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.
Of course he did. (Score:3, Insightful)
Was this before or after you offered him a better plea deal Mr. Comey?
Re:Of course he did. (Score:5, Insightful)
And they believed him? (Score:3)
He admitted that was a lie
But you believe him when he says he lied to you last time? Why?
Re: Of course he did. (Score:3, Interesting)
if it wasnt guccifer, i wonder how RT had copies of Hitlerys emails in 2013 then.
https://www.rt.com/usa/complet... [rt.com]
Re: (Score:3)
...while a killer from the US will never be extradited to outside.
Where do people come up with this shit? Let me point to...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09... [nytimes.com]
http://articles.latimes.com/19... [latimes.com]
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2... [foxnews.com]
http://freedomoutpost.com/us-c... [freedomoutpost.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
It's your turn, Mr Assange (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:It's your turn, Mr Assange (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
What Star of David?
FYI, the Star of David is two letter "D"s above and below each other. You know, for DaviD.
Re: (Score:2)
How so? A hebrew daleth doesn't look anything like a triangle.
Re:It's your turn, Mr Assange (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The biggest problem Republicans have with Trump is that he's a blathering idiot. "Article 12" of the Constitution? Really?
http://www.redstate.com/brando... [redstate.com]
That's from a conservative Republican website, by the way.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's your turn, Mr Assange (Score:4, Informative)
As compared to the president who thought there was 52 states?
Who was that? Obama looked to me to have started to say "all 50" states, but corrected himself down to 47 in mid thought/sentence, and said fifty-uh-seven. And didn't bother to redact his "fifty" before revising the number down to 47.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As compared to the president who thought there was 52 states?
Who was that? Obama looked to me to have started to say "all 50" states, but corrected himself down to 47 in mid thought/sentence, and said fifty-uh-seven. And didn't bother to redact his "fifty" before revising the number down to 47.
I'd hate to be a politician, a single slip of the tongue and a bunch of self-important twats will jump on for it. Here's the snopes that further elaborates on the event you are referring to in your comment. http://www.snopes.com/politics... [snopes.com]
Re: It's your turn, Mr Assange (Score:2)
You phones exist right? It would be a lot easier to setup a cushy job via phone than in front the entire press corp with cameras documenting the meeting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any level of stupidity that will finally convince the man is a simpering retard?
Re: It's your turn, Mr Assange (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the thing: unless you're a constitutional scholar or some subset of mnemonist, why would anyone, including the president, need to know what article 2 is? Why not just say "legislative branch"? Because he had an axe to grind.
Trump is ostensibly a businessman, and given the...well, benefit of the doubt...he maybe knows things about his field of interest that a bunch of legislators do not. Lawyers are important in the lawmaking and interpretation process, but these offices are choked full of lawyers. We
Re:It's your turn, Mr Assange (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any level of stupidity that will finally convince the man is a simpering retard?
Trump's use of language is pretty amazing. He manages to come across as so sloppy in his selection of wrong words that his supporters can think, "He didn't really mean that, literally." It gives them license to imagine that Trump "really" meant whatever is in that supporter's own head. So, when Trump detractors see him make racist, economically irrational, or politically naive statements, his fans get to hear exactly what they want to hear.
I have no idea if he's doing this intentionally or if it's an accident of his 6th-grade vocabulary, but it's fascinating. If the PR people can figure out how he does it, I have no doubt that we'll see a new wave of politicians replacing the old-style non-statement with Trump-style reverse-projection.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there any level of stupidity that will finally convince the man is a simpering retard?
Trump's use of language is pretty amazing. He manages to come across as so sloppy in his selection of wrong words that his supporters can think, "He didn't really mean that, literally." It gives them license to imagine that Trump "really" meant whatever is in that supporter's own head. So, when Trump detractors see him make racist, economically irrational, or politically naive statements, his fans get to hear exactly what they want to hear.
