Clinton Campaign Breached By Hackers 265
An anonymous reader writes: Hillary Clinton's campaign network was breached by hackers targeting several large Democratic organizations, Reuters reports. Clinton's campaign spokesperson Nick Merrill confirmed the hack in a statement. 'An analytics data program maintained by the DNC, and used by our campaign and a number of other entities, was accessed as part of the DNC hack. Our campaign computer system has been under review by outside security experts. To date, they have found no evidence that our internal systems have been compromised,' he said.
The hack follows on the heels of breaches at the Democratic National Committee and at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee earlier this year. More than 19,000 emails from DNC officials were published on WikiLeaks just prior to the Democratic National Convention, casting a shadow over the proceedings. Some security experts and U.S. officials have attributed the breaches to Russian operatives, although the origin of the email leak is less certain.
The hack follows on the heels of breaches at the Democratic National Committee and at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee earlier this year. More than 19,000 emails from DNC officials were published on WikiLeaks just prior to the Democratic National Convention, casting a shadow over the proceedings. Some security experts and U.S. officials have attributed the breaches to Russian operatives, although the origin of the email leak is less certain.
Oh No! All those Yoga Routines Stolen! (Score:2, Funny)
I blame the hack on a Youtube video.
Re:Oh No! All those Yoga Routines Stolen! (Score:5, Insightful)
Untouchable criminal (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That criminal witch is untouchable, so I don't see the point of further hacks. She should be headed to prison instead of the White House.
Using a non-governmental account wasn't unprecedented, or illegal.
The illegal part was that classified information was occasionally sent on the servers, but there's no reason to think that was deliberate. High level State Department officials would constantly be dealing with information that was classified, but carried no indication of being classified. Any communication channel they regularly use was going to see the occasional classified document.
That's why people who do what Hillary did, regardless of po
Re: (Score:3)
That criminal witch is untouchable, so I don't see the point of further hacks. She should be headed to prison instead of the White House.
yes, since ken starr, trent gowdy, and james comey are all conspiring with their fellow democrats to not indict her just because there is no evidence of any crime, she should be imprisoned just because of your general feelings. that's the problem with america these days, we can no longer just throw people in jail or execute them because we just don't like them. make america great again!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Stop acting as if she killed someone...
2012 Benghazi attack...
Re:Untouchable criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop watching movies and thinking they are real.
Re:Untouchable criminal (Score:4, Informative)
So Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith.Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty weren't killed there in large part due to Hillary?
Nope, they were killed there. But not "in large part due to Hillary" except on your fantasy island.
Re:Untouchable criminal (Score:4, Informative)
16 US embassies and/or consulates were attacked during GW Bush's presidency. 60 people were killed. There were NO congressional hearings. Double standard, much?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many embassies were destroyed, and how many ambassadors were killed?
Re:Untouchable criminal (Score:5, Informative)
You mean besides the part where the Benghazi embassy requested extra security and she along with her underlings said there wasn't any money for it? But they could come up with the money for electric car chargers for the embassies in Europe?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean besides the part where the Benghazi embassy requested extra security and she along with her underlings said there wasn't any money for it? But they could come up with the money for electric car chargers for the embassies in Europe?
WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?
I'm not even sure if they were making a tradeoff, there's an actual security budget [politifact.com] which suggests the electric car chargers came from a completely different pool of money than security. (though I could see a valid security argument for the chargers)
Re:Untouchable criminal (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?
Well let's look at it from an IT pov shall we? You'r UID is low enough you should get it. Imagine you've got two satellite offices, one is in a relatively stable, secure area where you can get away with simple keypad lockouts and the occasional guard. The other location is in a shit hole, there's roving bands of thugs and not only do you have heavy security you also have all the existing security.
Now your nice safe office in order to look trendy in their new hip area wants 143 cappuccino and espresso machines, because that'll make them look good. And your other office wants more on the ground bodies and further hardening of the existing security measure to make sure your hardware is secure. So you decide that trendy and hip is the way to go, your other office gets trashed, people get killed and you just say "well there wasn't any money to help with that..." while you just finished spending several hundred thousand dollars for cappuccino and espresso machines.
