djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 6, 2016 15:06:33 GMT -5
I've posted this before and hopefully not again. As a person who has worked in IT, I actually feel a private server could have been more secure if named & protected correctly. Not having us.gov as part of the name of a website, is a great thing if you don't want to attract hackers.
The fact that the concern about hacking mostly came down to email phish schemes pretty much proved what I thought. Hackers were fishing to find her, they really didn't know all that much. I get phished too. I ignore it and life moves on.
Could she have done better? Certainly. But given the track & practices before her, I mostly when this comes up. She has flaws, personal presence being a big one. This is not worth even 1/100th of the money Congress wasted on it.
You do realize that Russia, Indonesia, and a dozen agencies/hackers besides claim to have accessed every e-mail Ms. Clinton sent or received on her server while SoS? If this isn't an actionable breach of security, one has to seriously wonder why the US State Department bothers with classified correspondence in the first place. Comey said he had no proof of that. do you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 6, 2016 15:07:32 GMT -5
I knew when this first came out that she was stupid to use a private email server in her home for work purposes - you can't do that in this day and age, as secretary of state. Not with hackers all over the internet like cockroaches. I don't think she did it purposefully, for nefarious reasons or for personal gain. I think she was either foolish about electronic communications or she relied too much on a staff person who failed to explain to her the ramifications of using a private server. I believe her when she said she didn't forward anything marked secret, and the subsequent investigations confirmed that. Now, whether she should have known that, sometime in the future, some of these things might become state secrets? Would that be reasonable to assume someone can correctly predict that in advance? I don't think it is.
Also, knowing that Colin Powell did the same kind of thing (with no ramifications) made me think that Clinton wasn't the first or only government person who did this kind of thing - but she was the politician that the GOP wanted to sink.
This gives me pause not so much because of what Clinton did, but because I'm certain there are lots of other politicians with access to state secrets who are probably also kind of loosey goosey with it. Some politicians were former military people who are used to controlling secrets, but many are not, and I'm willing to bet they don't do a lot of training on the issue, either.
Bottom line, I think Clinton wasn't that strong a candidate to begin with, and if she was running against almost any of the GOP primary hopefuls this would probably sink her just enough to let them win. I think she should be very grateful she's up against Trump, who can't take a step without shooting himself in the foot. I'm still not certain she'll win, but I don't think this latest revelation will be enough to tip the scales in Trump's favor.
It's not the "day and age thing", it's a very strict protocols thing. I know quite a few people with TS clearance and they are NEVER allowed to work from home. I am pretty sure they know a lot less of govt secrets that SoS. There is a whole skit that has to be set up based on very specific rules and regulations if you want to send any kind of "secret" information. So, is she that ignorant or that arrogant? Every peon who gets any kind of clearance goes through a VERY extensive training and re-training of what is allowed and not allowed. Now, whether they follow the protocol is a different story. I don't think anything can sink that woman, even if she was running against G-d himself. it pays to have a legal background when you run for office, apparently.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,926
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 6, 2016 15:35:00 GMT -5
I've posted this before and hopefully not again. As a person who has worked in IT, I actually feel a private server could have been more secure if named & protected correctly. Not having us.gov as part of the name of a website, is a great thing if you don't want to attract hackers.
The fact that the concern about hacking mostly came down to email phish schemes pretty much proved what I thought. Hackers were fishing to find her, they really didn't know all that much. I get phished too. I ignore it and life moves on.
Could she have done better? Certainly. But given the track & practices before her, I mostly when this comes up. She has flaws, personal presence being a big one. This is not worth even 1/100th of the money Congress wasted on it.