I have no idea if he's doing this intentionally or if it's an accident of his 6th-grade vocabulary, but it's fascinating. If the PR people can figure out how he does it, I have no doubt that we'll see a new wave of politicians replacing the old-style non-statement with Trump-style reverse-projection.
Politicians are basically salespeople who sell themselves. They sell themselves to lobbyists, they sell themselves to their peers, and lastly (and least importantly) they sell themselves to voters. They sell themselves in a certain way because they are politicians and politicians have a certain way of doing that.
Trump has successfully sold himself to municipal planners and leaders to get his projects built. He has sold himself to investment groups, individuals, and banks. And he sells himself to av
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How did we even let it get to this point? There are apparently a LOT of actual people supporting these two clowns?!
Is it just the "I'm only voting for Hillary because she's not Trump" crowd versus the "I'm only voting for Trump because he's not Hillary" folks or what? That and the "we need to elect the first woman president" crowd (though frankly, we could easily do a heck of a lot better than Hillary if the only true qualification is a vagina).
I can't even imagine the kind of screwed up mindset it would
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's true. I mean, all those articles of the Constitution, who needs to keep them straight? I mean, Chapter 11, 12, 13...what's the difference? Donald Trump is very very smart. "Super genius" in fact. Just ask him.
https://www.salon.com/2016/04/... [salon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only "Chapter", Donald need to know is which Chapter he needs the next time if files for bankruptcy.
From listening to some of what he says, it appears that his economic plan for the USA is filing country bankruptcy.
Re: (Score:2)
Which of course means that they will sensationalize minor gaffes of people they don't like... like Trump. Getting numbers wrong that enumerate things is really quite minor. The article also points out that he misremembered which book of the Bible he wanted to cite. I've done that quite a number of times. It's really no big deal. If these are the sorts of things they want to try to make hay out of, they really should be working harder.
He was also a little Cosbyesque....allegedly. http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/... [snopes.com]
Re: It's your turn, Mr Assange (Score:3)
Hipocracy - rule by horses. I for one welcome our equine overlords.
Re:It's your turn, Mr Assange (Score:4, Interesting)
Nazis most certainly were populists, or at least posed as populists. Hitler didn't win power by proclaiming he was going to kill all the Jews or invading the rest of Europe, he got in because he promised to make Germany great again, to go after all the elements of German society that made it weak, and make everyone who he viewed as Germany's enemies pay for what they had done. While Mein Kampf had some pretty strong hints as to what he was thinking in the long-term, it wasn't until he had successfully remilitarized the Rhineland that he felt Germany could take on Europe, and it wasn't until he had abandoned all other means of getting rid of the Jews that the Final Solution was floated.
So yes, Trump is a lot like Hitler, in some respects at least. The populism, the finding of easy targets to scapegoat for all the ills, the rhetoric about how he will make his nation great and restore its glory. He's walked a few steps down the road of Hitler, the only real difference being that whatever else Hitler was, Hitler was capable of actual long-term thinking, planning, and political acumen. Trump appears to possess no such capabilities. What he does have in common with Hitler is the ability to say the unsayable and convince his followers that the unsayable is only unsayable because the enemies of the people don't want it said.
Re: (Score:3)
Hitler didn't win power by proclaiming he was going to kill all the Jews
He might not have said he'd kill them, but 'it's all the fault of the Jews' was a recurring phrase in his speeches.
Re:It's your turn, Mr Assange (Score:4, Informative)
Sort of like how it's all the fault of the Muslims and Mexicans in Trump's speeches?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is she did not accept the risk and instead did everything in her power to convince anyone who would listen that her actions were not risky. What's scary is that she probably never even recognized the risk in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, from your vast DoD experience do you actually KNOW of anyone who went to jail for being sloppy with classified material, without some espionage attempt being established? Maybe it is a jailing offence, but in the real world DoD that I was in what would have happened would be an investigation to see what might have gotten compromised and at worst the offender would have gotten a reprimand and lost their security clearance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Classified information does not get unclassified by executive fiat from the Secretary of State's office. There's an actual process.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re:Is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)
Republicans have a bad habit of overbidding their hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you would sing a different tune if the judge in the Trump University scandal finds him guilty but decides there is no need to punish him. It is a travesty to Americans, not just the anti-Hillary camp, when we have people "above the law".
