America - The Official Thread

[DDastardly00]

No, you're stating unequivocally that Clinton was hacked. As far as I'm aware, that's never been shown. The DNC was hacked. The DCCC was hacked. John Podesta was hacked. Those hacks included emails to/from Clinton. But that's not the same thing as her private server getting hacked.

Yes it has been shown that her private server was hacked, The FBI has come right out and said an account on Hillary's server was hacked by using a program called Tor. This was before the election even. I find it strange that you are even arguing this.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...ments-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation

 

[huskeR32]

Yes it has been shown that her private server was hacked, The FBI has come right out and said an account on Hillary's server was hacked by using a program called Tor. This was before the election even. I find it strange that you are even arguing this.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...ments-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation

Christ, have you read any of the documents you've linked to? This one says, on page 27 (emphasis mine):

FBI investigation and forensic analysis did not find evidence confirming that Clinton's email server systems were compromised by cyber means.

As far as your claim that her server was "hacked by using a program called Tor," that doesn't really make sense. Tor is not a hacking program, it's software used for anonymous network routing. It's theoretically possible, if the same person owns both the entry and exit nodes your request went through, for that person to guess who you are, and connect your IP address to your HTTP requests, therefore undermining the anonymity Tor is supposed to provide (though most articles I've read on the topic regard it as an extremely inefficient and impractical process).

But even at that point, what do you have? You have HTTP requests and/or responses, which are still going to have their own encryption applied by whatever application is sending them, and the IP address they originated from. You still need to break the encryption applied by the application being used (i.e., Clinton's email server).

The only mention of Tor in that report you linked is this, on page 29 (emphasis again mine):

Forensic analysis noted that on January 5, 2013, three IP addresses matching known Tor exit nodes, were observed accessing a user e-mail account on the Pagliano Server believed to belong to President Clinton staffer (redacted). FBI investigation indicated the Tor user logged in to (redacted) e-mail account and browsed e-mail folders and attachments. When asked during her interview, (redacted) stated to the FBI she is not familiar with nor has she ever used Tor software. FBI investigation to date was unable to identify the actor(s) responsible for this login or how (redacted) login credentials were compromised.

The bold bits are pretty important here; this event was a valid login, not a hack. Meaning it was either the unnamed staffer, or someone who had obtained that staffer's username and password. Somebody being lazy and letting their login credentials fall into insecure hands does not constitute hacking. If you left your GTPlanet username and password written on a piece of paper at your local coffee shop, and someone found it and logged in with it, you wouldn't describe that as GTPlanet being hacked.

As far as the unnamed staffer not being familiar with Tor, it's not really hard to imagine that a lot of politicians don't understand the security steps employed by the IT folks they work with. It's certainly possible this event was the unnamed staffer themselves logging in to their own email account using a computer that an aide had configured to use Tor routing. This is far from proof that any information was compromised at all, let alone that Clinton's server was actually breached by hacking.

As recently as last month, in a report concerning statements made by James Comey that it was "possible" that Clinton's server had been compromised, the DOJ said the following (emphasis mine):

Comey also included in his statement a comment that although the FBI did not find direct evidence that former Secretary Clinton’s private email account was hacked, the FBI assessed that it was “possible” that hostile actors gained access to former Secretary Clinton’s personal email account based on various factors. He added that the FBI assessed it would be unlikely to see such direct evidence given the nature of the system and the actors potentially involved in hostile intrusions, and that former Secretary Clinton had used her personal email in the territory of foreign adversaries. The statement thus insinuated that hostile foreign actors may have in fact gained access to former Secretary Clinton’s private email account, based almost entirely on speculation and without any evidence from the Midyear investigation to support his claim. As described in Chapter Five, the FBI Midyear Forensics Agent told the OIG that, although he did not believe there was “any way of determining...100%” whether Clinton’s servers had been compromised, he felt “fairly confident that there wasn’t an intrusion.” The LHM summarizing the Midyear investigation similarly stated, “FBI investigation and forensic analysis did not find evidence confirming that Clinton’s email server systems were compromised by cyber means.”

So, I'm going to ask one more time: do you have any sources confirming that Clinton's private server was hacked by Russians, Germans, or South Koreans, as you've claimed here today?