So the money was there, it could have been reallocated by dispensation to the security fund. But instead of doing that you're now responsible for the deaths of a couple of people, destruction of your hardware and other issues. And your response is: "what difference does it make?"
Re: (Score:3)
WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?
Well let's look at it from an IT pov shall we? You'r UID is low enough you should get it. Imagine you've got two satellite offices, one is in a relatively stable, secure area where you can get away with simple keypad lockouts and the occasional guard. The other location is in a shit hole, there's roving bands of thugs and not only do you have heavy security you also have all the existing security.
Now your nice safe office in order to look trendy in their new hip area wants 143 cappuccino and espresso machines, because that'll make them look good. And your other office wants more on the ground bodies and further hardening of the existing security measure to make sure your hardware is secure. So you decide that trendy and hip is the way to go, your other office gets trashed, people get killed and you just say "well there wasn't any money to help with that..." while you just finished spending several hundred thousand dollars for cappuccino and espresso machines.
So the money was there, it could have been reallocated by dispensation to the security fund. But instead of doing that you're now responsible for the deaths of a couple of people, destruction of your hardware and other issues. And your response is: "what difference does it make?"
except that the security budget is specifically allocated by the house and senate.
Re:Untouchable criminal (Score:5, Informative)
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-s... [pjmedia.com]
Hillary Obstructed Boko Haram's Terror Designation as Her Donors Cashed In
In January 2015, I was one of the first to report on a massive massacre by Nigerian terror group Boko Haram in Borno State in northwest Nigeria, with reportedly thousands killed. Witnesses on the ground reported that bodies littered the landscape for miles as towns and villages had been burned to the ground, their populations murdered or fled.
And yet, as Boko Haram began to ramp up its terror campaign in 2011 and 2012, Hillary Clinton obstructed the official terror designation of the group over the objections of Congress, the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department.
Nice deflection onto Bush. I gotta ask how is he running for office again and what the hell makes you think it absolves her sins.
Re: (Score:3)
Give it up. You will never win with any argument of logic or fact when they excuse political incompetence with Bush did it. We know for a fact that help wasn't sent for fears of the political fallout but that isn't important. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing while American officials are being killed is somehow justifiably because under different circumstances Bush did it.
Re:Untouchable criminal (Score:4, Insightful)
So saying things some people don't like (while lacking any immediate calls for violence)... is now considered a hate crime?
Truly the SJW's have won the cultural war... if you are right... which thankfully you are not.
Re: (Score:2)
So saying things some people don't like (while lacking any immediate calls for violence)... is now considered a hate crime?
Truly the SJW's have won the cultural war... if you are right... which thankfully you are not.
Extreme political correctness is the reason some people want to vote for Trump. He's extreme in the opposite direction.
Re:Untouchable criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
Hateful speech is not a crime. This is not the EU. You can be a NeoNazi and drape your house in swastikas if you want. It's only a hate crime once you start gassing people or telling other people to do so.
Re:Untouchable criminal (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? Because we don't jail people for thought crimes and believe everyone deserves a voice even if they're stupid? Since when is not liking people a crime?
NeoNazis are ridiculed quite mercilessly here in the US. You have the freedom to say whatever you want. And people have the freedom to call you an irrational douchebag and wish that someone would kick your ass.
It's called LIBERTY. We still have a little bit of that left in spite of the best efforts of "progressives" and SJW retards. If liberty scares you and you enjoy a nanny state that punishes people for being meanieheads, then enjoy the EU. A nanny state for your "protection" goes against the principles on which this country was founded. And nanny states are happy to turn on their own citizens eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And nanny states are happy to turn on their own citizens eventually.
Really? Which nanny states are you thinking of?
