Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Security Communications Databases Democrats Networking Privacy Republicans The Internet United States Wireless Networking News Politics Technology

FBI Director: Guccifer Admitted He Lied About Hacking Hillary Clinton's Email (dailydot.com) 289

blottsie writes from a report via The Daily Dot: The Romanian hacker known as Guccifer (real name Marcel Lehel Lazar) admitted to the FBI that he lied to the public when he said he repeatedly hacked into Hillary Clinton's email server in 2013. FBI Director James Comey testified before members on Congress on Thursday that Guccifer never hacked into Clinton's servers and in fact admitted that he lied. Lazar told Fox News and NBC News in May 2016 about his alleged hacking. Despite offering no proof, the claim caused a huge stir, including making headline news on some of America's biggest publications, which offered little skepticism of his claims. "Can you confirm that Guccifer never gained access to her server?" asked Texas Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold. "He did not. He admitted that was a lie," Comey replied. Lazar is currently imprisoned in Alexandria, Virginia, following his extradition from Romania.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Director: Guccifer Admitted He Lied About Hacking Hillary Clinton's Email

Comments Filter:
  • Of course he did. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ravenshrike ( 808508 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:32PM (#52467787)

    Was this before or after you offered him a better plea deal Mr. Comey?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:41PM (#52467817)
    Would the last asshole claiming to have dirt on Hillary please present your evidence or kindly go fist yourself? I'm no fan of hers but I'm sick of these gutter sniping little shiats trying to play the kingslayer.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The Republicans need someone to blame for the fact that they chose a self-aggrandizing Nazi as their Presidential candidate. They got so used to blaming the Clintons 20 years ago, why not continue now?

      • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @10:26PM (#52468045) Journal

        The Republicans need someone to blame for the fact that they chose a self-aggrandizing Nazi as their Presidential candidate.

        Trump isn't a Nazi. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting something so sick. Those swastikas are really just Hindu good luck symbols. Sad!

      • by Jawnn ( 445279 ) on Friday July 08, 2016 @11:01AM (#52471039)
        Troll? Seriously? Look, I will stipulate that Hillary and her people did a poor job of handling sensitive communications IF you Republican fan-boy asshats will acknowledge that poor security practices are the norm in most federal agencies, including the State Department during this administration and the previous one.
        Agreed? Fine. Let's move on.

        So I guess we really are left with nothing but a party that is desperate to deflect attention away from the colossal embarrassment that is their presumptive nominee for president. Y'all really should hope that Hillary wins, because the damage that your boy will do the Republican brand if he actually gets elected will make your current discomfort look like the good old days. But hey, if the NRA likes him, it must be safe to support him. Right?
    • Thank you for this. I have no mod points... so, again, thank you for this. It's past time for the "gutter sniping little shiats" to STFU.

    • by guises ( 2423402 )
      To Assange's credit, he's never claimed to have anything on all this email bullshit, or Benghazi, or whatever the current scandal-fad is. He was talking about real decisions which she made in office and relevant to her position, which he thought were questionable. His judgement may or may not be on-target there, but at least it's about capability as a decision maker.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Here come the apologists and lemmings. Most things are pretty straight forward and there is not a conspiracy. However, there is a very clear conspiracy here to the point that it's hardly a conspiracy -- it's just a crime being allowed and enabled.

      Whether or not Guccifer hacked Hillary Clinton's server is irrelevant to the fact that she committed a significant crime, repeatedly, and for many years in an effort to coverup -- at best -- private dealings. It was an insecure server left in a bathroom hidden sole

    • Ok, how about this evidence:

      She testified under oath that there was no classified information sent or received by her email server to the Benghazi Committee.
      The FBI just had a big press conference saying they found 100+ classified documents that were classified at the time of sending / receiving.
      The FBI director just testified under oath to the House Government Oversight Committee that there was classified material in the emails, which was classified at the time of delivery.

      Pending perjury charges? Probably

  • Is it just me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @10:03PM (#52467919)
    or was this entire thing a disaster for the anti-Hilary camp. When they tried grilling him on Petraeus he was given the chance to defend his actions and provide evidence that Petraeus actions were willful. It's undermined the entire narrative. Meanwhile Trump's doing a lousy job with it too. Did they just botch the whole thing or have they given up and decided to side with Hilary rather than risk Trump?
  • Let me get this straight.

    An email server that had nothing critical on it was claimed to have been hacked so they extradited some person from Romania to stand trial for... What?

    And meanwhile, Locky and other ransomeware runs rampant and the gubment does nothing?

    My question is if a server is hosting nothing important - why would an extradition be needed?