You do realize that Russia, Indonesia, and a dozen agencies/hackers besides claim to have accessed every e-mail Ms. Clinton sent or received on her server while SoS? If this isn't an actionable breach of security, one has to seriously wonder why the US State Department bothers with classified correspondence in the first place. Claims is not proof. An actionable breach of security would involve proof and the hackers would be jailed. Wake me up when that happens.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,046
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 6, 2016 15:35:19 GMT -5
I knew when this first came out that she was stupid to use a private email server in her home for work purposes - you can't do that in this day and age, as secretary of state. Not with hackers all over the internet like cockroaches. I don't think she did it purposefully, for nefarious reasons or for personal gain. I think she was either foolish about electronic communications or she relied too much on a staff person who failed to explain to her the ramifications of using a private server. I believe her when she said she didn't forward anything marked secret, and the subsequent investigations confirmed that. Now, whether she should have known that, sometime in the future, some of these things might become state secrets? Would that be reasonable to assume someone can correctly predict that in advance? I don't think it is.
Also, knowing that Colin Powell did the same kind of thing (with no ramifications) made me think that Clinton wasn't the first or only government person who did this kind of thing - but she was the politician that the GOP wanted to sink.
This gives me pause not so much because of what Clinton did, but because I'm certain there are lots of other politicians with access to state secrets who are probably also kind of loosey goosey with it. Some politicians were former military people who are used to controlling secrets, but many are not, and I'm willing to bet they don't do a lot of training on the issue, either.
Bottom line, I think Clinton wasn't that strong a candidate to begin with, and if she was running against almost any of the GOP primary hopefuls this would probably sink her just enough to let them win. I think she should be very grateful she's up against Trump, who can't take a step without shooting himself in the foot. I'm still not certain she'll win, but I don't think this latest revelation will be enough to tip the scales in Trump's favor.
It's not the "day and age thing", it's a very strict protocols thing. I know quite a few people with TS clearance and they are NEVER allowed to work from home. I am pretty sure they know a lot less of govt secrets that SoS. There is a whole skit that has to be set up based on very specific rules and regulations if you want to send any kind of "secret" information. So, is she that ignorant or that arrogant?Every peon who gets any kind of clearance goes through a VERY extensive training and re-training of what is allowed and not allowed. Now, whether they follow the protocol is a different story. I don't think anything can sink that woman, even if she was running against G-d himself. I think she was that arrogant - but I think she isn't the only high up government official who has the exact same kind of arrogance.
Hell, I see that at my piddly little company. The top officers don't have to follow the same rules (such as no drinking at lunch), don't have to comply with all the training requirements all the peons have to comply with, and usually delegate a lot of their work to minions. I have no reason to believe the top government officials are any more diligent about following all the rules than my company top dogs are. Like I said, Colin Powell did the exact same thing that Clinton did. Where is the stink about him exposing state secrets to hackers?
And like I said, I think this would have sunk Hillary, if she was running against almost anyone else. Hillary is not popular with many, many people. Prior to this election cycle starting, I had assumed we would have a GOP for the next POTUS, because I thought Hillary had just too much luggage to win. I wish the GOP had been able to push forward one of the other primary candidates, because there were several I liked better than Hillary. Unfortunately, there is just no way I can vote for Trump.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,046
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 6, 2016 15:38:25 GMT -5
There IS no comparison to Watergate, or the worst exercise in governmental malfeasance, The Iran-Contra Affair. Any attempts therein are simply in vain. And no righty, especially the Cult of Reagan types, will ever say one thing about how it might have been completely fucked up for the sainted Reagan to supply weapons to Islamofascists. the whole affair was icky from top to bottom: Heroin, Cocaine, laundered money, etc. all of this stuff is forgotten, apparently. but the ickiest part of all were the Samosistas themselves, who make the Black Shirts of Guantanimo, or Saddam's WORST henchmen look like GIRL SCOUTS. i will never get over the ugliness that we saw fit to fund, illegally, in the name of "freedom fighting". it is no different both in terms of wretchedness and pious justification than anything done by AQ. Wasn't the Iran-Contra affair the one where someone had to fly to the Middle East with a fancy cake?
That sticks in my mind, for some reason. That these brutal people could be persuaded with a nice cake.