Sweden? Denmark? -- No turning on citizens. Just improving their lot. Singapore? Yes it did ban bubble gum, but on the list of "turning on your own citizens" that seems pretty minor. UK? Yes it does have the same Orwellian surveillance of its own citizens as the US, but that's not really "turning on your own citizens" and it's not really associated with nanny states.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not liberty. If you are a Jew, how can you enjoy your life, go freely about your business without fear if your neighbour's house is covered in swastikas?
Besides, you are being selective. Even in America you can't turn your back yard into a sewage processing plant without a permit, because it's understood that when people have to live close together they can't have the freedom to do absolutely anything they want.
The EU does far more to protect individual freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not liberty. If you are a Jew, how can you enjoy your life, go freely about your business without fear if your neighbour's house is covered in swastikas?
Because assaulting and killing people is still considered a crime. Being offensive isn't.
Besides, you are being selective. Even in America you can't turn your back yard into a sewage processing plant without a permit, because it's understood that when people have to live close together they can't have the freedom to do absolutely anything they want.
That would actually be a public health risk and put the property of others at risk of being contaminated. Now if you live in a rural area, this would be less of an issue.
The EU does far more to protect individual freedom.
No, not at all. If you can be cited for offending people, speaking out against religion, being insulting or owning defensive weapons.... you are not free. You do not have an inherent right to be shielded from offensive ideas or to never have your fe
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused. I'm not taking about just insulting people, that's fine. I'm taking about creating an atmosphere were a reasonable person would be justifiably afraid.
It wouldn't be acceptable to point a gun at someone's head without pulling the trigger. No physical harm done, but it's a clear threat and would justify a response.
Re: (Score:3)
You are confused. I'm not taking about just insulting people, that's fine. I'm taking about creating an atmosphere were a reasonable person would be justifiably afraid.
The problem is defining terms like "justifiably afraid" and "reasonable person" are almost impossible to do in a legal sense and such laws tend to incredibly broad and open to interpretation.
Some Christians believe they are "justifiably afraid" because their kids walk by liquor stores or a gay club on their way home from school. The KKK believes they are "justifiably afraid" of black protests. Some people think they are "justifiably afraid" because people can carry a holstered pistol without wearing a bad
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is defining terms like "justifiably afraid" and "reasonable person" are almost impossible to do in a legal sense and such laws tend to incredibly broad and open to interpretation.
That's for courts to decide. You could make the same argument about all sorts of things. Was it negligence or could no reasonable person have foreseen it? That was one of the earliest uses of it (Vaughan v. Menlove).
Without this standard, it would be impossible to prevent your neighbour playing loud music 24/7. They could argue that you are being overly sensitive and could just sleep through it like they do.
That's a direct threat of violence, which is NOT acceptable.
Is it? Maybe they just like waving their gun around. They told you it's not loaded, and you can trust
Re: (Score:3)
That's for courts to decide. You could make the same argument about all sorts of things. Was it negligence or could no reasonable person have foreseen it? That was one of the earliest uses of it (Vaughan v. Menlove).
Without this standard, it would be impossible to prevent your neighbour playing loud music 24/7. They could argue that you are being overly sensitive and could just sleep through it like they do.
And if they argued that, they could be right. Your definition of loud could be quite different from theirs. That's why such laws in my area have stated decibel limits in residential areas during certain times of the day to avoid broad interpretation and selective enforcement. Some people are just obnoxious and report anyone playing music they can hear. Especially if it's a form of music they don't like. Anyone who doesn't see things their way is not a reasonable person.
Is it? Maybe they just like waving their gun around. They told you it's not loaded, and you can trust them, surely... Or are you saying that any reasonable person would interpret it as a threat of violence?
No, brandishing a firearm and wav
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe now you understand the problem with adorning your home with swastikas. Most reasonable people would interpret using Nazi imagery, associated with a group of ultra-violent bigots who murdered millions of people, as a fairly clear statement of hostile intent.
Also, using such logic would justify outlawing Islamic imagery because their holy book calls for murdering Jews. Or outlawing Christian imagery because their religion condones violence and stoning under several circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Islam is a bit different because most Muslims don't act that way, or at least most of the ones living in the west. A few do, but the majority, like the majority of Christians, have rejected the violent parts of their religion's dogma. Nazism is primarily about hating and doing harm to others, it serves little other purpose.