Hang on (Score:2)
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)
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.
100+ emails classified when they arrived on server (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:100+ emails classified when they arrived on ser (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true. He stated 8 had classification markings, all of which contained paragraphs marked with (c) designating them as confidential.
"In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.
Even so, Clinton and her team still should have known the information was not appropriate for an unclassified system, Comey said.
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said of some of the top secret chains."
http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
Markings are not required. Some information is classified by its very nature and does not need an explicit mark. State department personnel and other authorized to handle classified information are well instructed on these facts.
Re:100+ emails classified when they arrived on ser (Score:5, Informative)
right... because people just a a tingly spidey-sense when an email has classified information in it
No spidey sense required, people who handle classified info are trained in what info is classified by default, regardless of markings. Basically a marking must be there to say it is declassified, not that it is classified. For example references to undercover CIA operatives, even indirect references, which is one of the things found to have been passing through Clinton's server.
That is why they did not attempt to prosecute, ...
No, the FBI director specified that there was no clear intent, merely incompetence. Intent is a necessary element of a crime. That is why he offered as an example, firing people and revoking their security clearance, when they display such incompetence on the job.
And for the 8 pieces that she received that were actually marked... then I say BRAVO, for only making a mistake 8 times out of 30,000 emails.
No, its 8 out of 110.
Re: (Score:2)
>Markings are not required. Some information is classified by its very nature and does not need an explicit mark. State department personnel and other authorized to handle classified information are well instructed on these facts.
Sorry, this is wrong. Markings are *always* required. You have to mark shit or it's assumed to be of the highest level the facility you're in is capable of producing.
You prove my point. I am not saying markings are optional for the person creating the document. I am saying marking are not required for the person receiving the document, if the creator failed to mark then certain documents are still classified merely by the nature of their content. That the lack of a mark does not make a document unclassified.
Re: (Score:2)
2) May I go o
So why is he in jail? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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)
You can't bee to bright - but the use of "pigs" and the comparison with STASI (short for STaatSIcherheit (sp?)) broadcast that clearly.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/guccifer-hacker-who-says-he-breached-clinton-server-pleads-guilty-n580186
"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."
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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"....
Re: (Score:3)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Largely irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)
> The problem is that sensitive info which was supposed to be handled securely was not.
This was universal. The government has shown itself incapable of securely hosting email several times. I haven't seen any credible evidence that the email server everyone is calling insecure is any less or more secure than any other email server of the time.
Shocked! (Score:2)
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!
If Hillary isn't stopped, America is Screwed (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Which statement was a lie? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Which statement was a lie? (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
— Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Wow (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps there is no evidence of that event ever occurring? How about thinking before typing?
FBI Director says 1 prosecution in 99 years (Score:5, Informative)
So if you read the transcript or excerpts now appearing on many sites...
Comey says that only one person has been prosecuted for gross negligence (what hillary is accused of) and in that case there was espionage involved as well.
Further...
12:12 p.m. Pushing back on Republican characterizations of his recommendation adhering to a "double standard" when it comes to Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey said it would instead be a "double standard" if the former secretary of state was prosecuted.
"You know what would be a double standard? If she was prosecuted for gross negligence," Comey noted. "She was negligent. That I can establish."
11:45 a.m. Comey told the House Oversight Committee that the decision not to recommend an indictment was unanimous among the investigative team.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
The timing is quite stuning (Score:2)
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
So you just have to say you're lying? (Score:2)
"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?"
Re: (Score:2)
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*
So uh (Score:2)
How many Congressional leaders.. (Score:2)
The motives are a bit unclear (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The fabricated whatdoesitmean.com story about Guccifer's disappearance was picked up a few days later by the Christian Times Newspaper web site...