    • Re:Hang on (Score:5, Informative)

      by drunken_boxer777 ( 985820 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @10:45PM (#52468133)

      He wasn't extradited for his claim about Hillary's server. He was extradited for:

      In the United States, Lazar is charged in a nine-count indictment with three counts of wire fraud, three counts of gaining unauthorized access to protected computers, and one count each of aggravated identity theft, cyberstalking and obstruction of justice. ... Lazar hacked into the email and social media accounts of high-profile victims, including a family member of two former U.S. presidents, a former U.S. Cabinet member, a former member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former presidential advisor. After gaining unauthorized access to their accounts, Lazar publicly released his victims’ private email correspondence, medical and financial information and personal photographs. The indictment also alleges that in July 2013 and August 2013, Lazar impersonated a victim after compromising the victim’s account.

      https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr... [justice.gov]

      Check the timeline. He claimed to have hacked Hillary's server in May. The DOJ press release above is dated April 1, meaning he was already extradited before making the claim. So they still have a number of charges to investigate.

    • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:22PM (#52468273)

      Let me get this straight. An email server that had nothing critical on it ...

      Nope, wrong, the FBI director testified that there were over 100 emails that were classified at the time they arrived on the server. Hillary's claim that all the controversial emails were later reclassified after arrival was proven false.

      And these 100+ only represent what was recoverable. Tens of thousands of emails were not recoverable. And we also know from the FBI investigation that Hillary's claim that these emails were all personal was also proven false. Several of these not handed over by Hillary and deleted from her server were also classified, they were found through other recipients government email accounts.

    • 1) The CFAA is extremely broad. It's so absurdly broad that we're probably all in violation of it right now. Sharing a password. "Hacking" a website by entering its url into your browser bar. Thinking a thought that's in violation of a EULA. This guy didn't hack a not-government server that sometimes didn't contain retroactively classifiable information, which if you balance out the negatives is roughly equivalent to exploding the Vice President's heart over wifi. Totally extraditable.

      2) May I go o
  • If his big hack of Hilary was a lie, why is he in jail? Shouldn't you let him go home? No crime, no felony, no jail. At least that is how it is supposed to work.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by apparently ( 756613 )

      If his big hack of Hilary was a lie, why is he in jail? Shouldn't you let him go home? No crime, no felony, no jail. At least that is how it is supposed to work.

      I'm not a super-genius like you, but this is probably the reason he's in jail, you fucking idiot:
      "In a statement of facts filed with his plea agreement, [Lehel] admitted that from at least October 2012 to January 2014, he intentionally gained unauthorized access to personal email and social media accounts belonging to approximately 100 Americans, and he did so to unlawfully obtain his victims' personal information and email correspondence. His victims included an immediate family member of two former U.S.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward


      "Marcel Lehel Lazar entered guilty pleas to charges of identity theft and unauthorized access to protected computers before a federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia."

      "Prosecutors said he broke into the e-mail and social media accounts of roughly 100 Americans, including a former U.S. cabinet member and members of the family of former presidents George W. and George H.W. Bush."

    • If his big hack of Hilary was a lie, why is he in jail? Shouldn't you let him go home? No crime, no felony, no jail. At least that is how it is supposed to work.

      Because he was never in jail for hacking into Clinton's server. The claimed Clinton hack was just him attention-whoring.

      • The claimed Clinton hack was just him attention-whoring.

        Was it? Or did he lie about lying? Hard to take anyone at his word when the first thing he says is "I'm a liar"....

    • If his big hack of Hilary was a lie, why is he in jail? Shouldn't you let him go home? No crime, no felony, no jail. At least that is how it is supposed to work.

      Because He pleaded guilty to a whole bunch of other stuff [wikipedia.org]

    • by Megol ( 3135005 )

      Sadly we will never know as the reasons he was extradited and trialed are a state secret. There have been no reporting about his trial or sentence, no interviews with the "hacker" etc. :( /s

      TL;DR Do some fucking homework yourself.

  • Largely irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:03PM (#52468191)
    Let me put it this way since this has become so heavily politicized people are having trouble thinking about it objectively.

    Say you had your bank account login details, passwords, and credit cards stored on a password service like LastPass which is supposed to store it securely, and you later learned they weren't securing it at all and in fact were storing all your sensitive info in cleartext. Would you be satisfied and let the company off the hook if they claimed "but it's ok - no harm was done since we weren't hacked"?