 

[ryzno]

If he misspoke, then he's saying that Russia did attempt to interfere with our elections, at which point I don't see how it constitutes "kissing butt" in any way at all. It can't be both.

Why not? You know he still thinks the media thinks he colluded with Putin.
What I'm about to say might make Trump two-faced.
Now, he could've misspoke and forgot the n't or he dodged the question just like Putin to save face in front of Putin then correct himself later. Also calling Putin strong and powerful is butt kissing...
We don't know what he was thinking. But I know y'all wouldn't give him credit if it was an honest mistake.
I'm just waiting for Stormy to pop up again to distract us from the more important things happening.
Y'all jump down his throat every time he says anything, you know he's an idiot when he goes off script. That's why I waited to see if he would say something.
He's said other stupid things and hasn't corrected himself.

Sorry it took so long to respond, nothing personal in not quoting you Tex when y'all had practically the same question. I just drove from Fayetteville to Duluth unloaded then back to Lawrenceville. Literally the South of metro Atlanta to the North of Metro Atlanta.
TBH I'm suprised I made such good time considering rush hour.

 

[DDastardly00]

Christ, have you read any of the documents you've linked to? This one says, on page 27 (emphasis mine):



As far as your claim that her server was "hacked by using a program called Tor," that doesn't really make sense. Tor is not a hacking program, it's software used for anonymous network routing. It's theoretically possible, if the same person owns both the entry and exit nodes your request went through, for that person to guess who you are, and connect your IP address to your HTTP requests, therefore undermining the anonymity Tor is supposed to provide (though most articles I've read on the topic regard it as an extremely inefficient and impractical process).

But even at that point, what do you have? You have HTTP requests and/or responses, which are still going to have their own encryption applied by whatever application is sending them, and the IP address they originated from. You still need to break the encryption applied by the application being used (i.e., Clinton's email server).

The only mention of Tor in that report you linked is this, on page 29 (emphasis again mine):



The bold bits are pretty important here; this event was a valid login, not a hack. Meaning it was either the unnamed staffer, or someone who had obtained that staffer's username and password. Somebody being lazy and letting their login credentials fall into insecure hands does not constitute hacking. If you left your GTPlanet username and password written on a piece of paper at your local coffee shop, and someone found it and logged in with it, you wouldn't describe that as GTPlanet being hacked.

As far as the unnamed staffer not being familiar with Tor, it's not really hard to imagine that a lot of politicians don't understand the security steps employed by the IT folks they work with. It's certainly possible this event was the unnamed staffer themselves logging in to their own email account using a computer that an aide had configured to use Tor routing. This is far from proof that any information was compromised at all, let alone that Clinton's server was actually breached by hacking.

As recently as last month, in a report concerning statements made by James Comey that it was "possible" that Clinton's server had been compromised, the DOJ said the following (emphasis mine):



So, I'm going to ask one more time: do you have any sources confirming that Clinton's private server was hacked by Russians, Germans, or South Koreans, as you've claimed here today?

The first link from politico stated hacking attempts were made by hackers from those 3 countries:

SECNAP notified Platte River of the attempted attacks from China in February 2014, Korea in March of that year and Germany in June of that year, according to footnotes in the letter.

The story could undermine another part of Clinton's public response to the email controversy. She has repeatedly said there's no indication that her server was hacked.

Asked in a CNN interview last month whether attackers from Russia or China hacked into her private account, Clinton replied: "There's no evidence of that."

Clinton saying "there is no evidence of that" is half false, there is evidence that hackers tried to access her homebrew server, whether or not the attempts were successful or not will never be fully known because the server was turned over the the FBI as incomplete and 11 out of 13 mobile devices associated with the server were missing, so strange... So when Clinton says there is no evidence of that it is because the evidence needed is missing or destroyed.

What we do know is that attempts were made on an unprotected server with lapsed security for 3 months and at least one of them was successful.

Once again, you omitted the first half of the paragraph, and the context. I also suggest that you read it again because I don't think you are really understanding the FBI's findings. Here is the FULL paragraph that you cited from page 29.

