Politics Enough with the Hillary cult: Her admirers ignore reality, dream of worshipping a queen

Ja. And I'm pretty sure that Trump is not arguing that the investigation into Clinton's emails is worse than anything Petraeus did.

barfo

 

Or not:

barfo

 

I'm pretty sure what they're investigating is worse.

 

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Only to spin doctors.

The first thing a hacker does when he gets into a system is remove all traces he's been there.

There are too numerous www pages by security companies about this.

http://www.pandasecurity.com/homeusers/security-info/types-malware/rootkit/



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkit

Once installed, a rootkit takes active measures to obscure its presence within the host system through subversion or evasion of standard operating system security tools and APIsused for diagnosis, scanning, and monitoring. Rootkits achieve this by modifying the behavior of core parts of an operating system through loading code into other processes, the installation or modification of drivers, or kernel modules. Obfuscation techniques include concealing running processes from system-monitoring mechanisms and hiding system files and other configuration data.[60] It is not uncommon for a rootkit to disable the event logging capacity of an operating system, in an attempt to hide evidence of an attack. Rootkits can, in theory, subvert any operating system activities.[61] The "perfect rootkit" can be thought of as similar to a "perfect crime": one that nobody realizes has taken place.

 

It really doesn't matter if it was hacked or not. Just having the server in the first place is negligence at best, nixonian at worst. The machine was outside the security measures of the government.

Negligence is enough to indict.

 

It also doesn't matter if the information in the emails were marked secret.

 

Because, after all, the issue here is not national security. That doesn't matter.

What matters is that Hillary is a bad, bad woman and we don't like her.

barfo

 

Powell is in trouble, too, even though he didn't use a private email account EXCLUSIVELY /ONLY for all his govt. business. You know the old saying, two wrongs don't make a right...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/fbi-colin-powell-email-probe-218748

"The FBI has come to us," Powell said. Two FBI agents visited Powell late last year for a discussion an aide described as a casual conversation about email practices during his term as secretary from 2001 to 2005.

Ruh Roh:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804

The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work, a regulation in force during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state that appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business, POLITICO has learned.

The policy, detailed in a manual for agency employees, adds clarity to an issue at the center of a growing controversy over Clinton’s reliance on a private email account. Aides to Clinton, as well as State Department officials, have suggested that she did nothing inappropriate because of fuzzy guidelines and lack of specific rules on when and how official documents had to be preserved during her years as secretary.

But the 2005 policy was described as one of several “clear cut” directives the agency’s own inspector general relied on to criticize the conduct of a U.S. ambassador who in 2012 was faulted for using email outside of the department’s official system.

“It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [Automated Information System], which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information,” the Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual states.

More Ruh Roh:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hat-everything-i-did-on-emails-was-permitted/

Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘everything I did [on e-mails] was permitted’

In reality, Clinton’s decision to use a private e-mail system for official business was highly unusual and flouted State Department procedures, even if not expressly prohibited by law at the time. Moreover, while she claims “everything I did was permitted,” she appears to have not complied with the requirement to turn over her business-related e-mails before she left government service. That’s a major misstep that she has not acknowledged.

We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but Clinton’s excessive spin finally tipped us toward Three. She goes too far in suggesting her actions were ordinary – -and did not stretch the limits of existing laws and regulations.

 

What matters is what's written in the law she broke. It doesn't require the material on her server to be classified to be a crime, nor does it require any intent.

So when you see discussion of classified vs. not classified, or intent, it's a smoke screen.

Her attempt to wipe the server clean is obstruction of justice. It is a crime to destroy evidence that is subject to even potential subpoena.

 

It's been the Clinton M.O. all along. When busted, lie. When the lie is debunked, try a different lie. Delay, delay, delay. And expect their apologists to spin away the crime.

Like "it was just a blowjob." The man made a very public pronouncement, "I did not have sex with that woman." He obviously did. "He wasn't found guilty." It was a civil thing, he was sued by Paula Jones. He settled with her for $950,000 and was disbarred.

I am willing to give credit where credit is due. I did like Clinton as president, he was one of the best ever.

But he abused his office to obstruct justice (Jones' day in court). That's simply unacceptable, blow job or not.

One of the emails they found on her server had satellite images and detailed intel. It obviously was top secret information. How could the woman not know?

 

I'd add that lying in such a public manner as he did, thwarted the investigation into his wrongdoing. That is exactly one of the offenses Nixon was charged with in the impeachment documents (he resigned just before being impeached). Specifically, lying to government officials. Clinton lied to everyone, including government officials.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...e-information-classification-column/82446130/

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

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

The courts have held repeatedly that “national defense information” includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution. Evidence that the information was upon later review found to be classified, however, as is the case with approximately 2,000 Clinton messages, is of course one kind of proof that the information met the test of “national defense information” in the first place. (See U.S. v. Rosen and Weissman, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2006) pertaining to a different provision but containing a good summary of law on national defense information and classified information.) The fact that the information does not have to be “marked classified” at the time only makes sense because sometimes, as in the case of the Clinton case and other 793 cases, the information is originated and distributed before any security officer can perform a review and put a classification mark on it.

 

He was sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Whole truth be damned!

It depends on what the meaning "is" is.

Apology noted.

He paid her $950K and was disbarred from SCOTUS and suspended 5 years from Arkansas. Seems the "innocent" man isn't at all what you make him out to be. He was impeached and not removed from office. It was partisan that he wasn't censured.

 

And this is obstruction of justice: