FBI Investigating New Information Regarding Hillary Clinton... Because Of The Anthony Weiner Sexting Investigation
from the never-email dept
Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server (at times kept in her own basement...) has obviously been a big story during this campaign -- and for a variety of obvious, yet stupid, reasons, the discussion has become ridiculously partisan. What people should be able to admit on all sides of the debate is that Clinton's use of a private email server was incredibly stupid and, at the very least, calls into serious question the judgment of whoever told her this was okay. It also, almost certainly, put serious information at risk of being exposed through hacks. But, earlier this year, the FBI came out and said that it didn't actually break the law. There was a bit of the old "high court, low court" to this whole setup, because you could see how someone with much less fame or status would be nailed to the wall by the DOJ if they wanted to put that person away.Either way, the surprise of today is the new announcement by James Comey that the FBI is investigating some new emails that were apparently discovered in an "unrelated case" on "a device." There were a couple of hours of speculation on this, with gradual denials -- not the Wikileaks investigation, not the Clinton Foundation investigation -- until it was revealed that it was from the investigation into Anthony Weiner's sexting. Law enforcement seized devices belonging to both Weiner and his then wife (they've since filed for divorce), Huma Abedin, who is a close Clinton aide (and who also had an email account on the private Clinton server). Other reports have noted that the emails aren't ones that were withheld from the original investigation, so it's not an issue of withholding info, but could potentially reveal issues about the motivations and setup of the private server.
In political circles this is raising eyebrows, coming just 11 days before the election, in a campaign where Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump, has repeatedly pointed to her use of an email server as a reason that she should be in jail, and even promising to appoint a special prosecutor to go after her for this (which, uh, actually isn't how the President is supposed to use that power, but...). Comey's letter doesn't go into much detail, though reporters have been getting more and more details. The letter was sent to a variety of people in Congress, on key committees, including the heads of the Intelligence, Judiciary, Oversight and Homeland Security committees.
Dear Messrs Chairmen:In a perfect world, this kind of story should lead to open discussions on better email technologies, email etiquette, encryption, over-classification and such. Instead, everyone's going to play political hacky sack with this one, with Clinton supporters arguing it's no big deal (though it is) and Trump supporters either feeling vindicated for earlier claims or arguing that the FBI failed to do its job properly before. This campaign has been nothing if not full of surprises.
In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.
In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.
Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anthony weiner, classification, emails, fbi, hillary clinton, huma abedin, james comey, security
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I must disagree with the statement about breaking the law - Comey didn't say Clinton didn't break the law, he said "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." This was followed up with a statement for recommendation, "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." So, to conclude she didn't break the law is a significant conclusion that wasn't part of the FBI report.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: David Morgan on Oct 28th, 2016 @ 1:31pm
...who by definition should be able to understand the law. Then she was FLOTUS, and I'm guessing she was briefed on how to deal with any classified info she was exposed to during that time. Then she went on to become a Senator and helped write laws, and was given classified briefings during that time. And as Secretary of State, she was also briefed on how to properly handle classified information.
And yet with all this, her convenience was more important to her than following the rules to safeguard classified information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: David Morgan on Oct 28th, 2016 @ 1:31pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: David Morgan on Oct 28th, 2016 @ 1:31pm
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: David Morgan on Oct 28th, 2016 @ 1:31pm
More than once....so what does it say about her "intelligence" when she still doesnt know what the symbols are that appear in classified documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: David Morgan on Oct 28th, 2016 @ 1:31pm
...who by definition should be able to understand the law. Then she was FLOTUS, and I'm guessing she was briefed on how to deal with any classified info she was exposed to during that time. Then she went on to become a Senator and helped write laws, and was given classified briefings during that time. And as Secretary of State, she was also briefed on how to properly handle classified information.
>And yet with all this, her convenience was more important to her than following the rules to safeguard classified information.
But of all the hacking and downloading and revelations, it seems nobody hacked a private server kept off premises from the Government offices. So either hacking a server or its accounts is actually a lot more difficult that we at led to believe, or her tech people were doing something right, or more likely... both. Maybe the DNC should hire her tech staff.
She was told by numerous other people this was the way to go, she implemented it, and we have not heard any problems with it. Do we really think that Weinnie's computer would be different if the same emails had come from an official server?