The FBI's review of available Internet Information Services (IIS) web logs showed scanning attempts from external IP addresses over the course of Pagliano's administration of the server, though only one appears to have resulted in a successful compromise of an email account on the server. Forensic analysis noted that on January 5th, 2013, three IP addresses matching known Tor exit nodes were observed accessing a user e-mail account on the Pagliano Server believed to belong to President Clinton staffer [redacted] FBI investigation indicated the Tor user logged in to (redacted) e-mail account and browsed e-mail folders and attachments. When asked during her interview, (redacted) stated to the FBI she is not familiar with nor has she ever used Tor software. FBI investigation to date was unable to identify the actor(s) responsible for this login or how (redacted) login credentials were compromised.

What does that bold part say? it says "successful compromise of an email account on the server". That means it was successfully hacked from an outside address using her compromised credentials and the Tor program.

 

[TexRex]

Why not? You know he still thinks the media thinks he colluded with Putin.

Of course he still thinks the media thinks he colluded with Russian actors..."no collusion" is still one of his primary talking points at those campaign-style circle jerks. I mean...did you notice his corn-kernel-crushing concentration while enunciating "conclusion," as if willing all those articulator muscles not to shape the other word? Or maybe that little thump before the word was a cue established during a hypnosis session just prior to the briefing; "Okay Donald, when you hear the thump, I want you to say the word 'conclusion.'"

What I'm about to say might make Trump two-faced.

Oh he absolutely is two-faced; there's the face he makes when reading what's been written for him and then there's the nonplussed, unencumbered-by-intellect pucker that he wears on all other occasions.

Now, he could've misspoke and forgot the n't or he dodged the question just like Putin to save face in front of Putin then correct himself later.

I can't fathom how you continue to believe he misspoke when he's stated on countless occasions that he has no faith in the United States intelligence community; "They out to get me, breh."

Also calling Putin strong and powerful is butt kissing...

Or...you know...a contractual obligation.



I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

We don't know what he was thinking.

Oh, I have an inkling...

But I know y'all wouldn't give him credit if it was an honest mistake.

Oh I really would if I believed it was one. However, nothing he has ever said or done suggests to me that it was...nothing.

I'm just waiting for Stormy to pop up again to distract us from the more important things happening.

But I thought you don't like fake breasts.

*badum tsss*

Y'all jump down his throat every time he says anything, you know he's an idiot when he goes off script.

Jump down his throat? Are you calling me a chicken?

*badum tsss*

That's why I waited to see if he would say something.
He's said other stupid things and hasn't corrected himself.

Well, he didn't actually correct himself, did he? A correction would have been a full stop after saying he believes the United States intelligence community's assessment that Russia acted to meddle in the election, but that little addendum (("Could be other people also. There's a lot of people out there.")) at the end of his "correction" served only to clear the board.

 

[Biggles]

Why not? You know he still thinks the media thinks he colluded with Putin.
What I'm about to say might make Trump two-faced.
Now, he could've misspoke and forgot the n't or he dodged the question just like Putin to save face in front of Putin then correct himself later. Also calling Putin strong and powerful is butt kissing...
We don't know what he was thinking. But I know y'all wouldn't give him credit if it was an honest mistake.

Rynzo, at what point does Trump being an ass who constantly says stupid things disqualifying him from being the President of the United States in your eyes? I come back to my original comment that

Trump is either:

1) A complete idiot.

2) So obsessed with having won the election on his own merits that he would rather damage national security than accept the possibility of interference by Russia.

3) Seriously compromised by something Putin & the Russians have on him - personally or financially.

Or possibly a combination of the three.

 

[Johnnypenso]

What's the grand plan? It had better be good, because going up on the world stage and throwing your own country's intelligence services under the bus is a big price to pay.

How big of a price was paid when Obama did it? Does the reaction to Obama throwing his intelligence service under the bus on ISIS sound familiar?

When Obama says the USG underestimated ISIS, it's more like his inner circle did. Many parts of bureaucracy/other branches of gov't knew. — Aaron Y. Zelin (@azelin) September 29, 2014

Obama blaming his intel community for underestimating ISIS is not going to go down well in a bureaucracy very frustrated w/ his Syria policy — Emile Hokayem (@emile_hokayem) September 29, 2014

If Obama etc didn't see growing clout of IS, tragedy of Syria, death tolls not for lack of info. Many of us were there, reporting it — Rania Abouzeid (@Raniaab) September 29, 2014

Biggest complaint in the IC is that Obama is checked out & doesn't listen to them. He also throws them under the bus. http://t.co/sXxqwECWW8— joshuafoust (@joshuafoust) September 29, 2014

You can show IC the hand, but if you trash them (esp when you lie about it), there will be payback. More evidence Obama can't play DC ball. — John Schindler (@20committee) September 29, 2014

Sounds like deja vu all over again. Were you as outraged back then?

