not even the "undisclosed source who has a friend who dated a secretary in the division doing the investigation" or the standard "but wait... there's a record of him saying X back in Y... how did he know X back in Y?"
This is just some troll looking for attention, this should be exactly that crowd that sees through it.
Re: (Score:3)
He does. As I mentioned above, there's an independent documentary with him in it from back when he was in a Romanian prison and not yet extradited. His story is pretty consistent. It's called "The Most Dangerous Town on the Internet." Watch it. Then comment.
The reality is, we know about her server (initially) because of his actions. Yup. We've kind of whitewashed that and we now claim it came to light via different means but the time line indicates otherwise.
She used a private server for classified email... (Score:2)
Sounds legit (Score:2)
One unbiased party passing along the information of another honest party.
Re: False Scandal (Score:4, Informative)
You sure sound like a Clinton drone with more nonsense that Trump is somehow like Hitler. Is that because he wants to protect borders from *illegal* immigrants? Or stem the flow of new voters who come from a fundamentalist religion that oppresses women? Is it because the Trump organization hires so few black people? Oh wait...he hired a higher percentage of African Americans and Latinos than anyone else in the race. Is it because he hates women? Evidence please. Is it because he hates Jews? Oh wait... His daughter is Jewish.
Talk about a "false scandal". Enough with your Clinton propaganda.
Like Hitler (Score:5, Insightful)
You sure sound like a Clinton drone with more nonsense that Trump is somehow like Hitler. Is that because he wants to protect borders from *illegal* immigrants? Or stem the flow of new voters who come from a fundamentalist religion that oppresses women? Is it because the Trump organization hires so few black people? Oh wait...he hired a higher percentage of African Americans and Latinos than anyone else in the race. Is it because he hates women? Evidence please. Is it because he hates Jews? Oh wait... His daughter is Jewish.
Talk about a "false scandal". Enough with your Clinton propaganda.
Trump is like Hitler in many ways. He is not Hitler, but let's not pretend they have nothing in common.
They are both white and have a penis, and have a great deal of DNA in common. So nobody who is trying to speak truth can say they have nothing in common. I know that's a bit silly, but you do a disservice to your cause by saying it's "nonsense that Trump is somehow like Hitler."
But going beyond that, there are more troubling things they have in common. Both use the uneducated masses, fear and hatred of the other, anti-intellectualism, and threats and intimidation to get their way. If you read Trump's interview with the Post editorial board, you will also learn that Trump at least, if not insane like Hitler, is at least incredibly stupid. Probably stupider than the average american, certainly stupider than the average professional.
Hitler said "What luck for rulers that men do not think." Trump appears to have taken that to heart.
As for woman-hating, look at Trump's language. If you think he treats women as equals, you were born in a cave. *Fox News* turned against him because of how much he attacked women. The Network that had defended the entire talking point of the "war on women" for years before Trump showed up.
Look, nobody's saying Trump is like Hitler in that he's going to start digging mass graves for the Muslims in America. But he's like Hitler in that he's a pretty terrible guy to rule a country and the racist, bigoted, international and military consequences of having him as President of the United States could have unpredictable and potentially devastating effects.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that because he wants to protect borders from *illegal* immigrants? Or stem the flow of new voters who come from a fundamentalist religion that oppresses women? Is it because the Trump organization hires so few black people? Oh wait...he hired a higher percentage of African Americans and Latinos than anyone else in the race. Is it because he hates women? Evidence please. Is it because he hates Jews? Oh wait... His daughter is Jewish.
I think an overarching issue is that we don't really know what Trump (or most successful politicians) think.
I suspect that Trump is good at recognizing what people want to hear, and is willing to pander to some viewpoints/groups that Clinton and others are not. But I have very little sense of how Trump's campaign speeches would translate into Presidential actions.
While I think Clinton is probably just as disingenuous, it's probably a little easier to anticipate how she'd act as President, because she has a
Re: False Scandal (Score:5, Insightful)
While I think Clinton is probably just as disingenuous, it's probably a little easier to anticipate how she'd act as President, because she has a long political track record.
A long track record of flip flopping on every social and moral issue that faces us; and a history of Polsplain away how she never fails to protect monied interests.
Clinton is worst kind of hypocrite, she is the cancer in American politics that rots out or principles and lowers us all. She is EXACTLY like Trump! The only difference is branding and who she is trying to sell herself out too. Its like a how a Dodge Dart is different from a Chrysler 200 - the target buyer.
Re: (Score:3)
You sure sound like a Clinton drone with more nonsense that Trump is somehow like Hitler. Is that because he wants to protect borders from *illegal* immigrants? Or stem the flow of new voters who come from a fundamentalist religion that oppresses women? Is it because the Trump organization hires so few black people? Oh wait...he hired a higher percentage of African Americans and Latinos than anyone else in the race. Is it because he hates women? Evidence please. Is it because he hates Jews? Oh wait... His daughter is Jewish.