To be clear though, we absolutely should take a hard line on the aspects of Islam that are incompatible with human rights and our system of law, and our social norms. Banning halal meat w
Re: (Score:2)
And if they argued that, they could be right. Your definition of loud could be quite different from theirs.
That's why you need a more objective measure. You are agreeing with me.
Decibel limits are one option, but there was an interesting case in the UK recently that wouldn't be covered by such a limit. There were two professional piano players in a house who would practice for hours on end every day. The practice was extremely repetitive and irritating for the neighbours, even if the overall volume level wasn't too bad and they only did it during the day.
Another example of the decibel limit being inadequate is w
Re: (Score:2)
No, brandishing a firearm and waving it around is a crime.
Yes, but why is it a crime? It's not physically hurting anyone, just like adorning your house with Nazi imagery is not physically hurting anyone. It's because a reasonable person would see that behaviour as unreasonable, despite the lack of immediate physical harm.
Imagery is not an immediate threat. A weapon being waved around with the barrel pointing at people could actually result in harm, whether intentional or not.
Now if the Nazi wannabe was waving around a weapon and saying he was going to cleanse the town.... you might have a case. If he's just raving about how he thinks Hitler was awesome, Jews are vile and that "untermenschen" are worthy of extermination.... that's his right. Even if he's misguided, bigoted and stupid it's still not illegal. Just like mor
Re: (Score:2)
Islam is a bit different because most Muslims don't act that way, or at least most of the ones living in the west. A few do, but the majority, like the majority of Christians, have rejected the violent parts of their religion's dogma. Nazism is primarily about hating and doing harm to others, it serves little other purpose.
Looking down on those who don't share your beliefs and subjugating them is definitely a core part of Islam. The majority of white supremacists aren't running around killing people either. People only "reject" such views as good PR. When things get rough for them they bubble back to the surface and are used as justification for all sorts of evil. And while western Muslims aren't killing Jews en masse, ask a random one how they feel about Jews or homosexuality.
Again, to hold violent opinions or display sy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
LOL Freedom of speech is outrageous because people can't control themselves and need the gubmint to make sure people don't listen to harmful ideas and bad thoughts or it might turn them into violent monsters LOL
I found the butthurt SJW! This is almost as fun as fishing. And yes, I sneer at those who invite tyranny into our lives.
I know which side I'm on. And it's certainly not yours.
Re: Untouchable criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
I tell you what, I think it's hurtful and mean to say that I have white privilege. I believe that I am being singled out purely based on the color of my skin and it being assumed that because of that skin color I am somehow a hazard to society. I think it's further hateful and harmful that I am assumed to be misogynistic because I have a penis. Based purely on my gender I am assumed to be a destructive element to society. I believe that the terms "white privilege" and "male-dominated" are micro-aggressions, that they are racist and sexist generalizations, and by every comparative definition to anyone that chants them while quite literally RIOTING in the streets, they are undeniably guilty of hate speech.
Where is your outrage for harms done me?
Where is your campaign slogan to protect me from the wildfire of anger and hate directed at me?
Or will you admit that by your definitions that free speech is for you to stir anger toward me, but that you personally mean to deny me any rights to turn that speech back on you.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, 46 people who were close to the Clintons have died during their 3 decades of political power.
In what world is that weird? The Clintons must have had thousands of people working for them over the past 30+ years. That 46 of those people have died should surprise nobody.
Re: (Score:2)
Love it and stay (Score:5, Insightful)
America is a liberal country - Love it or leave it.
Point 1: America is 38% conservative and 24% Liberal. (source [gallup.com]).
Point 2: "Love it or leave it" is effectively "shut up and sit down". It calls for a suppression of free speech typical of tyrannical, abusive dictatorship. Turkey can say "love it or leave it" with some justification. America cannot.
That criminal witch is untouchable [...]
Insults are the domain of the Democrats, have some couth. Republicans don't generally use insult as a substitute for rational thinking, that's a Democratic play.