Sounds like something Monty Python would make a skit about.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 6, 2016 15:39:59 GMT -5
You do realize that Russia, Indonesia, and a dozen agencies/hackers besides claim to have accessed every e-mail Ms. Clinton sent or received on her server while SoS? If this isn't an actionable breach of security, one has to seriously wonder why the US State Department bothers with classified correspondence in the first place. Comey said he had no proof of that. do you? Yes, DJ. I hacked Russian Intelligence's servers and verified that they indeed exploited the gaping security hole Ms. Clinton left for them. It was easy. Thank you for asking. I wasn't going to at first, but then I thought about how security protocols really only become relevant if we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our enemies actually exploited our incompetence. Until then, it's just "whoopsie".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 6, 2016 15:45:47 GMT -5
You do realize that Russia, Indonesia, and a dozen agencies/hackers besides claim to have accessed every e-mail Ms. Clinton sent or received on her server while SoS? If this isn't an actionable breach of security, one has to seriously wonder why the US State Department bothers with classified correspondence in the first place. Claims is not proof. An actionable breach of security would involve proof and the hackers would be jailed. Wake me up when that happens.
Sure. One hacker at least has promised to release the e-mails in batches to RT, although he's presently serving jail time in Virginia for hacking other government servers.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jul 6, 2016 15:56:41 GMT -5
It's not the "day and age thing", it's a very strict protocols thing. I know quite a few people with TS clearance and they are NEVER allowed to work from home. I am pretty sure they know a lot less of govt secrets that SoS. There is a whole skit that has to be set up based on very specific rules and regulations if you want to send any kind of "secret" information. So, is she that ignorant or that arrogant?Every peon who gets any kind of clearance goes through a VERY extensive training and re-training of what is allowed and not allowed. Now, whether they follow the protocol is a different story. I don't think anything can sink that woman, even if she was running against G-d himself. I think she was that arrogant - but I think she isn't the only high up government official who has the exact same kind of arrogance.
Hell, I see that at my piddly little company. The top officers don't have to follow the same rules (such as no drinking at lunch), don't have to comply with all the training requirements all the peons have to comply with, and usually delegate a lot of their work to minions. I have no reason to believe the top government officials are any more diligent about following all the rules than my company top dogs are. Like I said, Colin Powell did the exact same thing that Clinton did. Where is the stink about him exposing state secrets to hackers?
And like I said, I think this would have sunk Hillary, if she was running against almost anyone else. Hillary is not popular with many, many people. Prior to this election cycle starting, I had assumed we would have a GOP for the next POTUS, because I thought Hillary had just too much luggage to win. I wish the GOP had been able to push forward one of the other primary candidates, because there were several I liked better than Hillary. Unfortunately, there is just no way I can vote for Trump.
Completely agree!! That's why I said we need an entire govt overhaul, not just presidential election. That part has always bothered me bc I think the higher you are the more diligent you should be bc stakes are so much higher. Unfortunately, it's exactly the opposite. There is no way I can vote for Hilary.....or Trump....This is the first election since I became a citizen that I might not vote
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 6, 2016 16:52:15 GMT -5
Comey said he had no proof of that. do you? Yes, DJ. I hacked Russian Intelligence's servers and verified that they indeed exploited the gaping security hole Ms. Clinton left for them. It was easy. Thank you for asking. I wasn't going to at first, but then I thought about how security protocols really only become relevant if we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our enemies actually exploited our incompetence. Until then, it's just "whoopsie". i like you a little more after this post.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 6, 2016 16:53:24 GMT -5
Claims is not proof. An actionable breach of security would involve proof and the hackers would be jailed. Wake me up when that happens.
Sure. One hacker at least has promised to release the e-mails in batches to RT, although he's presently serving jail time in Virginia for hacking other government servers. it's baffling to me, in an environment where people would pay MILLIONS for such evidence, that none is forthcoming.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 6, 2016 16:54:26 GMT -5
I think she was that arrogant - but I think she isn't the only high up government official who has the exact same kind of arrogance.
Hell, I see that at my piddly little company. The top officers don't have to follow the same rules (such as no drinking at lunch), don't have to comply with all the training requirements all the peons have to comply with, and usually delegate a lot of their work to minions. I have no reason to believe the top government officials are any more diligent about following all the rules than my company top dogs are. Like I said, Colin Powell did the exact same thing that Clinton did. Where is the stink about him exposing state secrets to hackers?
And like I said, I think this would have sunk Hillary, if she was running against almost anyone else. Hillary is not popular with many, many people. Prior to this election cycle starting, I had assumed we would have a GOP for the next POTUS, because I thought Hillary had just too much luggage to win. I wish the GOP had been able to push forward one of the other primary candidates, because there were several I liked better than Hillary. Unfortunately, there is just no way I can vote for Trump.
Completely agree!! That's why I said we need an entire govt overhaul, not just presidential election. That part has always bothered me bc I think the higher you are the more diligent you should be bc stakes are so much higher. Unfortunately, it's exactly the opposite. There is no way I can vote for Hilary.....or Trump....This is the first election since I became a citizen that I might not vote don't stay home. look into the two best polling 3rd parties: Libertarian and Green. i am sure you can find a candidate that EARNS your vote rather than one that EXPECTS it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 9:51:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 17:18:40 GMT -5
So....how do those who support Mrs. Clinton's run for the Presidency feel about this statement recently issued by the FBI? Is it just no big deal? Something you can overlook? It is just an attempt to sully her rep? How do you feel? Discard the comparison to Watergate and take it for what it is. How do you feel about it? Does it give you any pause that, at the least, she was careless with the security of our nation? Well, I actually read it. And the background. I'm ok with it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 6, 2016 17:22:10 GMT -5
Sure. One hacker at least has promised to release the e-mails in batches to RT, although he's presently serving jail time in Virginia for hacking other government servers. it's baffling to me, in an environment where people would pay MILLIONS for such evidence, that none is forthcoming. Who would pay millions for it? How would they know it was legitimate even if they got it? That's the problem. Generally speaking, it's impossible to prove that Ms. Clinton's server was compromised. That's why there's nothing in the laws that indicate negligence actually has to be exploited in order for it to constitute negligence. I admit the right wing blogosphere has had some major gaffes in interpreting what certain laws do and don't say, but they're on solid ground this time around. The wording is clear; there are numerous precedents; lawyers, judges, and legal experts are lining up to express their misgivings about the way the case has been handled, and about Mr. Comey's recommendation. This is a gift to Ms. Clinton. There's no doubt about that. The question is why? I think it's simply because the FBI and the whole US Justice Department is under tremendous pressure to not indict the woman that every reasonable person expects will be the next US President. It's bad optics. It's bad for business. It's bad "for the country". It dearly complicates a lot of things. I don't think of this as a grand conspiracy. Others do, and I don't blame them. They can't prove it, but there's certainly enough that stinks, like Bill Clinton's three-hour tarmac chat about his grandkids, etc., and like most things Clinton-related, there's just no way to prove things one way or another. It boils down to how much people trust Ms. Clinton.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 9:51:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 17:25:26 GMT -5
Honestly, better to have her tried in public opinion than to indict and fail to convict because they really just don't have anything...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 6, 2016 17:27:21 GMT -5
it's baffling to me, in an environment where people would pay MILLIONS for such evidence, that none is forthcoming. Who would pay millions for it? How would they know it was legitimate even if they got it? That's the problem. Generally speaking, it's impossible to prove that Ms. Clinton's server was compromised. That's why there's nothing in the laws that indicate negligence actually has to be exploited in order for it to constitute negligence. I admit the right wing blogosphere has had some major gaffes in interpreting what certain laws do and don't say, but they're on solid ground this time around. The wording is clear; there are numerous precedents; lawyers, judges, and legal experts are lining up to express their misgivings about the way the case has been handled, and about Mr. Comey's recommendation. This is a gift to Ms. Clinton. There's no doubt about that. The question is why? I think it's simply because the FBI and the whole US Justice Department is under tremendous pressure to not indict the woman that every reasonable person expects will be the next US President. It's bad optics. It's bad for business. It's bad "for the country". It dearly complicates a lot of things. I don't think of this as a grand conspiracy. Others do, and I don't blame them. They can't prove it, but there's certainly enough that stinks, like Bill Clinton's three-hour tarmac chat about his grandkids, etc., and like most things Clinton-related, there's just no way to prove things one way or another. It boils down to how much people trust Ms. Clinton. anyone with an interest in defeating Clinton would pay millions for it, Virgil. if you don't believe that, then you are either far more naiive about American politics than i would ever have guessed, or you think far more of her opposition than i do. i don't think you have to have one iota of trust in the Clinton's to think she is relatively clean on this. that is where you and i differ. as i have stated before, there are skeletons bleached clean by decades of sun and rain that have more bad meat on them than Ms. Clinton does at this point. the rest is all out there for everyone to see. and she remains ahead by 5%.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,926