Talk about a "false scandal". Enough with your Clinton propaganda.
Trump isn't like Hitler, he's more like Mussolini without the uniform fetish. About "immigrant defence", he want's to build a stupid wall he claimed would cost 4 billion then, 6 then 8 then 12 billion. The border guard does not want a wall, they want border patrol in depth with mobile patrol teams and drones/helicopters, because they think the only thing a 30 foot wall will do is "create a market for 31 foot ladders" (That's a direct quote) and because something like half the illegal immigrants coming into
Re: False Scandal (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that because he wants to protect borders from *illegal* immigrants?
It's the manner in which he wants to protect the borders. Building a wall is an incredibly dumb idea to start with (because of ladders and the immense cost, which Mexico definitely isn't going to pay for), but it's also both inhumane and ineffective. People will just take greater risks, perhaps going by sea or trying to scale the wall. The real solution requires socialism, creating a framework where more people can come legitimately (so they don't cause problems or get exploited) and helping people in Mexico so they are not motivated to travel.
Trump takes the simpler approach of blaming immigrants for a number of problems and then saying he will take the obvious and wrong but tough sounding solution. Much like Hitler in fact, who blamed many of Germany's problems on immigrants and Jews, and then enacted the simple and tough sounding solution. Not as bad of course, but similar.
Or stem the flow of new voters who come from a fundamentalist religion that oppresses women?
Wasn't your country started on the basis of religious freedom? And again, it's a lot like blaming Jewish culture.
Is it because he hates women? Evidence please.
The way he treats female critics differently, often referring to their gender and bodily functions suggests that while "hate" might be too strong a word, he certainly is biased against them.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Did you just propose socialism as a solution to illegal immigration? Do we have to pay protection money to all the world's poor to keep them from breaking our laws and flooding into the country? How is that working out for Europe?
Re: (Score:3)
No, the solution is not to reward people who break the law. Giving free stuff to not only those who come into the country illegally but also to people who might consider coming to the country illegally is increasing demand for people wanting to come into the country illegally. Enforce the border, send illegals who get through the border home, and change the law to stop anchor babies. Only the children where at least one parent is a citizen should be eligible for birth location citizenship.
Re: (Score:3)
You want use the government to hold a gun to my head and appropriate MY PROPERTY and WEALTH to help people I don't owe a thing to.
No, that's not it. I want you to realize that the best way to stop people trying to take your stuff by force, be it via crime or by illegally immigrating to your country and competing for your job, is to try to make life less crappy for everyone. Fortunately this will cost you very little, and while the pay back is hard to quantify it is definitely greater than the investment.
The alternative is to build a fortress and try to defend it, a costly proposition. If you look at history, the most successful conque
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Actually, is there a religion that doesn't oppress women?
My neighbors are Buddhist, and they have invited me to go to potluck dinners at their temple many times. While I was there, I didn't notice any women being oppressed.
Re: False Scandal (Score:4)
It's not so much that Trump is somehow like Hitler - it's more that the crowds that gather to hear him sound a lot like the soundtracks to films of Hitler rallies. What's scariest about Trump is that he somehow makes scary elements of American society feel free to express their worst sides in public.
What's most interesting about Trump is that he renders it undeniable that mainstream Republicans have been soliciting the votes of those elements for decades without bringing them out in their fullest, ugliest form for all to see. The fact that he's closer to them as a person than, say, Mitt Romney or George Bush is doesn't change what he reveals about party strategy.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wicca doesn't oppress women. Nor does neo-Paganism. Nor does Odinism. Nor does Shinto. Nor does Hinduism. Nor do the Native American traditions.
The pattern here seems to be, "Faiths that have emerged from the Middle East," really. And, of course, some areas of Africa, where the whole forced circumcision is a thing.
Re: False Scandal (Score:5, Informative)
Apart from that killing widows bit.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude... We (Micmacs) used to make women on the rag go sleep in the menstrual hut and they weren't necessarily wives so much as anyone could take a turn - though I think she had to technically "be willing."
Where the hell do you guys come up with this noble savage stuff. 'Cause, you know, I am actually not just a Micmac but I'm a tribal member and I've read almost every bit of history we can come up with. I've even spent a summer digging with the archaeologists to see if we can help uncover more history.
Yeah.
Re:Now we have established that you know nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah, equal value. It just happens that women are notably absent from historical church leaders, and not permitted to be priests in the largest denominations. It's one thing to have different roles that are complimentary. It's quite another to simply say only men can occupy these positions for no reason other than gender. The Mormons get flak for having forbidden blacks to become leaders in churches, yet the Catholic church does exactly the same thing on the basis of gender. That's their choice, and I'd defend that. I just wouldn't be so dishonest as to claim that Christianity isn't practicing gender discrimination. The bloody thing begins with a woman leading a man astray, and that's a recurring theme. And that women, depending on which creation story you read, was created merely as company for the man.
