That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
A good recap and analysis of the political issues around the FBI nowScoop20906 wrote:Can you link to a new source that is reporting this?malchior wrote:The FBI is also leaking information around this issue like crazy right now. Sometimes idealism isn't the best course and he is in many ways too rigid and then goes off track without warning. Possibly the worst combination of traits possible for that job.
Excellent. So you now agree that those same experts who are saying foreign entities hacked Hillary's homegrown server are correct. I'm glad we see eye to eye.geezer wrote:People who believe that Russia is messing with our election process: 17 Federal investigating agencies.Smutly wrote:This baseball fandom innuendo and tomfoolery is obviously Russian interference in our electoral process! Evidence people! Evidence!
People who don't: Donald Trump, you.
So an accusation is evidence and proof?GreenGoo wrote:Cite please.
The US government has come out and publicly accused Russia of hacking the DNC.
Presumably there is similarly strongly worded comments about her server?
My assumption is that her server was compromised because it was an undefended, high value server sitting in a basement with little to no support. That's not the same thing as proof that it was, however.
It will be if Trump becomes president, apparently.Smutly wrote:So an accusation is evidence and proof?GreenGoo wrote:Cite please.
The US government has come out and publicly accused Russia of hacking the DNC.
Presumably there is similarly strongly worded comments about her server?
My assumption is that her server was compromised because it was an undefended, high value server sitting in a basement with little to no support. That's not the same thing as proof that it was, however.
My point was solely that you can't have it both ways...GreenGoo wrote:When it comes in public from the United States of America, it *usually* does.
Of course Iraq and Snowden tarnish that reputation.
In any case, are you suggesting that you have even less proof than the Feds claim to have?
You can undermine my claim if you want, but that undermines yours at the same time. Which leaves us...where, exactly?
Why not? One is the official position of many organizations, the other is "leaked" information (with no actual details) from one of them.Smutly wrote: My point was solely that you can't have it both ways...
No worries, I'm sure Jason Chaffetz and his Oversight committee are all over it.Defiant wrote:The reputation of the FBI keeps sinking.
Don Lemongilraen wrote:One of the MSNBC shows yesterday (I forget if it was Rachel Maddow, or maybe Chris Hayes) actually pointed out that Rudy Giuliani was boasting about "something up their sleeve" 2 days before the Comey letter hit, which would only indicate that FBI leaked this information to the Trump campaign. Of course, they were just guessing...who needs conspiracy theories when Rudy now just brags about it in the open.
Evidence is the proof behind the accusation. What don't you get?Smutly wrote:So an accusation is evidence and proof?GreenGoo wrote:Cite please.
The US government has come out and publicly accused Russia of hacking the DNC.
Presumably there is similarly strongly worded comments about her server?
My assumption is that her server was compromised because it was an undefended, high value server sitting in a basement with little to no support. That's not the same thing as proof that it was, however.
You know what's disgraceful? Exerting your constitutional rights to plead the fifth.
Well come on - he hasn't gotten any leaked info, but he's *heard* it. Lots of people are saying things, believe me.
It's no fun when I have to point out what others don't get. All of this reminds me of the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle: The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. I'll just check out of double-standard circular logic taco stand and call it a night. Good night, John Boy.Unagi wrote:Evidence is the proof behind the accusation. What don't you get?Smutly wrote:So an accusation is evidence and proof?GreenGoo wrote:Cite please.
The US government has come out and publicly accused Russia of hacking the DNC.
Presumably there is similarly strongly worded comments about her server?
My assumption is that her server was compromised because it was an undefended, high value server sitting in a basement with little to no support. That's not the same thing as proof that it was, however.
I'm pretty sure they did. So? We see hacking attempts all the time against email servers at all levels of state and local government. Undoubtedly some of those succeed. She was stupid to use a home based server. If I asked my aging mother to make IT decisions that's exactly the kind of crap I'd expect to happen. It probably happened to Powell and it probably happened to the RNC server that conveniently lost Bush's email.Smutly wrote: Excellent. So you now agree that those same experts who are saying foreign entities hacked Hillary's homegrown server are correct. I'm glad we see eye to eye.
Yes. Fucking yes.Blackhawk wrote:The one thing I can say for sure about this campaign: It turned me from a cautious optimist to a pessimist when it comes to humanity and the US.
Not just "some". Tons.gbasden wrote:I'm pretty sure they did. So? We see hacking attempts all the time against email servers at all levels of state and local government. Undoubtedly some of those succeed.Smutly wrote: Excellent. So you now agree that those same experts who are saying foreign entities hacked Hillary's homegrown server are correct. I'm glad we see eye to eye.
Tell that to the Iranians.gilraen wrote:Welcome to the 21st century. The only secure server is one that's not connected to the Internet.
...with USB turned off.Isgrimnur wrote:Tell that to the Iranians.gilraen wrote:Welcome to the 21st century. The only secure server is one that's not connected to the Internet.
The maid? OMFG, you couldn't make this stuff up. Perhaps she will have the gardener take care of border security?In a classified 2012 e-mail dealing with the new president of Malawi, another Clinton aide, Monica Hanley, advised Clinton, “We can ask Marina to print this.”
“Revisions to the Iran points” was the subject line of a classified April 2012 e-mail to Clinton from Hanley. In it, the text reads, “Marina is trying to print for you.”
Both classified e-mails were marked “confidential,” the tier below “secret” or “top secret.”
Santos also had access to a highly secure room called an SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) that diplomatic security agents set up at Whitehaven, according to FBI notes from an interview with Abedin.
From within the SCIF, Santos — who had no clearance — “collected documents from the secure facsimile machine for Clinton,” the FBI notes revealed.
Just how sensitive were the papers Santos presumably handled? The FBI noted Clinton periodically received the Presidential Daily Brief — a top-secret document prepared by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies — via the secure fax.
A 2012 “sensitive” but unclassified e-mail from Hanley to Clinton refers to a fax the staff wanted Clinton “to see before your Netanyahu mtg. Marina will grab for you.”
Yet it appears Clinton was never asked by the FBI in its yearlong investigation to turn over the iMac Santos used to receive the e-mails, or the printer she used to print out the documents, or the printouts themselves.
If they had investigated 9/11 this thoroughly we would still be wondering if those planes flew themselves into the building.When a Post reporter confronted Santos at her DC apartment Friday, she would say only, “I don’t speak to reporters.”
According to a 2010 profile in The Philippine Star, close Clinton friend Vernon Jordan recommended Santos to the Clintons after she worked part-time for him.
Bill Clinton gave a speech in Manila as part of his foundation and took time to visit with the family of the “mayordoma [housekeeper] of his Washington, DC, home — Marina Santos.”
He was quoted as describing Santos as the “wonderful woman who runs our home in Washington, without whom Hillary will not be able to serve as secretary of state.” The article ended remarking, without a hint of irony: “Marina now runs his house so that he and his wife can better serve interests higher than their own.”
Santos could turn out to be the Betty Currie of the Clinton e-mail scandal. Currie was the secretary for President Clinton. She also came recommended by Jordan, and became famous as a central witness in the Monica Lewinsky scandal for her handling of gifts given to Clinton’s mistress.
Investigators had sought the gifts, allegedly hidden under Currie’s bed on orders from Clinton, as evidence.
Now she has my vote - Daylight Saving is pointless waste.
Move to AZ.malchior wrote:Now she has my vote - Daylight Saving is pointless waste.
Wrong.Rip wrote:The maid? OMFG, you couldn't make this stuff up.
Alefroth wrote:Wrong.Rip wrote:The maid? OMFG, you couldn't make this stuff up.
