The Robert Mueller Investigation

[jimmyjazz 46,130]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

We've heard Hillary's opinion on the matter.  It didn't have anything to do with ignoring MI, WI, and PA.  It was Comey. 

I'm thinking she's a little too close to the action and far too egotistical to take any ownership.  Doesn't make it right.  Personally, I still mostly blame the Berners who crossed over, but that's my own bias at work.

[zork 629]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Sure, there were all kinds of differences.  But when 100 electoral votes swing the other way, it's important to look beyond "bitch" and see if there are any other contributing explanations.

chill out, have a great weekend,  and enjoy your pop to the call side the last couple days.(referencing your straddle post earlier this week)

[jimmyjazz 46,130]

1 minute ago, zork said:

chill out, have a great weekend,  and enjoy your pop to the call side the last couple days.(referencing your straddle post earlier this week)

Thanks, a chill is in order.  Plus I have work to do.  Carry on . . .

[Storm the Field 5,302]

1 hour ago, zork said:

Are you sure the dates are right on this?  Hadn't the server been bleach bit'd well before this?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-server-testimony-20160912-snap-story.html#

I think the hacking occurred well before Trump made the flippant remark in the press conference in July of 2016.  Largely because the server was not up and running in July of 2016.  Is that right?

You're conflating several issues. The very same night that Trump said "Russia if you're listening, I hope you're able to find those 30,000 emails," the GRU hackers started spearphishing Clinton campaign email accounts:

[atomheartbevo 89,799]

53 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

So if the republicans couldn't get it right to begin with, what makes you think they will now?

And why aren't they investigating now?  Who's stopping them?  

What if those Republicans in Congress or running the DOJ investigate Hillary and find little to nothing that they can nail her on outside of incompetence/poor judgement, or even worse, discover the Russians hacked the shit out of her and the DNC and gave the info to Republicans?  What if they investigate and it later comes out that many Republicans have private setups they use to avoid the government getting their hands on their emails and dick pics?

Far better to not investigate her so that they can bitch on twitter and to the media and on blogs about what she might have done.

Edited July 13, 2018 by atomheartbevo

[jimmyjazz 46,130]

Pardon my old ass lack of knowledge regarding servers 'n shit -- WTF is "spearphishing"?  Is it just fishing a specific target?

[Anastasis 23,485]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm thinking she's a little too close to the action and far too egotistical to take any ownership.  Doesn't make it right.  Personally, I still mostly blame the Berners who crossed over, but that's my own bias at work.

I think that there is a large about of truth related to the bernie bros.  But the reality is that they got shit on by the DNC.  Russia uncovered that, and deployed the information to the intended effect. Lots of people want to point fingers at Russia, rightfully so. But should also acknowledge that is DWS and the DNC don't hold their finger on the scales during the primary, you don't have to deal with negative press targeted to the Bernie bros. Yes, hold Russia accountable.  Trump should require extradition of any indicted Russian nationals as prerequisite to a F2F with Putin. But also fuck our political party system, on #bothsides, that created the underlying opportunities for a foreign entity to engage their offensive. 

[JimmyHoffa 1,188]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm thinking she's a little too close to the action and far too egotistical to take any ownership.  Doesn't make it right.  Personally, I still mostly blame the Berners who crossed over, but that's my own bias at work.

I think it goes far beyond one or two things. Sure there are some factors that are a hell of a lot more the probable but I think there are thousands of reasons why the vote went the way they did in a number of states. While Bernie bros are an easy target I think the Clinton campaign played it way too safe. And just assumed Trump making an ass of himself on a daily basis was going to be enough. If the 2016 election proved anything is never take shit for granted and I think every person local, state, or federal running for office will or damn well should use those lessons moving forward. 

 

[27-25 2,055]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Pardon my old ass lack of knowledge regarding servers 'n shit -- WTF is "spearphishing"?  Is it just fishing a specific target?

Using email to appear to be someone else, in a nutshell.

https://www.knowbe4.com/spear-phishing/

[Storm the Field 5,302]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Pardon my old ass lack of knowledge regarding servers 'n shit -- WTF is "spearphishing"?  Is it just fishing a specific target?

Yep. 

Phishing is sending out emails en masse that are disguised to look like they come from a trusted source.

Spear Phishing is the same but tailored to and targeted at specific email accounts. 

[atomheartbevo 89,799]

1 hour ago, zork said:

Are you sure the dates are right on this?  Hadn't the server been bleach bit'd well before this?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-server-testimony-20160912-snap-story.html#

I think the hacking occurred well before Trump made the flippant remark in the press conference in July of 2016.  Largely because the server was not up and running in July of 2016.  Is that right?

Maybe if there had not been as much immunity given, with more of a Mueller style approach instead?  

You can wipe the original host server, but if I hack the accounts/computers of those who accessed it and more importantly, used it, I can reconstruct much of the email traffic that crossed it.  All of it if I’m patient and her friends were dumbasses.

Remember, Hillary’s pet stored thousands of emails on the same laptop her roommate used for sending dick pics to underage girls.

[Anastasis 23,485]

4 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

While Bernie bros are an easy target I think the Clinton campaign played it way too safe. And just assumed Trump making an ass of himself on a daily basis was going to be enough.

In all fairness that felt like a pretty safe assumption. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 46,130]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that there is a large about of truth related to the bernie bros.  But the reality is that they got shit on by the DNC.

I don't think Bernie would have secured the nomination, regardless of how "rigged" the system was.  I don't support what happened, but the fact is, a party isn't a democracy, and it's not like Bernie was ever a Democrat.  As much as I despise the DNC leadership (Brazile in particular but also Wasserman-Shulz), Bernie was an outsider trying to get a "fair shake" in a club that was not required to give him one.

[Anastasis 23,485]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

a party isn't a democracy

[zork 629]

2 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

You're conflating several issues. The very same night that Trump said "Russia if you're listening, I hope you're able to find those 30,000 emails," the GRU hackers started spearphishing Clinton campaign email accounts:

hmm,  podesta was apparently hacked in march of 2016:  there is more about DNC, etc.

Quote

...

March 2016

This appears to be the phishing email that hacked Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account. Further, The Clinton campaign’s own computer help desk thought it was real email sent by Google, even though the email address had a suspicious “googlemail.com” extension. 

(go to link to see the email)

...

Delevan included the Gmail link that would be used to change a user’s password, but whoever changed Podesta’s password instead clicked on the shortened URL that was in the original phishing email. This is the same technique used to hack Colin Powell’s emails and the Democratic National Committee emails, according to the website Motherboard.

All of these hacks were executed using these shortened URLs in fake emails, according to Motherboard, and those URLs “were created with a Bitly account linked to a domain under the control of Fancy Bear,” a group of Russian hackers.

...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-phishing-email-that-hacked-the-account-of-john-podesta/

 

Seems like a lot of hacking was going on throughout and this was the story 4-1-2016 when he was still in the primaries(albeit after the super tuesday push):

Quote

...

"He has completely turned off huge swaths of the electorate. His numbers have continued to get worse. He would get absolutely massacred on a historic scale (in a general election). All of the data demonstrates it."

...

Still, The Washington Post reported this week that Trump would be the most unpopular general election candidate since the paper started polling 32 years ago.

...

https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/01/politics/donald-trump-2016-bad-week/index.html

[Brisketexan 105,336]

Everybody’s talking about Podesta.

[Storm the Field 5,302]

There was a targeted attack that occured that exact same night according to the indictment. Are you obfuscating on purpose?

It literally says that certain accounts were targeted for the first time on 7/27/16.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Storm the Field

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Everybody’s talking about Podesta.

Quote

Meet the Man Behind Hillary Clinton's Campaign

http://time.com/4308369/hillary-clinton-john-podesta/

[zork 629]

Just now, Storm the Field said:

There was a targeted attack that occured that exact same night according to the indictment. Are you obfuscating on purpose?

I'm saying they were attacking all along.

[Brisketexan 105,336]

BUT HILLARY!

[zork 629]

Quote

 

Former FBI Director James Comey should not have suggested that hackers could have compromised Hillary Clinton’s private email server, the Justice Department’s inspector general said in a report published today.

In his July 5, 2016, statement on the FBI’s investigation into the server that Clinton used while secretary of state, Comey said it was “possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/14/doj-watchdog-james-comey-hillary-clinton-server-647020

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

BUT HILLARY!

Yes, Hillary's organization was hacked relentlessly.  It is why it is important to keep your classified(and higher) documents secure on government servers while following the legal protocols that you sign on for with your classified clearance.

Edited July 13, 2018 by zork
added ...

[SKJ 1,311]

With regarding to Trump saying he believes Putin when he says he didn't do it, I suspect that Trump will come away from the Putin meeting with a new understanding...

Like "I believe Putin didn't do it... He doesn't even own a computer!"

Or "Putin doesn't even know how to type! Believe me, I watched him try... He doesn't even know where the backwards R is!"

[shnsajax 3,591]

 

Former FBI Director James Comey should not have suggested that hackers could have compromised Hillary Clinton’s private email server, the Justice Department’s inspector general said in a report published today.

In his July 5, 2016, statement on the FBI’s investigation into the server that Clinton used while secretary of state, Comey said it was “possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/14/doj-watchdog-james-comey-hillary-clinton-server-647020
Yes, Hillary's organization was hacked relentlessly.  It is why it is important to keep your classified(and higher) documents secure on government servers while following the legal protocols that you sign on for with your classified clearance.


Should we talk about Trump using unsecured phones now too?

[zork 629]

2 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/14/doj-watchdog-james-comey-hillary-clinton-server-647020
Yes, Hillary's organization was hacked relentlessly.  It is why it is important to keep your classified(and higher) documents secure on government servers while following the legal protocols that you sign on for with your classified clearance.


Should we talk about Trump using unsecured phones now too?

It is a good question.  The PotUS does have special privileges, like being ok legally as PotUS to release the intel to the Ruskies in that oval office meeting even if it was ill advised.  Not sure if that is Executive privilege or how it works wrt PotUS rights to declassify anything.(not sure on the rules or what hoops would be expected to pass through before it is allowed for a PotUS)

The oval office meeting came to mind as a highly controversial occurrence(mainly due to the potential Israeli, IIRC, assets it might have put in jeapordy) 

Not sure about the phone.  Is that a new topic?

[Huckleberry 33,096]

It is a good question.  The PotUS does have special privileges, like being ok legally as PotUS to release the intel to the Ruskies in that oval office meeting even if it was ill advised.  Not sure if that is Executive privilege or how it works wrt PotUS rights to declassify anything.(not sure on the rules or what hoops would be expected to pass through before it is allowed for a PotUS)
The oval office meeting came to mind as a highly controversial occurrence(mainly due to the potential Israeli, IIRC, assets it might have put in jeapordy) 
Not sure about the phone.  Is that a new topic?

Oh holy shit you are a riot. You know every slight transgression any Democrat has committed but are completely oblivious to every well known Republican transgression. Try branching out beyond the Drudge Report, man.

[zork 629]

13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

23 minutes ago, zork said:

It is a good question.  The PotUS does have special privileges, like being ok legally as PotUS to release the intel to the Ruskies in that oval office meeting even if it was ill advised.  Not sure if that is Executive privilege or how it works wrt PotUS rights to declassify anything.(not sure on the rules or what hoops would be expected to pass through before it is allowed for a PotUS)
The oval office meeting came to mind as a highly controversial occurrence(mainly due to the potential Israeli, IIRC, assets it might have put in jeapordy) 
Not sure about the phone.  Is that a new topic?

Oh holy shit you are a riot. You know every slight transgression any Democrat has committed but are completely oblivious to every well known Republican transgression. Try branching out beyond the Drudge Report, man.

I'm saying is the phone topic for this thread? 

And, what are you talking about wrt 'oblivious to every well known Republican transgression' as it pertains to Russians hacking Hillary due to Trump's off hand comment in that press conference referenced above?

Doesn't the PotUS, no matter who it is, have different clearance rules than a Secretary of State or the admin of one(Huma's role), or the husband of the admin of the Secretary of State?(or his computer)

 

Hardly an official arbiter but:

Quote

The president’s classification and declassification powers are broad

...

Experts agreed that the president, as commander-in-chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When someone lower in the chain of command handles classification and declassification duties -- which is usually how it’s done -- it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president.

The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan-- which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance -- addresses this line of authority.

"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said that such authority gives the president the authority to "classify and declassify at will."

In fact, Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said that "if Congress were to enact a statute seeking to limit the president’s authority to classify or declassify national security information, or to prohibit him from sharing certain kinds of information with Russia, it would raise serious separation of powers constitutional issues."

The official documents governing classification and declassification stem from executive orders. But even these executive orders aren’t necessarily binding on the president. The president is not "obliged to follow any procedures other than those that he himself has prescribed," Aftergood said. "And he can change those."

Indeed, the controlling executive order has been rewritten by multiple presidents. The current version of the order was issued by President Barack Obama in 2009.

...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by zork
added ...

[Pods 7,586]

You seem awfully strongly opinionated for someone that doesn't know the difference between executive privilege and the president's power to declassify. 

Here's a primer on executive privilege. 

President Dwight Eisenhower was the first president to coin the phrase "executive privilege," but not the first to invoke its principle: namely, that a president has the right to withhold certain information from Congress, the courts or anyone else — even when faced with a subpoena. Executive privilege, though, is a murky and mysterious concept. Here, an attempt to clarify the murk.

 

Does the Constitution allow for executive privilege?

Nowhere does the Constitution mention the term or the concept of executive privilege. The belief that it does, the late legal historian Raoul Berger once said, is one of the greatest "constitutional myths." 

So how can a president simply withhold information if the Constitution doesn't give him the power to do so? 

Presidents have argued that executive privilege is a principle implied in the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. In order to do their job, presidents contend, they need candid advice from their aides — and aides simply won't be willing to give such advice if they know they might be called to testify, under oath, before a congressional committee or in some other forum.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11527747

Edited July 13, 2018 by Pods

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, Pods said:

You seem awfully strongly opinionated for someone that doesn't know the difference between executive privilege and the president's power to declassify. 

Interesting observation, implied Dunning K, right?  hahaha, no.  It is not a reach to say the hacking has been going on before Trump made his remark that was referenced in that tweet.  Another part of the article above:

Quote

...

As secretary of state, Clinton was a top target of foreign government hackers, especially when she traveled to countries with intense domestic surveillance programs, like Russia and China.

In October 2015, former President Barack Obama dismissed criticisms of Clinton’s private server based on cybersecurity concerns, telling CBS, “I don’t think it posed a national security problem.”

...

On the PotUS clearance topic:

I hadn't looked up the rules on what PotUS are expected to follow that would be different than anyone else, so I was honest about that.  Kind of the opposite of D.K.(at least what I know of it).

I didn't bring up the PotUS use of a phone.  The rules of non-PotUS level security clearance use and abuse has been discussed here and elsewhere quite a bit.  

[Poolflood 845]

Ain't reading the last dozen pages.  So the indictments today are realistically the equivalent of Patton's JAG indicting Rommel's 12 best captains in North Africa?

Edited July 13, 2018 by Poolflood

[TornACL 7,722]

9 minutes ago, zork said:

Interesting observation, implied Dunning K, right?  hahaha, no.  It is not a reach to say the hacking has been going on before Trump made his remark that was referenced in that tweet.  

You're missing some nuance. The hacking attempts on Hillary's personal server occurred on or near the very day that Trump made his bizarre public call out to Russia, asking them to find the missing emails. 

The timing is curious. 

Hacking itself was already an issue with the DNC, etc. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

12 hours ago, Poolflood said:

Ain't reading the last dozen pages.  So the indictments today are realistically the equivalent of Patton's JAG indicting Rommel's 12 best captains in North Africa?