I'd agree that prohibitions on contraception are largely a Catholic thing, but aren't Catholics the single largest Christian denomination worldwide by a long margin?
Women had value because men wanted them and they could product offspring. Offspring in those times were both a retirement plan and your legacy. It's no wonder there were moves to protect women.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes correlation does imply causation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:False Scandal (Score:4, Insightful)
Hillary is above the law, it doesn't matter what regulations she may or may not have deliberately subverted. This is just a distraction to try to help the Trump/Hitler ticket win. And sure, we don't know who Trump will choose as running mate, but anyone who does join him will be just as bad.
I'm not a huge fan of Ms Clinton, but so far I haven't seen or heard anything that would indicate that she is any worse than the average politician, or the average citizen of any Western nation one would care to mention. To me it is suggestive of a feeble mind to expect a politician to be any better than the average of the population they represent, or be wildly outraged to discover that they have done what most people, regrettably, would have done, and taken an unfair advantage of their privileged position. Who on /. can honestly claim to never knowingly have done anything that was even slightly dishonest, unethical or illegal?
Being a politician, and especially one with a lot of power, requires somebody who is realistic and pragmatic, who has a steady hand in a crisis and is able to think before they talk. It would be nice if they are also good and honest, but I don't know how realistic it is to expect a person like that to be able to rise to the top and get real results in the political system in America. Just look at a guy like Obama who, to the dispassionate observer, seemed to be a fairly honest, well-intentioned person, if somewhat naive in his idealism; and how much has he actually achieved, that wasn't simply dictated by circumstances? Perhaps the fact that Ms Clinton doesn't seem to be squeaky clean is an advantage - and considering the amount of relentless scrutiny, it is impressive that a poorly managed email server is all that has turned up. Compare that to Mr Trump, who hasn't been exposed to quite the same amount of hostile snooping, but still seems to be surrounded by an odious pong - violent supporters that he appears to passively approve of, dodgy tax affairs, and if we dig deeper, probably a lot more.
I understand the anger that drives Trump's supporters - I think we all feel deeply frustrated with the way society is going, but I think it would be stupid to follow whoever seems to be shouting the loudest about it without considering carefully whether they would be able to do anything - or even be willing to seriously try. Does anybody really believe that Trump can "build a wall and force Mexico to pay"? Or that it is possible to round up all illegal immigrants and deport them, just like that? And so on? And what does it mean, "I will make America great again"? Isn't America great now? Everybody outside thinks so. Or "I will be so presidential, ...."? It sounds like what the contestants in a low level wrestling match would shout out. However, I don't think it is true that he is like Hitler - he's just an average crook, a narcissist with a hugely inflated view of his own importance.
In the end, neither he nor Clinton, Sanders or any of the others will be able to change what is wrong in America; for that to happen, people - ordinary, everyday people - will have to overcome their differences and unite against the culture that glorifies greed. The revolution must start in your heart, if you want to wax lyrical about it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The statement appears (to me) to be based on the belief (as I do) that she has gotten away with many crimes simply because she has accumulated political power. Those of us who believe she is guilty of crimes and gross fraking negligence don't think the people that would/could/should decide to press charges against her, will.
The general "neocon" if you will, thinking is : She's got someone in her pocket by either having dirt on them, or someone that wants the ear of the next president that owes them a favor
Re: False Scandal (Score:5, Interesting)
So what you're saying is "Many people have accused her of things. None of them have been proven true, and most have been demonstrated to be false. But I want her to be guilty and believe them anyways, even the demonstrably false ones."
A quick Google search brings up this about uniforms in the white house [snopes.com]. So that looks false too. Will you publicly admit to being wrong, or will you continue believing and trusting news sources which lie to your face? Are you honest or gullible?
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Hillary and her policies. Why do people have to make up lies to hate her? Say what you hate about her policies, but not that she is a corrupt traitor who wants to destroy America.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you say Hillary is above the law?
Because she's really Judge Dredd
The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd (Score:2, Informative)
Anyone who knows anything about security knows this:
This is one of the highest profile people in the world, in a seat of power very close to the pinnacle of the global power elite (The US Secretary of State). When any server is left unsecured, one must assume the information in it was accessed from a security perspective. When THIS server is unsecured? There is absolutely no chance it wasn't "breached" 100's of times. No chance. The Russians. The Chinese. Literally everyone that matters was in there.
To even
Re:The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't recall any proof that this server was completely without security or updates.
Exactly the prior poster's point.
To be honest, I could give a damn less if Clinton did a crappy job of email security.