The issue the FBI is investigating - not made clear initially - seems to be that Hillary's aide swore she had turned over or wiped all devices with emails from the server; she missed this one - why? Forgetfulness should not be a criminal charge, and short of forbidding any email of classified information, how do you prevent it from leaking out?
As a technical person, I am trying to think how much a nightmare it would be if the government email were a closed system; all emails scanned for "Classified" before going out the gateway (But then, what stops someone from cut-and-paste segments that they need into an outbound email forgetting tis classified.
Maybe the government needs to b far less anal about classified. I recall a Popular Photography article where someone took a giant telephoto into the press gallery of a Helsinki summit and was snapping and reading "classified" documents over Kissinger's shoulder. The item he captured as "classified" was a wire news daily summary that anyone could have gotten. Anyone think that "classified" obsessiveness has miraculously become more rational since then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It might be easier to build a wall around Washington. Frankly I'm surprised that Trump hasn't thought of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can we just admit she's a liar and crook? Can we just admit that even though she is indeed all those things, she's the best the left has to offer? Hell, look at the right. Talk about a mess....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
....why would the response change?
Well sure, but no more than any qualified Republican candidate in the last few election cycles, and a lot less than many of them. If she's so corrupt, then why can't the Republican party find a better alternative?
Jeb!, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal all ran for President in this election cycle. Mitt Romney was briefly considered and did some campaigning too. All have their own email scandals. Funny how "every other word in print" didn't contain the term "email scandal".
Not to mention that Bush II, Cheney, Rove and the rest were IN the White House when they used an off-site private server.
If you just admit no more she's a liar and crook than any of the Republican alternatives in recent election cycles. And that her private email use was standard practice for Republicans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok! Agreed! She's no more a liar or crook than any Republican out there. You win Roger. Your 100% correct! Republicans are just as good at lying and being crooked as the Democrats. But they are BOTH crooked. You can't claim one is better than the other ... neither can the Republicans. If she wins, she wins because she's a better crook and better criminal than her republican counterparts. Good for her? Victory?
The whole thing is really pathetic if you ask me.. and sad. I ... no WE... deserve better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyone who insists that the one person they don't like be punished - while ignoring everyone in their own party doing the same thing - is not interested in fixing the problem.
If your fellow Anonymous Cowards would demand non-partisan prosecution of EVERYONE doing it, they'd have some credibility. They don't.
Yeah, we deserve better. So again, if Hillary is so bad, why can't Republicans serve up something better? Sixteen Republican candidates in the 2016 primaries and NOT ONE compares better... and the final selection is far worse. In 2012 Romney would merely be in the same ballpark as Hillary and the rest earned the term "clown car."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not a Republican idiot. Your presumptions make your partisan stand out, you may want to cover that back up, it's disgusting.
"why can't Republicans serve up something better"
Again, Not my fucking problem. I'm not Republican. I focus on what I can do, not what someone else did.
This story wasn't about the Republicans. Ever single post Mike or anyone at Techdirt has made regarding the Clintons, you chime in with "look at the Republicans, they are just as bad". That mentality is pathetic, and exactly the reason we as a country are in this partisan mess.
I'm absolutely sick of people trying to justify what Hillary did by pointing out what others have done. It reminds me of a child saying they shouldn't get in trouble for stealing cookies because all these other kids got away with it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A hyper-partisan Republican-siding "not a Republican" idiot then. That's not a presumption.
For what it's worth, I'm not a Democrat.
You're spending too much time channelling Trump.
ONE issue and one issue only: Mail servers. When Republicans (and I'm hyper-partisan "but I'm not Republicans") pillory Hillary for what is standard practice by Republicans, then pointing that it's standard practice for Republicans is not only fair, it's obligatory.
Same here. That's what I'm doing.
If you focus ONLY on the one person you don't like - while not only ignoring that EVERYONE is doing it, but having a partisan hissy fit when others point it out - then you're not interested in having the problem solved. When everyone is doing it, you need to admit that everyone is doing it. That's the first step to a solution.
Look at the sheer Anonymous Coward denial above:
If it were up to YOU we'd never know that this was an outright lie. We'd never hear that Jeb!, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney - all "running for the highest office in the land" - did the same. We'd never hear that it was standard practice in the previous Republican administration.
We don't hear from you at all about that. You want it suppressed, because it ruins your favorite anti-Hillary talking point. You're not interested in fixing the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can debate this until your blue in the face, you can call me anti-Hillary all you want. You can jump up and down screaming that I'm partisan and pro republican... after all that, and when you calm down and regain your composure, Hillary will still be a liar and a crook.