We could easily build stories about Hillary being Marie Antoinette ("let them eat cake"), or Lucrecia Borgia (for all Clinton's opponents who have died under mysterious circumstances), or even Lilith ("Mother of demons"). Some of them would even have a rational basis. It would be a counterpoint to Trump being Hilter, Stalin, or Cthulhu [washingtonpost.com].
But we don't, because we believe the head rules the heart. We have smart people here at Slashdot, we don't have to descend to common name calling.
"Heart rules the head", IOW emotional thinking, is what Democrats do.
We don't *need* to spout lies or insults.
Don't descend to their level.
(And if you're a Democrat reading this and are angered: take the challenge. Post a reason why Hillary would be better than Trump as president, without outright lying, insulting, or wishful fantasy. In other words, cite their stated positions instead of "he'll do *this*" or "she'll do *that*. I don't think anyone can, but if anyone can, they'd be here on Slashdot.)
Re:Love it and stay (Score:4, Insightful)
(And if you're a Democrat reading this and are angered: take the challenge. Post a reason why Hillary would be better than Trump as president, without outright lying, insulting, or wishful fantasy. In other words, cite their stated positions instead of "he'll do *this*" or "she'll do *that*. I don't think anyone can, but if anyone can, they'd be here on Slashdot.)
The following are quotes from Hillary Clinton Economy Jobs Moodys [cnn.com]. They speak for themselves.
"Moody's Analytics estimates that if the Democratic presidential nominee's proposals are enacted, the economy would create 10.4 million jobs during her presidency, or 3.2 million more than expected under current law."
"Moody's published a similar analysis of Donald Trump's plans in June. It concluded that the Republican presidential nominee's policies would result in an economic downturn that would last longer than the Great Recession. About 3.5 million Americans would lose their jobs, unemployment would jump to 7% and home prices would fall."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't the guy that wrote that report donate the maximum to Hillary Clinton?
Moody's is good (Score:2)
I didn't previously respond to your post because I want to encourage you and posters like you. Don't get discouraged when other people jump on what you wrote.
You raise a valid point, and it should be discussed. I'd like to see you get an account and repost this, and any other rational points you want to make, so that we can discuss these issues.
Clinton will come up again as a topic, let's take this up at that time.
For now, I unreservedly admit that your post is good and you've completed the challenge.
Re:Love it and stay (Score:5, Insightful)
Point 1: America is 38% conservative and 24% Liberal.
If this is true, why aren't conservatives winning every seat in every election, including the Presidency? The reason is because most voters are more liberal than they are conservative. That's undeniable at this point.
The fact is that America is no longer a conservative country. For example, for the first time in history there are more "nones" (people with no religious affiliation) than any other voting block. That statistic is never going to go back down, ever. That's clearly not the sign of a conservative country.
Religious belief and attendance is down more than ever before in history. There are fewer churches and places of worship in this country than ever before in history. Religion is dying off here, both figuratively and literally. That's not the sign of a conservative country.
Deny it all you like, but the fact is that America is slowly but steadily moving towards more liberal social and political systems, not away from them. It's been doing this since the late 50's, but has sped up a bit considerably the last decade or so. The people got a taste of freedom from conservative values, and they liked it.
Pot is now fully legal for recreational use in multiple states with more coming (count on it). That's not the sign of a conservative country.
So go ahead and claim it's a conservative country if you want, but it's not. This isn't 1950, it's 2016 and the country is liberal and getting more so. And I'm all for it.
Re:Love it and stay (Score:4, Insightful)
There are plenty of conservatives who aren't religious and many liberals who are religious. Not sure why you think conservative = religious.
Also, I suggest you take a look at how many states are currently being run by Republican governors and legislatures.
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of conservatives who aren't religious and many liberals who are religious. Not sure why you think conservative = religious.
Because that is generally the way things break out, and we both know it. Yes, there are plenty of conservatives who aren't religious and many liberals who are religious, but overall, the generalization holds.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that America is no longer a conservative country. For example, for the first time in history there are more "nones" (people with no religious affiliation) than any other voting block. That statistic is never going to go back down, ever. That's clearly not the sign of a conservative country.