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 6, 2016 17:46:23 GMT -5
Sure. One hacker at least has promised to release the e-mails in batches to RT, although he's presently serving jail time in Virginia for hacking other government servers. it's baffling to me, in an environment where people would pay MILLIONS for such evidence, that none is forthcoming. I think people are paying these hackers to make these claims.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,926
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 6, 2016 17:49:53 GMT -5
it's baffling to me, in an environment where people would pay MILLIONS for such evidence, that none is forthcoming. Who would pay millions for it?
How would they know it was legitimate even if they got it?That's the problem. Generally speaking, it's impossible to prove that Ms. Clinton's server was compromised. That's why there's nothing in the laws that indicate negligence actually has to be exploited in order for it to constitute negligence. I admit the right wing blogosphere has had some major gaffes in interpreting what certain laws do and don't say, but they're on solid ground this time around. The wording is clear; there are numerous precedents; lawyers, judges, and legal experts are lining up to express their misgivings about the way the case has been handled, and about Mr. Comey's recommendation. This is a gift to Ms. Clinton. There's no doubt about that. The question is why? I think it's simply because the FBI and the whole US Justice Department is under tremendous pressure to not indict the woman that every reasonable person expects will be the next US President. It's bad optics. It's bad for business. It's bad "for the country". It dearly complicates a lot of things. I don't think of this as a grand conspiracy. Others do, and I don't blame them. They can't prove it, but there's certainly enough that stinks, like Bill Clinton's three-hour tarmac chat about his grandkids, etc., and like most things Clinton-related, there's just no way to prove things one way or another. It boils down to how much people trust Ms. Clinton. Really you don't think Trump or Ryan or parts of the GOP wouldn't throw millions at this? ' The unfortunate thing about your second question is frankly no one in the 'bash Hillary camp' gives a crap whether the info is true or falsified. They are that dogmatic and that far gone.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 6, 2016 17:53:07 GMT -5
it's baffling to me, in an environment where people would pay MILLIONS for such evidence, that none is forthcoming. I think people are paying these hackers to make these claims. Nobody has to pay hackers to make claims, just as nobody has to pay terrorists to claim responsibility. Both groups love putting themselves in the limelight.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,046
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 6, 2016 17:54:07 GMT -5
it's baffling to me, in an environment where people would pay MILLIONS for such evidence, that none is forthcoming. Who would pay millions for it? How would they know it was legitimate even if they got it? That's the problem. Generally speaking, it's impossible to prove that Ms. Clinton's server was compromised. That's why there's nothing in the laws that indicate negligence actually has to be exploited in order for it to constitute negligence. I admit the right wing blogosphere has had some major gaffes in interpreting what certain laws do and don't say, but they're on solid ground this time around. The wording is clear; there are numerous precedents; lawyers, judges, and legal experts are lining up to express their misgivings about the way the case has been handled, and about Mr. Comey's recommendation. This is a gift to Ms. Clinton. There's no doubt about that. The question is why? I think it's simply because the FBI and the whole US Justice Department is under tremendous pressure to not indict the woman that every reasonable person expects will be the next US President. It's bad optics. It's bad for business. It's bad "for the country". It dearly complicates a lot of things. I don't think of this as a grand conspiracy. Others do, and I don't blame them. They can't prove it, but there's certainly enough that stinks, like Bill Clinton's three-hour tarmac chat about his grandkids, etc., and like most things Clinton-related, there's just no way to prove things one way or another. It boils down to how much people trust Ms. Clinton. Yes, this could be a gift to Clinton.
On the other hand - how many other politicians do just this kind of thing and never get caught doing it? How many other politicians have been under an enormous microscope for the last few years like Clinton has?
This whole email thing came out of the repeated - repeated! investigations about Benghazi. After all the different rounds (which members of the GOP openly admitted were politically motivated) found nothing to hang Hillary on, the GOP glommed onto this business about the private email server.
As for the whole Benghazi thing, if you review the number of foreign terrorists attacks during the Bush Jr years, there were many more embassy employees killed under his watch than under Obama's watch. Yet where were all the repeated investigations trying to pin the blame on Condi or Bush? Why no witch hunt for the embassy employees lost during his tenure? (Some 13 attacks, some 60 plus employees).
So - Did someone just do Clinton a huge favor by not indicting her? Or did someone else screw her over by beating this issue into the ground over and over and over, attempting to smear her with it, when it should never have been a 'thing' in the first place?
A chicken and the egg question, I guess.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,046
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 6, 2016 17:56:21 GMT -5
it's baffling to me, in an environment where people would pay MILLIONS for such evidence, that none is forthcoming. I think people are paying these hackers to make these claims. I don't know that you would even have to pay them - hackers love to make a name for themselves, don't they? Wouldn't they love to brag that they have copies of secret emails just for the attention it would bring them?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,926
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 6, 2016 18:06:21 GMT -5
I think people are paying these hackers to make these claims. I don't know that you would even have to pay them - hackers love to make a name for themselves, don't they? Wouldn't they love to brag that they have copies of secret emails just for the attention it would bring them? Claims are free. Proof would cost $$, because someone would need to be willing to go to jail for money. So it would need to be substantial.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 6, 2016 18:18:58 GMT -5
1. This isn't Benghazi.
2. No halfway sane person would pay good money for a bunch of worthless e-mails, especially since it would constitute a criminal transaction. The proposition is a non-starter.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 6, 2016 18:23:46 GMT -5
1. This isn't Benghazi. 2. No halfway sane person would pay good money for a bunch of worthless e-mails, especially since it would constitute a criminal transaction. The proposition is a non-starter. you and i have a different definition of "worthless" apparently. are you claiming that bringing Clinton down has no value? i think otherwise.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 6, 2016 18:28:11 GMT -5
by the way, i FERVENTLY disagree that bringing down a criminal conspiracy on the part of a leading official of the US is "bad for the country" unless you define "the country" as being something much smaller and more sinister than most Americans do. on the contrary, there is nothing GREATER for this or any country than rooting out corruption and injustice.