Remember Benghazi? Remember it was a video that caused a spontaneous attack on the embassy?
"By the way, the CIA station chief in Benghazi's first message back was that this was a terrorist attack, and we all knew and they knew that there was an al Qaeda-affiliated organization there," McCain said.

Sounds like deja vu all over again, again. Were you as outraged way back then as well?

 

[TexRex]

How big of a price was paid when Obama did it? Does the reaction to Obama throwing his intelligence service under the bus on ISIS sound familiar?

When Obama says the USG underestimated ISIS, it's more like his inner circle did. Many parts of bureaucracy/other branches of gov't knew. — Aaron Y. Zelin (@azelin) September 29, 2014

Obama blaming his intel community for underestimating ISIS is not going to go down well in a bureaucracy very frustrated w/ his Syria policy — Emile Hokayem (@emile_hokayem) September 29, 2014

If Obama etc didn't see growing clout of IS, tragedy of Syria, death tolls not for lack of info. Many of us were there, reporting it — Rania Abouzeid (@Raniaab) September 29, 2014

Biggest complaint in the IC is that Obama is checked out & doesn't listen to them. He also throws them under the bus. http://t.co/sXxqwECWW8— joshuafoust (@joshuafoust) September 29, 2014

You can show IC the hand, but if you trash them (esp when you lie about it), there will be payback. More evidence Obama can't play DC ball. — John Schindler (@20committee) September 29, 2014

Sounds like deja vu all over again. Were you as outraged back then?

"But Obama did it too."

 

[Johnnypenso]

"But Obama did it too."

The truth hurts but someone has to say it. Was it more or less of an issue for you when Obama did it vs. Trump? Indifferent?

 

[huskeR32]

Now, he could've misspoke and forgot the n't or he dodged the question just like Putin to save face in front of Putin then correct himself later.

Except he didn't dodge it. He answered it in clear terms. That he's now claiming he used the wrong word doesn't change that fact.

We don't know what he was thinking. But I know y'all wouldn't give him credit if it was an honest mistake.

As @TexRex pointed out, if it was an honest mistake, he would have clearly stated as such. But he didn't, he still left wiggle room by implying that somebody other than Russia could still have been responsible.

--

The first link from politico stated hacking attempts were made by hackers from those 3 countries:

Do you know what the word in bold means?

Clinton saying "there is no evidence of that" is half false, there is evidence that hackers tried to access her homebrew server, whether or not the attempts were successful or not will never be fully known because the server was turned over the the FBI as incomplete and 11 out of 13 mobile devices associated with the server were missing, so strange... So when Clinton says there is no evidence of that it is because the evidence needed is missing or destroyed.

Clinton isn't the only one saying it. The FBI, in the report you linked to, said the same thing.

What we do know is that attempts were made on an unprotected server with lapsed security for 3 months and at least one of them was successful.

You have a link to this yet? Because I still have no idea what you're referring to when you claim there was a successful attempt.

Once again, you omitted the first half of the paragraph, and the context. I also suggest that you read it again because I don't think you are really understanding the FBI's findings. Here is the FULL paragraph that you cited from page 29.


What does that bold part say? it says "successful compromise of an email account on the server". That means it was successfully hacked from an outside address using her compromised credentials and the Tor program.

The bold part says the account was compromised, not the server itself. There's a big difference between logging in using somebody's credentials and hacking. As I said:

The bold bits are pretty important here; this event was a valid login, not a hack. Meaning it was either the unnamed staffer, or someone who had obtained that staffer's username and password. Somebody being lazy and letting their login credentials fall into insecure hands does not constitute hacking. If you left your GTPlanet username and password written on a piece of paper at your local coffee shop, and someone found it and logged in with it, you wouldn't describe that as GTPlanet being hacked.

Stealing somebody's credentials and using them to get in through the normal login process is not hacking. It has nothing to do with the security of the server.

And again, the Tor program has nothing to do with it. If somebody had obtained the credentials of a user on the server, they could have logged in with or without routing their traffic through Tor. Not using Tor (or a VPN or proxy) would be pretty dumb, as their identity could then be pretty easily determined, but they would still be just as able to login. The failure here, if there indeed was one, was that a staffer allowed their credentials to fall into the wrong hands. There remains no evidence that the security of the server itself was ever bypassed by any attack.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I think Trump was just blowing smoke up Putin's butt*, and he went a little too far.

His "n't" explanation was most certainly a lie. He was probably pressured into saying it. I wish he hadn't.

But my god, look at all the flak he was taking. It is kind of entertaining though, watching the talking heads lose their minds.

This is just how Trump operates. He was best buds with rocket man too.

*Flattering Putin

 

[Imari]

Yes it has been shown that her private server was hacked, The FBI has come right out and said an account on Hillary's server was hacked by using a program called Tor.

Tor is not a hacking tool. It's a system for helping to obscure your IP address to make you harder to track, but it's not infallible at that either.

That means it was successfully hacked from an outside address using her compromised credentials and the Tor program.

Seriously. Not a hacking tool. It makes about as much sense to say "her email was hacked with Google Chrome" or "the bank was robbed with a balaclava".

 

[Liquid]

"Can't see the wouldn't for the treason" has become my favourite snippet of the year of the week so far.

 

[Dotini]

I think Trump was just blowing smoke up Putin's butt*, and he went a little too far.

His "n't" explanation was most certainly a lie. He was probably pressured into saying it. I wish he hadn't.

But my god, look at all the flak he was taking. It is kind of entertaining though, watching the talking heads lose their minds.

This is just how Trump operates. He was best buds with rocket man too.

*Flattering Putin

Very entertaining, yes, but IMO, the main thing to remain aware of at the present rather scattered time is that Trump's very large base still supports him, and the Big Picture is the Supreme Court and it's lock for decades with another couple of Trump appointees.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Very entertaining, yes, but IMO, the main thing to remain aware of at the present rather scattered time is that Trump's very large base still supports him, and the Big Picture is the Supreme Court and it's lock for decades with another couple of Trump appointees.

Exactly. The base doesn't care and tomorrow there will be another Trump guffaw and the MSM will be declaring once again that the sky is falling. I think it's all part of the master plan quite frankly, to sucker them into their doomsday predictions and then people wake up the next day and go to work and nothing really changes and the distrust of the MSM grows and grows. This was over the top and foolish to be sure, but the end result will probably be the same. It'll be forgotten once the news cycle is on to the next big thing.

 

[TexRex]

Seriously. Not a hacking tool. It makes about as much sense to say "her email was hacked with Google Chrome" or "the bank was robbed with a balaclava".

Mmm, bakla--

Oh wait, I misread that.

Very entertaining, yes, but IMO, the main thing to remain aware of at the present rather scattered time is that Trump's very large base still supports him, and the Big Picture is the Supreme Court and it's lock for decades with another couple of Trump appointees.

It's such a big picture. People have sent letters to say how big the picture is. There are lots of pictures, and even some big pictures, but those big pictures aren't as big as this big picture; it's the biggest picture. Shiny too.

 

[DDastardly00]

Now you just mincing words, this is the Cambridge dictionary's definition for the word hack:

hack verb (COMPUTING)

[ I ] to access someone else’s computer system without permission in order to obtain or change information:

Someone managed to hack into the company database.

I am not saying Tor is a hacking program, I am literally repeating what the politico article and what the FBI said, that Tor was used in the process of the unauthorized entry into Hillary's Pagliano server. You were calling the information from the article wrong, which is fine, sometimes journalists do sloppy research and get information wrong, but that is not the case this time. The politico article was researched correctly and the information is accurate. You are arguing with the information in the article not me, all I did was post the link here.

 

[huskeR32]

Now you just mincing words, this is the Cambridge dictionary's definition for the word hack:

hack verb (COMPUTING)

[ I ] to access someone else’s computer system without permission in order to obtain or change information:

You're still misconstruing things here. In this case, "without permission" wouldn't apply. When it comes to server security, having somebody's credentials is having permission.