Re: (Score:3)
its utterly important to know what the CHRISTIAN TIMES has to say.
I wait on their every word.
my day is not complete, etc etc.
Re: I'm Confident (Score:2)
Re:FBI (Score:4, Insightful)
something about a blowjob
I think you mean that history will remember an extremely hypocritical and self-effacing reversal by the 'progressive' Feminist community on the matter of sexual harassment in the workplace. An enabling First Lady who actively worked to strike down and discredit the female victims of her husband. Said First Lady attempting to become a figurehead for the Feminist movement in the form of the First Woman President.
It's so weird that if, say, a Gloria Steinem feminist in 1975 was asked if it could come to be, they'd say you were out of your fucking mind.
But anyways. It doesn't matter. It's Hillary's turn to be nominated.
Re:FBI (Score:5, Informative)
"sexual harassment in the workplace"... "female victims of her husband"
You make it sound like Clinton was a serial rapist or something.
It was consensual and completely legal. There was never any debate over that.
Clinton lied about it under oath. That was the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
"sexual harassment in the workplace"... "female victims of her husband" You make it sound like Clinton was a serial rapist or something. It was consensual and completely legal. There was never any debate over that. Clinton lied about it under oath. That was the problem.
You make it sound like Clinton is blameless. Clinton lied under oath in regard to a sexual harassment case [wikipedia.org] in which he was being sued. The fact that some people continuously try to make it sound like he lied under oath about something completely irrelevant is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
There are roughly 300m people in the USA.
That you did have a father-son pair as president, and are now considering the wife of a former president for the role, speaks volumes about how undemocratic your system of government actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'll be looking into third party candidates, even though there's effectively no way they can win. I'm not big on 'protest votes', but I can't endorse either of these two. I simply can't do it. I can't vote a flip-flopping focus-polling stands-for-nothing-but-self-enrichment unindicted felon, and I can't vote for a jingoistic Dorito-tinted race-baiting proto-fascist who can't even grasp the basics of the constitutional government he wants to run.
This is going to be a frightening 4 years, where Congr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You win the internets today.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously.
I don't believe you said that!
Re: (Score:2)
Exchange worked with the Blackberry email service. This is why it was demanded.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Whatever is convenient for the crypto-fantasists.
I thought crypto-fantasists are the ones who think the P curves are sound.
Re:Crooked Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
She needs to go to jail for mishandling classified information. FBI's report stated, she did it — suck it up, cupcake, while the rest of us are sucking up the sorry reality, that laws are for "little people".
Why the fuck do you think FBI decided not to prosecute then? It was pretty obvious the director doesnt think they would be able to convince the jury to convict, and it wouldnt hold water in court. The FBI doesnt have like a 93% conviction rate for no reason. Or do you think they should press charges anyway, because it serves your political agenda?
Re: (Score:2)
FBI made no such decision. DOJ did.
FBI did not recommend prosecution. And explained why [fbi.gov] — you don't have to ask my opinion:
The White House and the Department of Justice (which would've done the prosecution) are in the hands of the Democrats — until January. And Democrats do not prosecute Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is because they are power hungry and will gain additional power and resources when the bitch is in the WH
Well, they would become this bitch's bitch, when this bitch is in the WH. How the fuck are they planning to gain power and resources from the president?
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, he lied under oath, but he didn't lie about something actually relevant,"
Hate to break it to you, a lie is a lie. A lie under oath is perjury. You may want to go to law school to understand that.
FYI the Feds brought down Al Capone due to tax evasion. Breaking the law is STILL breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, it doesn't matter. The underlying point remains the same: the system is so broken that we cannot trust it.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. The US legal system is one of the most trustworthy in the world. No it's not perfect but your ideas of secret deals from shadowy actors is a pure fantasy. Secret deals happen but for state security reasons, not for helping an individual candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
You have already shown that you are an idiot so should anybody care what you believe?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You know John Oliver televised "Drumpf" because Trump repeatedly mocked John Stewart for changing his name, right?