quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

sorry comrade, its still the huffington post, and well, facts are facts no matter who writes them aren't they?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

sorry comrade, its still the huffington post, and well, facts are facts no matter who writes them aren't they?

maybe if you close your eyes really tight, put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala I cant hearrrrrrrrr you", that would help?

quote:

Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not “marked as classified” or “classified at the time.”

The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document ... or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case...

The fact that the information does not have to be “marked classified” at the time only makes sense because sometimes, as in the case of the Clinton case and other 793 cases, the information is originated and distributed before any security officer can perform a review and put a classification mark on it.

So why has this not been discussed in the television and print media? Why has Clinton not been grilled by her interviewers as to whether her emails contained national defense information that could harm the U.S.? Why has everyone bought into the “marked classified” rabbit trail? One suspects that many reporters and commentators have not bothered to read the actual law or are hesitant to blow the central defense of the Clinton campaign out of the water.

quote:

Regardless, I am not confidant that the Justice Department will indict. It is true that part of the reason is that the political appointees who make the final decisions will at least unconsciously be searching for ways to evaluate the case in a way that would evade an obvious debacle for the Democratic Party.

But there is more to it. Spending 25 years as an attorney and supervisor in U.S. Attorney’s offices and working with Main Justice in Washington provides an understanding of the process. Main Justice has not always had a reputation for being strong and aggressive, especially in the face of an intimidating defense. What a DA will indict in a week, and a U.S. Attorney in a month, will take Justice more than a year if they ever pull the trigger at all. They tend to be hamstrung by endless memos, briefs, meetings and approvals from multiple levels and divisions. There sometimes appears to be an institutional fear of losing, however minimal the chance. This is an endemic characteristic of many bureaucracies. Unfortunately, it is likely that, at this very moment, many good lawyers at DOJ may be using all sorts of sophistry and rationalization to try to avoid applying the plain language of the law to Hilary Clinton. A jury, which should make the final decision, may never get the chance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


(well, we have to flush that toilet)

(2) we have testimony thru several hearings the server was not compromised.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


(well, we have to flush that toilet)

(2) we have testimony thru several hearings the server was not compromised.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

please provide mainline, credible citations that said it was. I am not the one making incredible claims here. (be careful, of course I can provide some pretty good stuff, it bites your ass every time)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

response to #651 and #653

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-emails-hack-20151007-story.html

and of course:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clintons-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html

Theres a couple. And they have said that.
I will withdraw hearings because I cannot find it quickly and have no desire to look for it, I have demolished over half your propaganda provided you by
some nutsucker slobber blog or your own imagination.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

response to #651 and #653

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-emails-hack-20151007-story.html

and of course:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clintons-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html

Theres a couple. And they have said that.
I will withdraw hearings because I cannot find it quickly and have no desire to look for it, I have demolished over half your propaganda provided you by
some nutsucker slobber blog or your own imagination.

And of course, neither of your quotes say there were no hacks of Mrs. Clintons server, either before the firewall was implimented (when the server was unguarded) or afterwards.

They said what I said they said - which is they had no evidence of a hack. Really, what do you suppose the guy that was in charge of her server was going to say - oh yes, I detected evidence of a hack, so I put in a low cost firewall to protect the top secret information on Hilary's server.

This clown has no background in security. He is as qualified as you are to talk about hacking - which means not at all.

For example. Clinton's site used no TLS certificate. Which instantly renders it vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. Which means all of those vaunted security logs would be instantly worthless.

Secondly, they had no secure login requirements. Which means that an IP spoofing attack would also work, and also render any security log null and void. A 4 digit clear text password would be guessed in under 1 minute by a dictionary hack.

The State Department with all its government money, has been hacked numerous times, including nov, 2014. It is fair to say that if the state department could be hacked, that Mrs. Clintons email server with its $149 firewall could be hacked, and hacked easily.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

When considering the implications of this, consider:

Clinton used a cloud based backup system.
Clinton used a cloud based spam blocking system (mxlogic). This is just the public information we know. Not only did every single confidential and top secret email reside on her server to be hacked - it also existed on the backup, as well as some of the emails, and the complete history of her emails existed at MXLogic - multiplying the potential points of vulnerability.

Her firewall would have scanned incoming and probably outgoing emails for viruses etc- and logged their destination, person sending and person receiving - again, another point of vulernability.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I have demolished over half your propaganda provided you by
some nutsucker slobber blog or your own imagination.

The toilet is still flushed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I have demolished over half your propaganda provided you by
some nutsucker slobber blog or your own imagination.

The toilet is still flushed.

you've done no such thing. what you do is complain about the source in a vulgar and juvenile way. sorry comrade in terms of critical thinking and refutations, that doesn't fly.

I cant remember if ive already shared the dictionary definition of "delusional" with you, but just in case not, here it is again:

delusional

[dih-loo-zhuh-nl]

adjective


1.having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:
Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.

2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness:
He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him.