When you come in here making an unequivocal statement like "Hillary was hacked," then you need to understand fully the language used when discussing it.

I work in software, I know what words mean in this context. "Permission" doesn't mean "a human gave me their blessing to access this," it means "I have means of accessing this information that does not bypass the intended function of the software." Having a username and password to something means you have "permission" to access it. It's that simple. So your definition of "hacking" above doesn't fit.

EDIT: Let's just make this really simple. If your interpretation of this login via Tor situation is correct, then why is this the overarching conclusion of the report that mentions it?

FBI investigation and forensic analysis did not find evidence confirming that Clinton's email server systems were compromised by cyber means.

There's really only two possibilities here:

1. The FBI is too stupid to realize that they spelled out evidence disproving their own conclusion within the same report, or

2. You're taking words and phrases out of context to try and substantiate your claim

I know which one I'm betting on.

 

[Touring Mars]

"Can't see the wouldn't for the treason" has become my favourite snippet of the year of the week so far.

I watched the entire Trump-Putin press conference live, but I didn't see the 'clarification' that Trump gave about saying 'would' instead of 'wouldn't' until now.

Frankly, this is an insult to the intelligence of humankind. The new sentence - as carefully reconstructed no doubt by the poor bastards whose job it is to make Trump appear less of an idiot - simply doesn't make any sense in the context of what Trump was saying in the conference. Not only did he not 'misspeak', he absolutely meant what he said in the press conference. The irony is immense - for once he is trying to admit to a mistake when infact he didn't actually make one!

 

[Rallywagon]

Technically, social engineering such as phishing is considered hacking. It's not, you know, like Hackers style hacking (actually, Cereal Killer did perform a social engineering attack when he infiltrated Ellingson Mineral Companies corporate office) but more like hacking someones brain. All the same, it is considered a form (and the most prevalent) of hacking.
As for the current topic. Everyone's up in arms about the "slip." Why isnt anyone talking about the private 1 on 1 with Putin though?

 

[ryzno]

Sarah H Sanders just corrected Trumps correction saying he said no to questions not no to Russia actually medaling...

 

[TexRex]

Why isnt anyone talking about the private 1 on 1 with Putin though?

It was private. Any discussions regarding what they may have discussed would be purely speculative.

I could allude to what they might have done privately that didn't involve discussion, but it too would be purely speculative and would surely result in harsh remarks from PC's newest champion...even though I'd be careful to indicate that while I have no problem with two consenting adults engaging in perfectly legal (in a great many, if not most, places) activities--indeed I encourage it provided they wish to do it and they do so in a safe and considerate manner--I'm sure one or the both of them would be offended by such allusions and implications, and that's just gravy to me.

 

[Rallywagon]

It was private. Any discussions regarding what they may have discussed would be purely speculative.

I could allude to what they might have done privately that didn't involve discussion, but it too would be purely speculative and would surely result in harsh remarks from PC's newest champion...even though I'd be careful to indicate that while I have no problem with two consenting adults engaging in perfectly legal (in a great many, if not most, places) activities--indeed I encourage it provided they wish to do it and they do so in a safe and considerate manner--I'm sure one or the both of them would be offended by such allusions and implications, and that's just gravy to me.

Sure, we can only speculate, however, doesn't anyone find it odd that, a, under the current pretense and collusion" climate jre would have a private meeting with Putin, and then right after that meeting, he claimed to believe Putin over our own intellegence agencies? I personally am not of the mind that it was a slip up either, and that his cabinet is running damage control after the huge negative response from the GOP. I trust that guy and his cronies about as far as I can throw a bus.

 

[Touring Mars]

Trump's idea of international diplomacy involves having a 1-to-1 chat with someone - Kim Jong-un, Vladimir Putin, even Theresa May... and then everything's going to be fine (because he 'knows' them)! I wonder if he'd have had the same approach with Osama Bin Laden... "I asked him about 9/11 and he assured me he had nothing to do with it"...

And when it comes to questions about whether Putin and Trump are in cahoots, who better to ask than Trump and Putin themselves - 'coz if anyone should know, it ought to be them, amirite?