Shit man, her husband is an adulterer, an impeached liar, AND quite possibly a rapist... you could argue that they were BOTH liar's and crooks. I could do this all day, maybe I'll put a little musical score to it eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One more time: If Hillary is such a liar and a crook, then WHERE ARE THE BETTER ALTERNATIVES?
Heck, for all of Hillary's dishonestly, she STILL comes across as more honest than anyone in the 2016 or 2012 clown cars. And that's a lot of competition to choose from. Not to mention a WHOLE LOT more honest than the Republican's 2016 best choice to lead the United States. Far more qualified too.
Yeah, it's not a proud campaign slogan, but If Not Hillary, Then Who?
So, "Don't vote for someone married to an adulterer, liar and possible rapist, whom we knew 23 years ago that the marriage was essentially over and still on paper for political convenience only; vote for someone who IS the adulterer, liar and possible rapist."
You know full well that Hillary had divorced Bill, you and everyone else smearing her not doing so would instead be smearing her for being an anti-family-values divorcee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't disagree that we need better alternatives, but she's still a LIAR AND A CROOK.
"Yeah, it's not a proud campaign slogan, but If Not Hillary, Then Who?"
Not sure. I have to believe the left or the right one can find a real honest politician to field. I don't know why they don't, but I have to believe they could if they wanted too.
"So, "Don't vote for someone married to an adulterer, liar and possible rapist, whom we knew 23 years ago that the marriage was essentially over and still on paper for political convenience only; vote for someone who IS the adulterer, liar and possible rapist.""
I'm not sure I'm going to vote for either one of them, as you stated before, there are others on the ballet, maybe not the strongest choices, but certainly more ethical.
"You know full well that Hillary had divorced Bill, you and everyone else smearing her not doing so would instead be smearing her for being an anti-family-values divorcee."
I think the right would "smear" her in a divorce situation sure. I don't like you lumping me in that category, but I can agree with the statement as a whole. I don't know if that would have hurt or helped her, I'm not a strategist. I have to believe him being under investigation', and woman coming out of the woodwork left and right accusing him of rape isn't helping her at all right now, but would that still have been better than divorce? Hard to say I guess.
Look, there are quite a few liar's and crooks out there. It looks like no matter what happens, one of them is going to be the next President. It's sad really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Understand, that Clinton did this AFTER Obama issued rules that clarified the use of email accounts for official business...and, for a number of those you mentioned there were no "federal" official govt guidelines in place at the time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We should have expected this. Weiner (the 2016 film) got a 96% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and already its getting a sequel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, he's not Jewish then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> So, he's not Jewish then?
So, "Weiner II - The Final Cut"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think the FBI would've announced something like this, so close to the day of the election, if they didn't honestly believe they had something.
If he shows incompetence again - I want his resignation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't all even remarkable
They just recently closed the DB Cooper investigation -- after 45 years.
This is how they roll.
And I'm getting tired of hearing about it. No, Clinton shouldn't have done this. Neither should Bush -- whose team deleted 22 million messages. Neither should X, who is either the last one to do it or the next one, take your pick. It's bad for security, bad for accountability, bad for history. But we all know at this point that it's extremely unlikely that anyone involved with any of these did anything that meets the standards for criminality and even if they did, there's probably not even a fraction of the evidence required to charge them, let alone prosecute, let alone convict. So everybody is probably walking away from this and the next one and the next one.
So despite the breathless hot takes on this during the past few hours, it's just procedural. It doesn't tell us anything new or interesting (we already all new Weiner was a bonehead) (yeah, I picked that word) and it doesn't even appear to involve Clinton. I'm not even really sure why Comey bothered saying anything EXCEPT that he is required to inform Congress in circumstances like this. (Maybe that's why the letter is so short and so lacking in detail.)
Maybe it's just perspective. I've lived through presidents starting wars and getting tens of thousands of Americans killed. I've lived through presidents making enemies lists and trying to destroy people. I've lived through presidents making deals with people that today we'd call terrorists. I've lived through presidents trying to destroy the press. I've lived through presidents trying to turn the US into a surveillance state exceeding the wildest dreams of Stazi. So when I see that one of them (or one who aspires to be one of them) did something dubious with an email server, my response is mostly "meh". Meh to Clinton, meh to Bush, meh to X for all values of X.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't all even remarkable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable
It's actually kind of not on matters of public policy. It reveals a great deal about what a horrible retched piece of shit Donald Trump is, but it doesn't say much necessarily about how he would govern.