    The problem isn't whether or not that info was hacked. The problem is that sensitive info which was supposed to be handled securely was not. The only difference actually being hacked makes is a hypothetical outcome vs a real outcome, and is largely irrelevant. It just means you got lucky and dodged a bullet; it does not validate or excuse how that info was mishandled. This is like a 5-year old who runs across a busy street instead of waiting with you for the light to change, and when you berate him for not staying by your side and waiting until it was safe says, "but I made it across OK" as if that somehow justifies his behavior.
  • Absolutely [slashdot.org] shocked [slashdot.org].

    In other revelations, professional wresting is fake, something weird is going on with Donald Trump's hair, and people will uncritically accept ridiculous information if it reinforces their priors!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Neither Donald nor Hillary are fit for office. However, electing Donald is like playing Russian roulette with a revolver loaded with one cartridge. Electing Hillary is like playing Russian roulette with a revolver with all six charge holes loaded. We're fucked. Full stop. She will continue and worsen the damage already done to America over the last 8 years.

  • by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:58PM (#52468397) Homepage Journal

    "He did not. He admitted that was a lie,"

    When a person make directly contradictory statements, one of them is a lie. But which one?

    Was he lying then, or is he lying now?

    • by Megol ( 3135005 ) on Friday July 08, 2016 @06:41AM (#52469599)

      Unless you are one of the conspiracy theory nuts (which in most cases believe in multiple directly contradictory fantasies) the logical solution is that he was lying before. Otherwise there should have been evidence of the break-in and it would have been added to the severe criticism in the FBI report.

      For a nut though it's just evidence for a cover-up. But for a nut everything is evidence for a cover-up...

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you...

        — Joseph Heller, Catch-22

  • by wwalker ( 159341 )

    So an alleged criminal is in prison awaiting trial and when questioned he says "no, never mind, I did not really do that criminal act you are asking me about that can add years to my jail sentence, I was just kidding earlier". And you just believe him, no further investigation needed? I guess when it benefits Hillary, then yeah, you just ask him to pinky swear and trust his every word.

    • by Megol ( 3135005 )

      Or perhaps there is no evidence of that event ever occurring? How about thinking before typing?

  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Friday July 08, 2016 @03:17AM (#52469049)

    So if you read the transcript or excerpts now appearing on many sites...

    Comey says that only one person has been prosecuted for gross negligence (what hillary is accused of) and in that case there was espionage involved as well.


    12:12 p.m. Pushing back on Republican characterizations of his recommendation adhering to a "double standard" when it comes to Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey said it would instead be a "double standard" if the former secretary of state was prosecuted.

    "You know what would be a double standard? If she was prosecuted for gross negligence," Comey noted. "She was negligent. That I can establish."

    11:45 a.m. Comey told the House Oversight Committee that the decision not to recommend an indictment was unanimous among the investigative team.

    • Yep people get over it!
      Between her and her advisors showing both incompetence, lack of basic concern of the safety of the security of the material, and the wiping of drives, emails and what would be the evidence she did nothing wrong.
      Move on after all what difference would it make?
  • Monday last week: Bill Clinton meets Attorney General Loretta Lynch at Phoenix airport
    Tuesday: FBI Director Comey recommends against charging Hillary Clinton
    Wednesday: Attorney General Loretta Lynch announces there will be no charges
    Thursday: FBI Director Comey says the guy who claimed to have hacked Clinton server actually didn't do it.

    That's quite an amazing timing. Can anyone one really pretend the power that be did not decide that they were going to take a week to bury the Clinton email scandal? C
  • "He did not. He admitted that was a lie," Comey replied.

    Hacker: "Hey, I hacked Hilary's servers!"
    FBI: "Did you really?"
    Hacker: "Err nope."
    FBI: "Okay, cross him off the list, who's next?"

    • by Megol ( 3135005 )

      Hacker: "Hey, I hacked Hilary's servers!"
      FBI: "Did you really?"
      Hacker: "Err nope."
      FBI: "Okay, as there is no evidence he did cross him off the list, who's next?"

      Fixed that for you. *sigh*

  • On what grounds exactly did the US extradite him from Romania then, if apparently he didn't do anything?
  • or other high level government officials, including past Secretaries of State, have ever had years of their email scrutinized by the FBI for possibly classified information? And anyone who watches Fox News knows that there has been a steady stream of leaks from the FBI on their investigation of Mrs. Clinton. Has anyone in the FBI been disciplined for the leaks? And was the NSA aware of Clinton's private e-mail server? Did they complain to her or her boss about it? If not why not?
  • Why would someone claim to have hacked Clinton's email when they hadn't, to the point where they get extradited and caught up in a legal case? It seems like now is a very strange time for backtracking.

This universe shipped by weight, not by volume. Some expansion of the contents may have occurred during shipment.