In the tank.
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
It comes down to likelihood and probability. As Comey noted, "Hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact." And the fact that she took her BlackBerry everywhere she went, including “sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” ("sophisticated adversaries" means Russia, China, Eastern Europe, where they monitor all Internet activity). He also noted that her use of “a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.”
Podesta's emails got hacked, and they were sitting on a secure server. It doesn't take a whole lot of skill to hack a unsecured server and not leave any traces behind, and the only security her server had was a standard Cisco PIX firewall and NAT server, with a Windows Small Business Server and a BlackBerry Enterprise Server behind the NAT. So... simple login/password protection, which would be brain-dead-easy to obtain if she ever used her Blackberry to access her account while in the "territory of sophisticated adversaries.”
With no evidence of the server being breached, it is indeed just speculation. But it's also a near-certainty. Our sophisticated adversaries would have to be breathtakingly incompetent if they failed to get in there.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
At the point where a career official in one of the intelligence/military branches of the government confirms I think we could say that it's no longer speculation.
Unless of course one has totally bought into the Alex Jones conspiracy theory world-view ... but at that point one probably believes that Obama and Hillary are literal demons and smell like sulphur anyways ...
There will never be any hard evidence that her email server was hacked (other than that one time in 2011 when her tech guru saw someone using the computer, moving the mouse and opening and files, and it wasn't him, so he quickly shut it down - there was a second time where Hillary thought the server was being hacked, but she's such a technodard that she didn't even know how to operate a desktop computer, which is the reason for all the Blackberry phones, so I'm not sure how much credence should be placed on that instance). Her server was connected to the internet via the Microsoft RPC service (Remote Procedure Call, or Remote Desktop Connection) that permitted remote access connections without any additional protective measures other than a logon and password. When the RDC service is active, which is all the time since that was the Internet connection, it broadcasts an open port 3389 to let people (anyone using a port scanner) know there's an open Remote Desktop Connection there.
They didn't even install security monitoring software until several months after she left the State Department, after she hired Platte River Networks to host the server, and even then she used the cheapest plan of CloudJacket SMB, which is a run-of-the-mill firewall made for small to medium sized business, instead of secure, enterprise-level threat detection. That's not really the ideal plan for protecting the data for the former Secretary of State. Not only that, but she used a cloud storage data backup service, Datto, Inc, that didn't even encrypt the files.
You don't need to buy into Alex Jones' world view to be able to say with confidence that her server was hacked. If sophisticated adversaries did know that she was running a private email server (which we now know they did) and they tried to hack it, then it's almost a sure thing that they were successful. It's entirely possible her server was breached before she even sent her first email, because she used her State Department email account to send her new private email address to people that (we now know) had already been hacked at the time.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Interesting piece on coverage of the candidates in the pre-primary period:
Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle - Shorenstein Center
A couple of graphics from the piece which support my earlier comments:
Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle - Shorenstein Center
A couple of graphics from the piece which support my earlier comments:
Media coverage in and of itself is not the whole story. It's what the media does with that coverage.
Once we got it down to the two presumptive nominees of the major parties, things changed dramatically in the way the press covered the two candidates with regard to tone. This article from the same source shows what all transpired in the 4-week convention period beginning one week before the RNC and ending one week after the DNC.
As the article points out, not only were the references to Clinton's emails easy to count, they were "a defining feature of her news coverage." But, as it also pointed out, "Remarkably, a key dimension of the email issue was seldom addressed: What should we make of the emails? How important, exactly, are they in the larger question of choosing a president? And just how large a transgression are they?"
From the charts it's easy to see that once it got down to Trump v Clinton the tone changed and Trump got significantly more negative coverage than did Clinton. If they had fully addressed those key dimensional questions about the emails, the negative coverage for both candidates would almost certainly have been on more equal footing.
But this was a time when the media organizations and the journalists themselves took over the election, beginning in Week 1 and building to a favorable Clinton crescendo the week after the DNC. You can see that in the weekly charts. But just as important is why that is, and you can see that right up top in the first chart, where "where the prevailing voices are not those of the nominees but instead those of reporters." It's where the reporters drove the narrative the way they wanted it, from Week 1 through Week 4, which set the tone for the rest of the coverage, which is what we see today.
"Negative news reports about policy positions, for example, outnumbered positive reports 82 percent to 18 percent. Trump experienced a reversal of the “good press” he had received earlier in the campaign..."
"What appeared to be missing from this negative coverage, however, was context. For example, although Clinton’s email issue was clearly deemed important by the media, relatively few stories provided background to help news consumers make sense of the issue—what harm was caused by her actions, or how common these actions are among elected officials."
"...coverage of policy and issues, although they were in the forefront at the conventions, continued to take a back seat to polls, projections, and scandal." And Trump's reaction to the DNC speech of Khizr Khan was scandalicious. Khan attacked Trump from the stage, and Trump in a vicious, brutal, heartless and remorseless attack, replied with, "I'd like to hear his wife say something."
Well, that was just too much. A Clinton campaign senior spokeswoman Tweeted within seconds of Trump's reply, "Trump is truly shameless to attack the family of an American hero. Many thanks to the Khan family for your sacrifice, we stand with you." The press responded with 'Got it! Attack it is.' Within just a few days, if you didn't know what Trump's actual response was, you'd have thought Trump went after Khan and his wife with a machete.
Once we got it down to the two presumptive nominees of the major parties, things changed dramatically in the way the press covered the two candidates with regard to tone. This article from the same source shows what all transpired in the 4-week convention period beginning one week before the RNC and ending one week after the DNC.
As the article points out, not only were the references to Clinton's emails easy to count, they were "a defining feature of her news coverage." But, as it also pointed out, "Remarkably, a key dimension of the email issue was seldom addressed: What should we make of the emails? How important, exactly, are they in the larger question of choosing a president? And just how large a transgression are they?"
From the charts it's easy to see that once it got down to Trump v Clinton the tone changed and Trump got significantly more negative coverage than did Clinton. If they had fully addressed those key dimensional questions about the emails, the negative coverage for both candidates would almost certainly have been on more equal footing.
But this was a time when the media organizations and the journalists themselves took over the election, beginning in Week 1 and building to a favorable Clinton crescendo the week after the DNC. You can see that in the weekly charts. But just as important is why that is, and you can see that right up top in the first chart, where "where the prevailing voices are not those of the nominees but instead those of reporters." It's where the reporters drove the narrative the way they wanted it, from Week 1 through Week 4, which set the tone for the rest of the coverage, which is what we see today.
"Negative news reports about policy positions, for example, outnumbered positive reports 82 percent to 18 percent. Trump experienced a reversal of the “good press” he had received earlier in the campaign..."
"What appeared to be missing from this negative coverage, however, was context. For example, although Clinton’s email issue was clearly deemed important by the media, relatively few stories provided background to help news consumers make sense of the issue—what harm was caused by her actions, or how common these actions are among elected officials."
"...coverage of policy and issues, although they were in the forefront at the conventions, continued to take a back seat to polls, projections, and scandal." And Trump's reaction to the DNC speech of Khizr Khan was scandalicious. Khan attacked Trump from the stage, and Trump in a vicious, brutal, heartless and remorseless attack, replied with, "I'd like to hear his wife say something."
Well, that was just too much. A Clinton campaign senior spokeswoman Tweeted within seconds of Trump's reply, "Trump is truly shameless to attack the family of an American hero. Many thanks to the Khan family for your sacrifice, we stand with you." The press responded with 'Got it! Attack it is.' Within just a few days, if you didn't know what Trump's actual response was, you'd have thought Trump went after Khan and his wife with a machete.
and then there is the ID at voting booths issue....you need real ID for your drivers license but not at the booth still in a lot of states.....you'd think the DHS would take this as a security issue that illegals are influencing a US election...from within
While the Real ID program does not guarantee citizen status...a simple twink and it could easily
In my case I have to go into a DOT office every renewal with my green card and proof of residence ....like a bill in my name at my present address not older then 60 days...
In my case I have to go into a DOT office every renewal with my green card and proof of residence ....like a bill in my name at my present address not older then 60 days...
]A good read by Sheryll Atkissonn that chronicles all the 'journalists' that appear to be in the tank for Hillary. A more extensive rundown than the OP article.Newsgate 2016 | Sharyl Attkisson
Check out near the bottom of the article as well, titled 'The strategy'.
Part of it is in the attachment.
Just a headsup... Don't go to Wikileaks and read any of the leaked emails. It is illegal for you to be in possession of those emails. Just looking at them online will cause copies to be downloaded in your browser's cache and you will then be committing a crime by being in possession of stolen property.
Source: Chris Cuomo, CNN
Full segment
Source: Chris Cuomo, CNN
Full segment
The '96 percent'. I didn't think it was that high.
Money journalists have given to Trump and Clinton
Money journalists have given to Trump and Clinton
You in big truble now.
JohnWC
Veteran Expediter
It's funny we can go to jail for something somebody else didn't follow the right direction for these emails then claim stupidity and not go to jail
Wikileaks emails from Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta confirmed all the criticisms of Hillary's private email server. In the leaked emails her staff is shown coordinating with the State Department, the White House, the Department of Justice, and the mainstread media to cover up the scandal and distort it as a partisan issue protect her presidential candidacy. Reports from the State Department Inspector General, FBI Director Comey, and two reports on the FBI's investigation have effectively disproved every defense of Hillary's private email server that has been utilized by Clinton partisans since it’s use was first revealed in early 2015.
And now, the pro-Clinton journalists are already spinning the FBI’s latest announcement about reopening the investigation, and doing so with virtually no additional (or verifiable) information. One of the more egregious attempts is from serial-fabricator Kurt Eichenwald of Vanity Fair, Newsweek, and the New York Times fame (not to mention being an invited guest at both of Hillary's secret campaign boot camps for friendly journalists). He's been burning up Twitter all day trying to convince everyone that this is much ado about nothing, and he started with it just minutes after it was announced that Comey sent the letter to Congress. Apparently, Comey gave Eichenwald a "Ready, Set Go" headsup before he told Congress. <snort>
Everything in the article after the line "The truth is much less explosive." is just BS. Some of it goes beyond BS straight to flat out lies, like where he says the FBI never closes an investigation, which is (a) not true and (b) especially not true since Comely explicitly stated their investigation was completed and they had closed the case. He talks about these newly discovered emails (that are housed at clintonmail,com or yahoo.com) only being on s shared laptop. Because, you know, you can only access Web email addresses with a laptop. It's astonishing BS, written like he knows what's going on, yet he contradicts himself half a dozen times, precisely because he's making it up as he goes along. The really big laugh-out-loud moment is where he has the balls to write, "Abedin, who did not know Clinton used a private server for her emails..." This is completely false, and we know it's false, because Abedin discussed several times the problems of Clinton's use of a private email server with Podesta and others, and she told the FBI she knew of the server, was effectively Clinton's "call screener" with incoming emails on the private server, and she had her own person email account on the same server. But he writes that she didn't know Clinton used a private server for her emails. OMG
And now, the pro-Clinton journalists are already spinning the FBI’s latest announcement about reopening the investigation, and doing so with virtually no additional (or verifiable) information. One of the more egregious attempts is from serial-fabricator Kurt Eichenwald of Vanity Fair, Newsweek, and the New York Times fame (not to mention being an invited guest at both of Hillary's secret campaign boot camps for friendly journalists). He's been burning up Twitter all day trying to convince everyone that this is much ado about nothing, and he started with it just minutes after it was announced that Comey sent the letter to Congress. Apparently, Comey gave Eichenwald a "Ready, Set Go" headsup before he told Congress. <snort>
Everything in the article after the line "The truth is much less explosive." is just BS. Some of it goes beyond BS straight to flat out lies, like where he says the FBI never closes an investigation, which is (a) not true and (b) especially not true since Comely explicitly stated their investigation was completed and they had closed the case. He talks about these newly discovered emails (that are housed at clintonmail,com or yahoo.com) only being on s shared laptop. Because, you know, you can only access Web email addresses with a laptop. It's astonishing BS, written like he knows what's going on, yet he contradicts himself half a dozen times, precisely because he's making it up as he goes along. The really big laugh-out-loud moment is where he has the balls to write, "Abedin, who did not know Clinton used a private server for her emails..." This is completely false, and we know it's false, because Abedin discussed several times the problems of Clinton's use of a private email server with Podesta and others, and she told the FBI she knew of the server, was effectively Clinton's "call screener" with incoming emails on the private server, and she had her own person email account on the same server. But he writes that she didn't know Clinton used a private server for her emails. OMG