No, the closest comparison to WW2 would be like FDR's DOJ indicting Tojo's top men for perpetrating Pearl Harbor and mentioning their collaboration with one of FDR's close confidants and a congressman of his party, in the context of a much larger investigation into evidence that FDR had conspired with Japan. 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

One thing is for sure, all those Russians are getting a medal back in Moscow.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

One thing is for sure, all those Russians are getting a medal back in Moscow.

Maybe Putin prefers spies who don't get indicted. 

[zork 629]

16 minutes ago, TornACL said:

You're missing some nuance. The hacking attempts on Hillary's personal server occurred on or near the very day that Trump made his bizarre public call out to Russia, asking them to find the missing emails. 

The timing is curious. 

Hacking itself was already an issue with the DNC, etc. 

yep, clearly an ongoing issue.   we'll see to what extent when Mueller brings forth his masterpiece.  Till then we have John Oliver's best:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C2CHBD_enUS773US774&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=EjlJW4TEM-uC0wKYo6LoBw&q=john+oliver+wegothim.gif&oq=john+oliver+wegothim.gif&gs_l=img.3...26749.29774.0.30924.12.12.0.0.0.0.127.1302.0j12.12.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.0.0....0.XGWrfYNbcbE

 

 

[Gil Bang 26,020]

 

[4th&Five 41,590]

Dobbs is a bigger mush brain than Dotard at this point. 

[atomheartbevo 89,799]

8 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

I wish we could go back 5 years and tell the olds that Lou Dobbs, Fox News, the Republican President, and the GOP would refuse to speak out against Russian military intelligence trying to screw with our elections.

oh wait, I have better things to do with a time machine than convincing simpletons of something they wouldn’t accept.

Edited July 13, 2018 by atomheartbevo

[Gil Bang 26,020]

 

[Tuco 5,077]

You're missing some nuance. The hacking attempts on Hillary's personal server occurred on or near the very day that Trump made his bizarre public call out to Russia, asking them to find the missing emails. 
The timing is curious. 
Hacking itself was already an issue with the DNC, etc. 

Just to be clear, Hillary’s server was shutdown for years prior to Trump’s request. There was no hacking of her deleted emails at that point. The Russians spearfished a bunch of people in her campaign after the request.

[Anastasis 23,485]

The roger stone trial is going to be fucking epic.

[4th&Five 41,590]

And then he’ll be pardoned. 

[Message Board User 12,396]

 

[HenryJames 66,171]

21 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Womp womp.

[Francisco 2.0 32,428]

Let me guess.  Here's your unnamed congressional candidate, since he was running as a first-timer in 2016:

 

 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Francisco 2.0

[AnonymousInternetPoster 163]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Pardon my old ass lack of knowledge regarding servers 'n shit -- WTF is "spearphishing"?  Is it just fishing a specific target?

It's about as sophisticated as the Nigerian scams.  Podesta is a moron.

[shnsajax 3,591]

Is Gaetz even allowed to rent a car in Russia?

[Francisco 2.0 32,428]

Just now, AnonymousInternetPoster said:

It's about as sophisticated as the Nigerian scams.  Podesta is a moron.

I'll agree with that.  However, there are everyday "morons" in all walks of life and at all intelligence levels who will blindly click on a link despite any/all education efforts not to.  

[J.R. 150]

I hope that this was not some last ditch effort to disrupt a meeting between our idiot Russian operative president and his handler because they know they have the goods on him but aren’t ready to drop the hammer just yet. 

[Bullneck 19,206]

2 hours ago, zork said:

It is a good question.  The PotUS does have special privileges, like being ok legally as PotUS to release the intel to the Ruskies in that oval office meeting even if it was ill advised.  Not sure if that is Executive privilege or how it works wrt PotUS rights to declassify anything.(not sure on the rules or what hoops would be expected to pass through before it is allowed for a PotUS)

The oval office meeting came to mind as a highly controversial occurrence(mainly due to the potential Israeli, IIRC, assets it might have put in jeapordy) 

Not sure about the phone.  Is that a new topic?

I would prefer a president who has the best interests of this nation and its people to one who thinks it's cool to push the envelope of what is legal or illegal.

[Bullneck 19,206]

54 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

This dude looks like a bit player in the next "Airplane!" sequel.