Put another way: let's way I could promise you a candidate under which the economy would thrive for American generally, the country would be at peace, and he would have a public approval rating of 90%......but while in office he did something horrible. Take your pick: rape, murder, whatever. Would you vote for him/her?
I think it's an interesting question without a clear and clean answer, given how many people he/she would help versus the few he/she would hurt. To be clear, I'm not suggesting there's a right answer here, only that it's an interesting moral dilemma....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable
I think it suggests a few things on how he'd handle legislation concerning sexual assault. And it's one of many datapoints about how he feels about women's rights in general.
I can't think of any President who isn't responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. But I don't suppose that's quite the same thing as what you're talking about.
If a President provably personally commits a violent crime, he shouldn't be President; he should be in prison.
Even if your hypothetical were possible, I do not believe it would be sustainable. Peace and prosperity cannot last when leaders can commit crimes with impunity, especially violent ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable
2. *sigh* (Required Disclaimer: t-rump is worse than hitler, etc) IF you *supposedly* 'care' about t-rump's serial groping (and -frankly- i don't think most really do; they 'care' about having ANYTHING to slime t-rump with), then you should have excommunicated preznit bubba many decades ago...
3. ASSUMING you grant pres cliton had some good qualities and/or oversaw good legislation being passed (he did not, he was an original neo-lib-con-artist); THEN you must aver that APPARENTLY -at least in his case- serial affairs and possible rapes were no hindrance to him doing as you like...
i'm just saying, i am fed up with people's hypocrisy in blaming t-rump for some original sin on this, that and the other, when there are PLENTY of examples of hill/bill/etc being equally -if not moreso- 'guilty' of the same sins/crimes...
4. just out of curiosity: exactly how many people have been MURDERED at t-rump's behest, either personally or through gummint actions he instituted ? ? ?
can we count the hundreds of thousands to millions which hill/bill are responsible for murdering ? ? ?
WHO is the 'crazy person' in this race ? ? ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable
I also strongly suspect that we've only seen the tip of this iceberg. I hope not, because it's painful to think that there are still women out there who were assaulted: but I think that there are probably many more who are afraid. (And who would blame them, given the way the ones who've come forward have been threatened?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid? This wasn't some first year politician here Mike. She's a seasoned vet... and with everything she went through with Bill, the argument for incompetence or just "stupidity" is extremely weak. She knew damn well she shouldn't be doing something like that. And... if she didn't(for the sake of playing devils advocate)then she is in no position to be pres.
#HatesTrump
And for the fangurls that will say she didn't break any laws may I suggest some further reading:
The Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.
#StillHatesTrump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And she used a private email server just like all the other seasoned vets.
Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Bush II, Cheney, Rove and anyone else connected to the Bush White House email controversy. Mitt Romney, Jeb!, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal all have their own email scandals. And of course all those Congressman who claim that they "don't use email", while having their aides use their private accounts to avoid FOIA requests.
Sure, there's an urgent question of why most everyone avoided the official servers. (Not that I expect you to ask it.) But when the FBI can't find any evidence of intentionally breaking the law, and she's acting completely within the prevailing standards, it's not incompetence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Oops, I seem to have created a personal email server, how'd that happen?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Incorrect on all counts.
Jeb! as governor used his own server as Florida governor to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants. Perry, Jindal and the others also used private servers, and you can bet they weren't just swapping cookie recipes.
Likewise Bush II, Cheney, Rove and anyone else connected to the Bush White House email controversy were using an off-site private server for government business. As for Secretaries of State Colin Powell. are you really suggesting that an AOL account is more secure than a private server?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not even close to what he said, Mike. Maybe you should read his statement again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd say it's close to what he said. Via a transcript at http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/transcript-james-comey-clinton-email-225103 :
He says "evidence of potential violations of the statutes", which, as you indicate, does imply that he believes some laws were probably broken -- but he also believes that the evidence is insufficient to hold up in court.
I'm not sure that the distinction is important in this context. He acknowledges some evidence of lawbreaking, but also indicates that it's insufficient as legal proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as a former email server admin and manager
Email is not to be used for
Time critical, sensitive (or classified)communication. It should be treated like a sticky note with bad adhesive. If you wouldn't use a note like that, don't use email.
(A bit different if the email is solely on your own server and does not enter/exit your own supervised infrastructure.)
I'll just note that the FBI doesn't appear to use email internally but I may be mistaken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll just put this out here
ˈɡro͞opē/
nouninformal
plural noun: groupies
a person, especially a young woman, who regularly follows a pop music group or other celebrity in the hope of meeting or getting to know them.
derogatory
an enthusiastic or uncritical follower.
"the contemporary art groupie"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll just put this out here
That's cool. I can post the definition of non sequitur, if you like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WEINERGATE
.
And frankly!... the FACT is!... if the "Commercial Server (and cellphone!)" that Hillary was using C-A-N-'-T B-E T-R-U-S-T-E-D T-O E-N-S-U-R-E S-E-C-U-R-E I-N-F-O-R-M-A-T-I-O-N C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-S... then!... W-H-A-T T-H-E H-*-L-L D-O-E-S T-H-I-S S-A-Y A-B-O-U-T T-H-E R-E-S-T O-F U-S? Why aren't American "Security Advisers" A-L-L O-V-E-R the inefficient and ineffective Commercial OEMs, re their inability to produce V-I-A-B-L-E C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-S P-R-O-D-U-C-T-S?... A-N-D, F-O-R E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y? And!... W-H-Y T-H-E H-*-L-L I-S S-U-C-H C-O-M-M-E-R-C-I-A-L I-N-E-F-F-I-C-I-E-N-Y A-N-D I-N-E-F-F-E-C-T-I-V-E-N-E-S-S H-E-R P-R-O-B-L-E-M?
.
This is not about... HAS N-E-V-E-R BEEN ABOUT!... Hillary Clinton having gone "Rogue", and communicating "Federal secrets" to "foreign powers"!... e.g., to "S-P-E-C-T-R-E"! It's about her use of a personal/ private commercial server (and cellphone!)!... and her deletion of said "sensitive information" on her personal/ private commercial server, afterupon learning of expressed concerns by "security interests (namely, the FBI!)" of the "unsecured nature" of the communications, by way of the products she was using!
.
In other words!... if the Commerical Server she was using (and!... add in, her cellphone!) was to a REASONABLE STANDARD, then a directive to use government mandated and issued "SECURE TECHNOMAE" wouldn't have been an issue!... wouldn't have come up! And!... and as far as I'm concerned!... if U.S. government information was inadvertently leaked, or hacked!... and compromised the security of America!... I wouldn't be blaming her (going after her!) for such a hack, I-'-D B-E B-L-A-M-I-N-G (G-O-I-N-G A-F-T-E-R!) W-H-O-E-V-E-R A-L-L-O-W-E-D T-H-E S-A-L-E A-N-D D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N O-F S-U-C-H C-R-*-P T-E-C-H-N-O-M-A-E A-N-Y-W-H-E-R-E I-N T-H-E U.S. O-F A! And!... if such cr*p is to be sold, it's to be sold with a M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D W-A-R-N-I-N-G, T-H-A-T T-H-E U-S-E O-F S-A-M-E C-A-N-'-T B-E T-R-U-S-T-E-D!
.
Again!... what does this V-I-R-T-U-A-L A-D-M-I-S-S-I-O-N by way of the FBI, say about O-U-R U-S-E of such "proprietary technoma"? If the FBI... AND, "S-A-V-V-Y POLITICAL PUNDITS AND VOTERS"!... don't think that such commercial internet servers (and cellphones!) are "S-E-R-V-I-N-G O-U-R I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-S", then should W-E be using such systems?
.
This is not an indictment of Hillary Clinton!... T-H-I-S I-S A-N I-N-D-I-C-T-M-E-N-T O-F T-H-E P-R-O-P-R-I-E-T-A-R-Y C-R-*-P (THE SAMSUNG DEBACLE, NOTWITHSTANDING!) T-H-A-T M-I-L-L-I-O-N-S O-F N-E-T-I-Z-E-N-S A-R-O-U-N-D T-H-E W-O-R-L-D A-R-E U-S-I-N-G O-N A D-A-I-L-Y B-A-S-I-S T-O C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-E W-I-T-H! And so!... please!... GIVE US A BREAK FROM THIS R-H-E-T-O-R-I-C, A-N-D N-O-N-E-S-E-N-S-E!