I'm not sure that this is the best metric of a "conservative country," but where do you get this data from??
Here's the history of Gallup polls on religion [gallup.com] for example. According to them, in 2015, 38% of people identified as Protestant, 23% as Catholic, 9% as other Christian... that's 60% Christian right there. The "None" only accounted for a measly 17%. Pew polls [pewforum.org] put the number more at 70% Christian in 2014, with only 23% unaffiliated.
Moreover, when you start looking down that Gallup Poll list, you f
Re: (Score:2)
Pot is now fully legal for recreational use in multiple states, with more coming.
More "nones" than ever before, and that metric is increasing.
Gay marriage is legal across the entire country.
Church membership at record low levels.
An African-American elected as president in two back-to-back landslide elections.
Gay rights recognized in most states.
How is this not a liberal country, especially compared to 20 or 30 or 40 years ago? The trend is clear: the country is liberal and becoming more so, regardless of wh
Re: Love it and stay (Score:2)
The election and re-election of a novelty President ("The First Black President!"), Democrats (liberal) have lost both the house and senate since the 2010 election, but sure, convince yourself otherwise if it makes you feel better. Republicans (conservatives) have been winning elections since President Obama told them if they want their ideas to be considered
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary lies much less than Trump does.
They're both liars. Trying to decide which one lies less is an exercise in masturbation, unless you have an agenda, in which case whichever one you happen to support will always be found to lie less.
You can't even argue magnitude as a means to differentiate them. Hillary has plenty of "yuge" lies of her own (like claiming she landed under sniper fire and had to run for safety).
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying warlock would be more appropriate?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like committing treason by asking Russia to hack his opponents and then waving it off as sarcasm?
Definitely not a Trump supporter, but I have to take issue with that statement. He didn't call for hacking, he said that they should "find" the missing emails. Since the server is already off-line, it's not there to be hacked.
Presumably, he is suggesting that the server had probably already been hacked (maybe by any number of individuals or countries) and he thinks they could be found.
Re: (Score:2)
"American politics should stop at the border. No government should be permitted to influence them."
The USA should definitely stay within its own border, and leave other governments well enough alone.
I think this shit [wikipedia.org] needs to end.
Re: (Score:2)
What is just as bad is Trump is encouraging a foreign government to intervene and help him win the election. That is so far beyond the pale as to be totally unforgiveable and instantly disqualifying.
Did you actually listen to the speech where he said this, or just your Democratic Information Masters? It's blatantly obvious it's totally tongue in cheek if you actually listen to it. Trump says a lot of stupid stuff; why don't you attack the stuff that he's serious about, rather than jokes?
Maybe? (Score:3)
Perhaps the servers would have been safer at her house?
Clinton's Security Trumped by Russians. (Score:2)
I wonder if they found those missing emails?
Most transparent campaign ever (Score:2)
Most transparent campaign ever.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember everyone, the DNC can be hacked and the Clinton campaign can be hacked, but there's NO WAY IN THE WORLD that Hillary's homebrew email server was hacked. Nope. Not possible. Pure as the driven snow.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
Who cares if her server was hacked? It never stored any classified information, and if hacked, all they would get is her yoga routines & wedding plans for her daughter.
We have the assurances of the Clinton herself to validate that truth with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Neither the FBI nor anyone else found that any laws were violated. So stop obsessing about it!
WUT?!?!?!?!
Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke Federal Laws And Jeopardized National Security, No Charges Recommended... WTF, FBI?! [huffingtonpost.com]
FBI Director James Comey gave a press conference on Tuesday, July 5th, discussing in surprising detail the three main aspects of the investigation: What they did (a lot). What they found (she broke the law and jeopardized national security). ...
And that's the Huffington Post - hardly a hotbed of anti-Democrat obsessions.