I'm sure you don't give a damn about a lot of important things. So what? Here's the relevant matters. First, it looks like Clinton broke the US's laws on handling classified information multiple times, each time a felony. Second, there's a really good chance she created security holes which were exploited, which is what this thread is about. You might not care, but anyone who does care about the US's national security should be concerned at how sloppy she's been here.
Third, there's the matter of why she did that. Namely, that it appears she did so to evade laws that would have made her emails accessible to FOIA requests and archival by the federal government.
Seriously folks, why are we still bitching about email security? The choice is between Clinton and someone who would make the worst used car salesman blush. Trump has no redeemable qualities. He says one thing, then ten minutes later contradicts himself. Hell, most politicians keep the promises they make, or at least try. Trump doesn't even admit to what he said yesterday, or even admit that half the crap he shovels is utter unworkable nonsense, and he knows it.
Your concern would be more relevant, if Clinton didn't do the same thing and wasn't the same kind of beast. Trump just is just a bit more blatant about it. I wouldn't buy a used car from either Trump or Clinton, but at least Trump would be entertaining.
My view is that I'd take the complainers about Trump more seriously, if they were backing someone who wasn't crooked like a snake. But it's clearly an attempt at a lesser of two evils ploy. And like a lot of people, I just don't see that Clinton is the lesser of two evils.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you propose we find this outsider that wants to be President?
Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd (Score:4)
There is another democratic candidate? What are you talking about? I watch CNN 5-6 hours a day, I'm pretty sure if there was another democratic candidate I would have heard about it by now.
Re: yachts all the way down (Score:2)
For some people, there's no such thing as enough. First it's a yacht, then another (bigger) yacht, then it's an island to park your yachts at...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the reality you're overlooking:
Domestically:
The next president however will likely get to appoint at least one and probably 2 supreme court justices, and gets free reign to appoint the heads of every government agency. That is substantial power right there. Just wait to see Trump replace the heads of every single regulatory agency with a puppet of the rich to ensure no corporation is ever again impeded from causing misery, mayhem and death for profit or even forced to spend any money to take reasona
Re: The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd (Score:4, Informative)
You realize that this has been said about every presidential election for the last 20 years or so. Its always an emergency, we always need to be afraid of the boogie man. Maybe start nominating people that the huge swaths of independent voters will actually vote for and you wont have to worry so much about these crazy fringe candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Sarah Palin still available? :-)
Re: (Score:3)
What? You click on the story title (the white letters on the left side of the green stripe above the summary) then click the "Post" button.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite often, clicking on the story title just redirects you back to the front page.
You'd actually look smart if you had a copy of slashcode in front of you and knew about its behaviors like I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not correct, Whipslash.
Quite often, clicking on a headline with NO POSTS just brings you to the front page of slashdot.
In fact, oh, look, hovering over one story right now with NO POSTS shows the URL link at the bottom to be THE FRONT PAGE OF SLASHDOT.
In fact, right now, clicking any link in the Firehose just expands the story, and never takes you into the actual submission itself.
Please read and understand your own code base before being silly like that again. I've been here way longer than you and know ev
Re: (Score:2)
Quite often, clicking on a headline with NO POSTS just brings you to the front page of slashdot.
That bug was fixed a while on the front page.
In fact, right now, clicking any link in the Firehose just expands the story, and never takes you into the actual submission itself.
Yeap, that bug is still there, and it's there for journal entries, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know that after hitting submit the "Working..." thing just keeps spinning and never goes away?
And the "Disable advertising" button - which I don't know why I have to click every few weeks anyway - hasn't been working for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
While you're here, the "s/quotation mark/a with a hat bracket TM close bracket/" crap is still happening.
I copy-pasted something from another site and got the same effect, but unlike your "editors" I used the preview and spotted it.
Test it yourself: http://www.bartleby.com/73/151... [bartleby.com]
Re: email server (Score:2, Funny)
Does your grandma run a multi million dollar faux charity with donations from Saudi royals, pharmaceutical companies, foreign interests and Wall Street banks?
And ... Was she Secretary of State?
Gag me with a spoon (Score:2)
Moon Unit Zappa, who recorded the song Valley Girl back in 1982 with her dad, is now 48.
Re: (Score:2)
Moon Unit Zappa, who recorded the song Valley Girl back in 1982 with her dad, is now 48.
That's like, so, oh my gawd!
What-ev-er...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. You don't casually arrest the leading presidential candidate of a party and former Secretary of State without being pretty sure you're doing the right thing. What do you think would happen if the FBI arrested Clinton right now and then, after some months of investigations, released her? It'd almost certainly alter the outcome of the elections and would be a career ending move for a lot of people.
I don't know if she is guilty or not. My point is more that we can't take a lack of an arrest as