.
Have a look at the Google result, titled, Volkswagen scandal Confirms the Dangers of Proprietary Code, by David Bollier, if one needs a "refresher" on the perils of commercial software! And then... check out the Purism Librem 15 PC!... and other such Free and Open Source Software based (FOSS based!) and Free and Open Source Hardware based (FOSH based!) ICT devices (including, FOSS and FOSH based servers!)!... and compare these just cited technomae to the said "SECURE SYSTEMS" being touted/ proffered by our "security infrastructure (and by the FBI!)" as the "SECURITY SOLUTION" for America's bureaucracies!
.
let's get something straight here!... Trump is willing to receive the WikiLeaks "goods" on elements of Clinton's Campaign (and etc.!)... but!... he won't be going after (nor, speaking to!) the WikiLeaks revelations by Assange, that led to Julian Assange seeking asylum for a series of "alleged" BREACHES OF NATIONAL SECURITY (for which, Julian Assange-- it's declared!-- must be brought to the U.S. to account for!)!... and, of course-- and conveniently!-- Donald Trump doesn't use email! And so!... the question to be asked of Donald Trump, is:... Will Donald Trump be seeking to bring Julian Assange to the U.S. to face charges concerning Assange's "WikiLeaking" of sensitive undertakings by the U.S. Government?... or!... Will Trump, now-- due to the WikiLeaks believed critical of Hillary Clinton (and thus-- Trump hopes!-- be "beneficial" to his campaign!)!-- be letting Julian Assange "off the hook"?
.
Or!... could it be, that Trump doesn't view Julian Assange's WikiLeaking of U.S. Government Strategic Information on foreign military tactical operations, a breach of National Security! And so!... with that admission by Trump (spoken, or unspoken!)!... one can only assume that Donald Trump will be allowing Julian Assange "FREE REIN (AND REIGN!)" re any "future WikiLeaking" of said sensitive U.S. Government Strategic Military tactical information! But!... if Trump DOESN'T AGREE with the WikiLeaking by Assange of sensitive U.S. Government Strategic Military tactical information, then what's this acceptance of the WikiLeaking of Hillary Clinton's Campaign information all about? Is it Trump's view... now (and despite the FBI's expressed concerns about Hillary's said mishandling of emails!)!... that it's OK to not only "play" with emails THAT SHOULDN'T BE MISHANDLED!... but!... also (directly and/ or indirectly!), to "thumb his nose" at the FBI's expression of concern about Hillary's said mishandling of her emails! Trump can't have it both ways!
.
If the release by Julian Assange of sensitive U.S. Government Strategic Military tactical information is of BENEFIT to the U.S. Government... YEA, TO THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY!... then, Trump should come out and say so!! Otherwise!... he is being a H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E in offering up A-N-Y CRITICISM of Julian Assange's WikiLeaking of sensitive U.S. Government information, while... all the while!... "playing" with WikiLeaks email information, that the FBI (for one!) suggests, SHOULDN'T BE MISHANDLED!... and thereby, "THUMBING HIS NOSE" at the FBI's expressed concerns! And this!... apart from allegations of collusion by Trump (and company) with the Russian Government, re hacks into Democratic Campaign servers!
.
Lastly... in a CBC report just hours after the announcement of the FBI's intent to have congress review its latest "finding", the CBC's reporter found... and by way of direct talks with FBI investigators close to this latest revelation!... that a) this latest "discovery" did not involve any known breach of National Security; b) this latest finding didn't involve any server being personally used by Hillary Clinton; and c) this latest find-- as this Blog has revealed!-- involved more "playful antics" emanating from Anthony Weiner's wiener (i.e., by way of a device owned by Anthony Weiner!)!
.
G-I-V-E U-S A B-R-E-A-K W-I-T-H T-H-I-S S-H-*-T!! W-O-R-S-T T-H-A-N W-A-T-E-R-G-A-T-E?... M-Y *-S-S! A-N-D B-Y T-H-E W-A-Y... T-R-U-M-P!... S-T-O-P T-R-Y-I-N-G T-O M-A-K-E Y-O-U-R L-A-T-E R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N B-U-D-D-Y L-O-O-K G-O-O-D, B-Y L-A-B-E-L-I-N-G H-I-L-L-A-R-Y W-O-R-S-E T-H-A-N H-I-M!! T-H-A-T A-I-N-'-T G-O-N-N-A H-A-P-P-E-N!!