What's the color of the sky on your planet? Because it sure as shit ain't blue.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, laws were violated. They just were excused. Comey is on record saying that anyone else Hillary caught doing what Hillary did with the same evidence, would be prosecuted. How does that sit with you? I guess it sits pretty good as long as some ass official says it's ok for one but not for anyone else. Try getting past your cognitive dissonance. You're failed logic is the pillar of corruption.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember everyone, the DNC can be hacked and the Clinton campaign can be hacked, but there's NO WAY IN THE WORLD that Hillary's homebrew email server was hacked. Nope. Not possible. Pure as the driven snow.
You mean that sarcastically, but it's basically true. Hacking a server is one thing. Hacking a server without leaving any tracks whatsoever is insanely difficult. Hillary Clinton's server was examined by top FBI forensic analysts, and no breach was detected. This is unlike the system she supposedly "should" have been using, OpenNet (the state.gov email system), which has been hacked so many times, they judge them by how bad they are Sources: State Dept. hack the 'worst ever'. [cnn.com] Every other hack has been dete
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Turn in your Nerd Card, it has been revoked!
Once a machine is compromised, absolutely nothing on it can be trusted. With full access to a machine, log files can be erased or modified to cover all traces of intrusion. Couple this with the fact the machine was wiped, like with a cloth, and it is plainly obvious that any forensic analysis will be a waste of time. The fact is, the server in question was actively running insecure services on Internet facing ports, insecure as in there were known exploits at the time.
It was once reported that a fresh install of Windows (an ancient version) would be compromised within minutes (10-15?) of being connected to the Internet due to the number of random scans. Clinton's server was running a wide-open vulnerable service for MONTHS. Let that sink in.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember everyone, the DNC can be hacked and the Clinton campaign can be hacked, but there's NO WAY IN THE WORLD that Hillary's homebrew email server was hacked. Nope. Not possible. Pure as the driven snow.
Hillary Clinton's server was examined by top FBI forensic analysts, and no breach was detected.
As far as I know, FBI didn't say no breach was detected. So, reference please. What came out of the FBI is it is not possible to relate Clinton to the breach or prove without doubt in order to build a case for court on the evidence they have Clinton's responsability. By all means, this doesn't mean not breach was discovered.
Re: (Score:2)
The Clinton campaign was not hacked. That's a misreport. The DNC was hacked. Two organizations. Two networks. Two different sets of staff.
The misreport is like saying that because VISA was hacked, Bank of America was hacked. No. Bank of America does buy services from VISA and they are impacted by a (theoretical) VISA hack but that doesn't mean that they have automagically been hacked solely because VISA has.
And no, Hillary's email server wasn't hacked either. Some of the folks she communicated with were hac
Re: (Score:2)
(...) She probably didn't understand the security implications herself, and hired someone she thought competent, who obviously wasn't.
How competent is she to hire someone she thought is competent? That's the whole point and the prime reason these matters should be left in the hands of the experts at the government level. It these so called experts are not experts, solve the problem there in first place. Do not spread the problem by adding more unsecure stuff in a vain effort to make it secure.
Re: (Score:3)
An insider walks it out and the hint about another nation is the pre placed cover story that holds thanks to fragments left for any teams looking over systems later.
The insider is fully protected and pre placed cover story holds for decades.
So many people and other nations are discovered have had physical and network access that a short list of skilled nations is selected from and thats the presentable story.
A person or group uses a list of common tools and finds a huge number of other nat
Re: (Score:3)
I see regular attempts to get into my mail server, almost all of them from Russia or eastern european countries and a lesser extent China. I'd love to just blackhole all of Russia. Most spam attempts come from Russia and to a lesser extent China from what I see in my logs.
I don't mind Russian hackers (Score:2)
2) If you are mad enough to consider voting for Trump does the fact that the Russian's are trying to help him put you off. If it does who do you vote for?
That's an interesting point.
I think the Russians did the country an enormous favour by bringing the actions of the Democratic party to light. It's like Snowden outing all the illegal activity of the intelligence organizations.
I'd be completely OK if they, or some other country, did the same thing to the Republicans. It would only shine a light on the corruption, and help bring us to a more fair political process.