on the other hand, if Clinton did nothing wrong in the criminal sense, then bringing her down would, indeed, be very bad for the country. and if this is what you meant by the comment, then i retract my previous paragraph.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 6, 2016 19:55:19 GMT -5
Thanks to all who answered my question. I'm as stunned that nobody is very bothered by this report - as I am stunned that some people aren't bothered by Trump's antics. I'm not loyal enough to a party to overlook either. I don't think I'm the only one who has absolutely no idea what I'm going to do on election day but all opinions have been interesting and informative.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 6, 2016 22:58:05 GMT -5
1. This isn't Benghazi. 2. No halfway sane person would pay good money for a bunch of worthless e-mails, especially since it would constitute a criminal transaction. The proposition is a non-starter. you and i have a different definition of "worthless" apparently. are you claiming that bringing Clinton down has no value? i think otherwise. Could the e-mails bring down Ms. Clinton? Let's see. "Hello. This is the Justice Department." "Yes, hello. I'm calling to report that I have in my possession 30,000 e-mails from Ms. Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State, several of which implicate her in criminal wrongdoing. I'd like to turn them over to you." "Where did you obtain these e-mails exactly?" "I purchased them from a computer hacker." "I see. And how did this hacker obtain them?" "By illegally hacking into Ms. Clinton's computer while she was Secretary of State." "How do you know these e-mails are authentic?" "I paid a lot of money for them." "You paid the hacker money for them?" "Yes. A lot. More than half a million dollars. So I know the e-mails are legitimate." "Do you have any way of verifying their authenticity?" "Oh come on, man. They look totally legit. I'll tell you what: I give you my word--my word--that neither I nor the hacker faked any of these e-mails. Do you think I'd just make one up and throw it in there just to burn Hillary Clinton? Come on. And this hacker guy. Totally legit. Straight arrow." "Are the e-mails really damning?" "Oh, absolutely. Hey. Trust me. You can use them to put HRC away for a long time. Do you want me to send them to you now?" "No, sir. I'm afraid I've been keeping you on the line while agents surround your house. They'll be breaking down the door shortly." "What!?" "Sir, you just admitted to paying a hacker half a million dollars to purchase information stolen off of State Department computers." "B... But I... For the good of the country. F... B... W..." "Thank you for calling." "NO! WAIT! IT WAS ALL FA... *mmmmhhhppph*" *click* Great plan, DJ.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 6, 2016 23:58:53 GMT -5
you and i have a different definition of "worthless" apparently. are you claiming that bringing Clinton down has no value? i think otherwise. Could the e-mails bring down Ms. Clinton? NO!!! that is NOT what i asked. forgive me for deleting the rest of your narrative, which had NOTHING to do with my question. i am going to assume that you think "illegally obtained" evidence has no value (since you offered me little to go on, this is a hunch). i think that is complete nonsense. people are brought down using RUMORS, Virgil. careers have been ended with them. McCain was brought down in 2000 by a PUSH POLL. Kerry was brought down by a fake group and bogus claims. i could go on for half an hour with stuff like this, and this is all pure slander (not VERIFIABLE, let alone VERIFIED) if you can't even fathom the idea that an illegal hack could ruin Clinton, and that this sort of evidence would be worth something to somebody, i guess i understand that even less than i understand your bizarre narratives. NOTE: i deleted the narrative because it actually has nothing to do with my question, as well as being insulting. hope you don't mind, but if you do- please stop providing narratives in the future. they are a waste of bandwidth, ime.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 7, 2016 5:58:01 GMT -5
Could the e-mails bring down Ms. Clinton? NO!!! that is NOT what i asked. forgive me for deleting the rest of your narrative, which had NOTHING to do with my question. i am going to assume that you think "illegally obtained" evidence has no value (since you offered me little to go on, this is a hunch). i think that is complete nonsense. people are brought down using RUMORS, Virgil. careers have been ended with them. McCain was brought down in 2000 by a PUSH POLL. Kerry was brought down by a fake group and bogus claims. i could go on for half an hour with stuff like this, and this is all pure slander (not VERIFIABLE, let alone VERIFIED) if you can't even fathom the idea that an illegal hack could ruin Clinton, and that this sort of evidence would be worth something to somebody, i guess i understand that even less than i understand your bizarre narratives. NOTE: i deleted the narrative because it actually has nothing to do with my question, as well as being insulting. hope you don't mind, but if you do- please stop providing narratives in the future. they are a waste of bandwidth, ime. An illegal hack could never ruin Ms. Clinton, even through rumours. Ergo the e-mails are worthless. Besides that, "Guccifer" (one of the Romanian hackers claiming to have the e-mails) has been releasing them in batches to RT for free. Or at least he was until he was extradited to the US, where he now sits in a jail cell. It's bigger news in Russia and Europe than it is in the US.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jul 7, 2016 6:05:44 GMT -5
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jul 7, 2016 6:08:01 GMT -5
you guys need a new hobby. might i suggest something more.....tangible? maybe wood carving? archery? You are correct. I will volunteer in Ohio to elect Trump this fall. You know, one of the states he needs to win. By the way, I am calling Florida for Trump this morning. Another state he needs to win.
|
|