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WEINERGATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WEINERGATE
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WEINERGATE
First of all, everyone in the tech community that knows about email security knows it is not standardly secure at all. It is most often transmitted in plain text and is definitely stored in plain text 99 times out of 100. That is why it is standard security protocol to
1) not send passwords, credit card info, or other important information thru email (even secret business information shouldn't be transmitted this way)
2) have things sent thru email like Password resets be time sensitive so that if someone digs them up, there is a high chance they have expired
3) Use 2-factor/multi-factor authentication so that cracking your email doesn't lead to everything you have being pwned by the hacker
Can we in the tech business make email secure? There are encrypted email clients and Lavabit used to be a great tool until the government forced it to shut down by demanding it to decrypt everything. So yeah, there have been forays into this stuff but the USG has done some work to slow it down... possibly because they are collecting and reading all our emails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WEINERGATE
.
I... nor millions of other conscionable souls!... don't need MORONIC MINDLESS RANTS! In other words... I need your views on what's important here, like a hemroid up the crack of my *ss! Get lost!
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WEINERGATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WEINERGATE
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WEINERGATE
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WEINERGATE
(And, yes, he's trolling, even if he is somehow sincere about his positions. The fact that he replies to *every* post criticizing his posting style (or very nearly so) with another post which doubles down on that posting style doesn't leave much room for any other possibility.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WEINERGATE
.
Yeah!... just hit the "DENIAL OF DEMOCRATIC EXPRESSION REPORT/ FLAG"!... C-O-W-A-R-D! That's what you're GOOD at! Since you can't come up with a R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L position re my "STYLE" of expression, you're intention is to spread your V-I-L-E and M-U-R-D-E-R-O-U-S V-E-N-U-M whenever the occasion allows! What's that a "sign" of?
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How are they doing with GW Bush email?
Always amazed at the US political scene (and the most ardent supporters) pee'ing all over each other rather than running the country. If an anti establishment figure emerges without Trump's trail of destruction (from either side), they'll easily win in 2020. Just a question of who susses it first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And as it turns out...
The best summary of this is by Kurt Eichenwald at Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-comey-donald-trump-anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-514 918
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Move Along
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get ready for draconian new email laws
Expect draconian new email laws in January, no matter who is elected.
E.g.,
* hacking Congressional or Executive email will be punishable by death by public/YouTube execution (remember how quickly Congress moved on privacy after Congressional porn videotape rentals were disclosed?);
* encryption for govt emails will become mandatory;
* encryption for private citizens email will be prohibited;
* NSA will be allowed -- actually required -- to store *all* emails, both govt & private, forever;
* in order to ensure the legitimacy of future elections, voting by email will be required, and all votes will be made public so that all citizens can be assured that there is no voting fraud.
There, email hacking problems solved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the only device that hasn't been hammered or bleach-bit wiped...could be interesting reading. But Hillary said she already released everything except yoga emails, what is she worried about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Huma Abedin Given Immunity"
The bus carrying the growing number of Hillary aides given immunity will then roll over Anthony Weiner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
COMEY'S SECRET AGENDA
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(And I'm amazed I'm saying that.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lot of morally reprehensible actions do not technically break the law, but that does not make those actions any less deplorable, let alone those who commit said actions - in this case Hillary Clinton. Additionally, the FBI has stated she is irresponsible as one can possibly be with regard to matters of national security. Nobody actually "wants" her to run the country. Most of those inane enough to vote for her simply want her to destroy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I don't want A OR B, but I want B less than I want A... guess I'm voting A."
Most of those inane enough to vote for her simply want her to destroy it.
I'm guessing a large chunk of the Clinton voters aren't voting for her so much as they're voting against the alternative, because the system we've got incentivizes defensive voting, where you don't vote for what do you want, but against what you don't want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Mike, you're a liar. They said there wasn't enough there to prosecute, they didn't say she didn't break the law. That's just your usual attempt at history revision (as expected).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't the pertinent issue that had the FBI properly executed its original investigation into the matter - there wouldn't be any surprise devices out there containing classified data.
See that none of us know what the emails in question contain, stating this is a "nothing burger" and otherwise making light of the situation really just enablement for your candidate. Also changing the topic doesn't win you any pints, or points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]