 

[TexRex]

Sure, we can only speculate, however, doesn't anyone find it odd that, a, under the current pretense and collusion" climate jre would have a private meeting with Putin, and then right after that meeting, he claimed to believe Putin over our own intellegence agencies? I personally am not of the mind that it was a slip up either, and that his cabinet is running damage control after the huge negative response from the GOP. I trust that guy and his cronies about as far as I can throw a bus.

Oh I find the nature and frequency of these private meetings quite concerning, but in all fairness, his position on Russia meddling didn't actually change after the most recent one. He's repeatedly, openly rejected assertions of Russia's involvement and spoken to a lack of confidence in the intelligence community...for how long now? That's why he was asked directly to denounce Putin's denial, after all.

Now WH is spinning so hard it's bound to throw a rod.

 

[Dotini]

The irony is immense - for once he is trying to admit to a mistake when infact he didn't actually make one!

That's inevitably what happens when a non-politician is elected to be a political chieftain. Two summers ago I said he was a loose cannon who would eventually crash through the railings. How ironic indeed to be crucified on the cross of Russian detente by a deep state and a press that thrive upon and worship conflict.

 

[Touring Mars]

Russian detente

This is the crux of the problem though - when we only have Donald Trump's personal word that 'Russian detente' is not a complete myth, then there is reason to worry.

 

[DDastardly00]

You're still misconstruing things here. In this case, "without permission" wouldn't apply. When it comes to server security, having somebody's credentials is having permission.

When you come in here making an unequivocal statement like "Hillary was hacked," then you need to understand fully the language used when discussing it.

I work in software, I know what words mean in this context. "Permission" doesn't mean "a human gave me their blessing to access this," it means "I have means of accessing this information that does not bypass the intended function of the software." Having a username and password to something means you have "permission" to access it. It's that simple. So your definition of "hacking" above doesn't fit.

EDIT: Let's just make this really simple. If your interpretation of this login via Tor situation is correct, then why is this the overarching conclusion of the report that mentions it?



There's really only two possibilities here:

1. The FBI is too stupid to realize that they spelled out evidence disproving their own conclusion within the same report, or

2. You're taking words and phrases out of context to try and substantiate your claim

I know which one I'm betting on.

Neither actually, the simple fact is that FBI is making two different points, one of which you already clarified, which was the Server's 'security systems' were not compromised, emphasis on the word 'systems' (I'll agree with you on that point). And two, an email account on the server was accessed by unauthorized person(s) resulting in a successful compromise of the email account, which resulted in emails and attachments being accessed by unauthorized person(s).

The FBI's review of available Internet Information Services (IIS) web logs showed scanning attempts from external IP addresses over the course of Pagliano's administration of the server, though only one appears to have resulted in a successful compromise of an email account on the server.

I have trouble with this statement in bold as it pertains to your argument about how the server was accessed. You seem to be getting hung up over the point of whether that constitutes a hack, and at this point you are saying the Cambridge dictionary definition is wrong (doubtful). Hacking to me simply means accessing a computer, server and gaining entry in an unauthorized fashion, which I don't think is just limited to the traditional sense of the word. It also could include using stolen data/credentials. The word hack simply doesn't just mean what it meant in the 90's, or what the movie Hackers made famous, the modern definition is far more broad than your narrow description because they are more ways to access data than ever now other than just brute force methods.

Look at it this way, if someone breaks into your home using a house key stolen from one of your family members, then is that still considered a break-in? By using your argument above, then no, it's not, which is incorrect, a break-in is still a break-in, and theft is still theft. I personally don't care about the label, call it 'unauthorized access' if you want, either way I certainly don't think politico was wrong or the premise behind their article is incorrect (that other countries hack us too). The main points I made that can't be argued (unless you think the FBI is wrong) are still these:

-Hillary had a private email server that at one point in 2013, the security lapsed and had no threat detection

-The server was accessed by unauthorized person(s) using stolen credentials. The person(s) browsed email folders and viewed attachments, meaning they accessed data on the server. according to the FBI

-Hillary and her staff were grossly negligent in respect to how they handled communications, emails- Comey FBI investigation into the Clinton emails and server.

 

[TenEightyOne]

no to Russia actually medaling...

That one's undeniable

 

[TexRex]

Somebody wake me when the correction of the correction of the correction of the correction of the correction of the correction of the correction gets corrected...only then will we be getting somewhere.