And we also have to consider recent events. Our own Federal Election Commission won't investigat
Re:It's better than a sitcom (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Does Trump have a long history of being bribed and offering services in return of those bribes? Because Hillary has.
Mind you, I am not a fan of Donald Trump; I think he's moron and a jingoist, but he scares me less than Clinton. With Clinton I am sure we'll (meaning the entire world, since I don't even live in the US) will be plunged in wars. She just doesn't care, she has already created misery in parts of the world as a secretary of state.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why Wall St is backing Hillary is not because they want favors, it's because they don't want to see a con artist destroy the stock market.
Re: (Score:3)
I want to know how much money Trump really owes to the Russian oligarchs? Would he pay them back in political favors if he become president?
To be quite honest, I suspect the reason that Trump doesn't want to release his tax data is because he's pretty broke. I mean that relatively, of course. I'm not saying he's on the verge of destitution but I am guessing his tax returns show just how much of a fraud his entire life is.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you give me the quote that asked that? I've been following the story pretty closely and never saw anything like that. I think you're just drawing conclusions from headlines, just like they want you to.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give me the quote that asked that? I've been following the story pretty closely and never saw anything like that. I think you're just drawing conclusions from headlines, just like they want you to.
I assume you're playing cute with semantics, because he doesn't actually asked them to hack her emails, he asks them to "find" the emails [youtube.com]. The implication being of course that they already hacked them.
It's not hugely better of course, rather than asking Russia to hack her server he's saying that it's great that Russia hacked her server, and Russia should use that intel to help his campaign.
And of course his backtrack that he was being "sarcastic" is stupid. But since it was obviously Trump talking he couldn
Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive (Score:3)
Now we're starting to get somewhere. What would have been better would be if there was no question about the security of Hillary's emails in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we're starting to get somewhere. What would have been better would be if there was no question about the security of Hillary's emails in the first place.
It would be great if Obama could be chummier with Republican legislators.
It would be great if Sanders was a little more wonkish and had a solid economic plan and foreign policy.
It would be great if Trump was competent, honest, or remotely sane.
There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, it defies belief that among everything else people are now looking at an ill-advised email server as some sort of failed litmus test.
Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive (Score:2)
Right. It was just an I'll advised email server. You're judgement is worse than Hillary's.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. It was just an I'll advised email server. You're judgement is worse than Hillary's.
So you think she's the devil incarnate, so what? The choice is Hillary or Trump so it should be Hillary by a landslide.
If I were American I'd vote for Bush II over Trump, hell I'd vote for Nixon over Trump.
The guy's been running for President for over a year and he still knows nothing about policy nor has he shown the ability to exhibit self-control for any period longer than a few hours. Can you really imagine him reacting well to even the mildest crisis?
Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive (Score:2)
Quotes please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive (Score:2)
Yeah. You got nothing, because it didn't happen. And in the end, facts matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive (Score:2)
No, I'm saying that trump never asked Russia to hack Hillary's server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive (Score:2)
Look. He never asked Russia to hack Hillary's server. You know this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not tongue in cheek. If you look at the exact words he used in an objective manner, he never called for them to hack hillary's server.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you cut and paste them for me. I know why you won't do that. It would expose the fact that you're lying. I have read all the quotes, and none of them ask Russia to hack Hillary's server.
Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive (Score:3)
So where does he ask them to hack Hillary's server?
Re:Lol, ask and ye shall receive (Score:4, Insightful)
Repeating my reply to another similar post : I'm definitely not a Trump supporter, but I have to take issue with that statement. He didn't call for hacking, he said that they should "find" the missing emails. Since the server is already off-line, it's not there to be hacked.
Presumably, he is suggesting that the server had probably already been hacked (maybe by any number of individuals or countries) and he thinks they could be found.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
and faux offended over the GP's hyperbole.
The woman is an international gangster
whose entire adult life has been, essentially,
a crime in progress. She should be incarcerated...
in all seriousness.
Re: (Score:2)