Pretty sure Bill Clinton's doodles prove Guccifer hacked into Hillary's server.

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

Collaborating with a a Bernie supporter to take out Arf Arf Arf?

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

Welcome.

Let's take a look at what you said:

The only empirical information I found in the CNN article is that Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, has been interviewed by the FBI and that other close aides have been interviewed multiple times. The WaPo piece initially started as an article revealing that the FBI is working closely with the U.S. Attorney’s office of Eastern Virginia, famous for handling high-profile cases relating to terrorism and national security - it’s also where Guccifer was extradited to. They quickly picked up on the CNN story and added the speculation that there is ‘scant evidence’ showing that Hillary intended to break classification rules. CNN went a bit further and said investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.

You make many claims, but all of it is speculation based on MSM accounts, which are not privy to the actual investigation, reddit and gawker posts... not empirical evidence. What you have posted is an accumulation of 'what-ifs', 'maybes' and possibilities.

We are no closer to the truth than we were before.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Evidence had been gathered; the FBI has the Clinton server, multiple (4 I think) State Department servers, the off-site cloud backup by the company Hillary's people hired, and now they also have testimony from Abedin and others (some from multiple interviews).

What do you think will be next for them?

Not much, from the looks of it.

a reply to: introvert

If you'd like to discuss that entire post, I'm happy to do so. But my guess is it's better to do that in a separate thread?

If you look at my history on reddit, I write accumulations every Saturday and call out when I am speculating, what's my opinion ect. I make no claims that I am stating empirical facts.

a reply to: introvert

So is it your opinion that Hillary has never lied about anything?

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

This thread will be the best place for the discussion you propose. Please continue.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh god no. Have I given that impression?

EDIT:

In relation quoted portion above, I expanded on it to include my speculation:

These declarative statements are from unnamed source(s) either briefed or familiar with the FBI investigation. They also claim that Huma fully cooperated in her interview, and that there is no evidence that Guccifer hacked Hillary’s server which isn't true, because he would have leaked the emails and there is no trace in the security logs - more on that in a bit. My only question around the validity of these statements is: What U.S. official(s) would be briefed about the evidence of an ongoing FBI investigation or even the actions of a witness in a recently conducted FBI interview? Not even the President has claimed to be briefed, if you believe him or not. Why would these officials parrot the exact defense the Clinton camp authored the night before in relation to Guccifer? Interestingly, the NY Times, AP, Reuters did not include these unsourced statements in their reporting.

Now, I am going to take this paragraph to speculate and say that this source is someone contacted by or close to the Clinton camp - which after yesterday’s events might not be far fetched. Huma’s interview was never confirmed by any official source (DOJ/FBI) but reported as accurate by reputable news organizations. The Clinton team are the only other party in this investigation that would be privy to that information and would benefit from the claims that she fully cooperated and Hillary’s server wasn’t hacked. This story was wrapped in some of the most explosive speculation we have seen about what the FBI has collected. Motivating some journalists to declare the entire investigation over and to move on. These should have been two separate stories based on the information - I don’t think it was a coincidence that the same sources that can confirm the Huma interview are pushing the narrative that Hillary is free and clear. You’ll notice the sources all made sure to include the exact legal phrasing around willful intent, here is a good writeup that summarizes why that will not be a good defense for Hillary. Full disclosure it comes from a conservative lawyer, but the points stand on their own. Alright, enough with my speculation.

originally posted by: NebraskaGunOwner
a reply to: introvert

If you'd like to discuss that entire post, I'm happy to do so. But my guess is it's better to do that in a separate thread?

If you look at my history on reddit, I write accumulations every Saturday and call out when I am speculating, what's my opinion ect. I make no claims that I am stating empirical facts.

I respect your honesty. That is refreshing. But, sadly, opinions do not convict people. We need facts. One of your own sources casts doubt on many claims.

Hillary Clinton's private email server containing tens of thousands of messages from her tenure as secretary of state — including more than 400 now considered classified — was the subject of hacking attempts from China, South Korea and Germany after she stepped down in 2013, according to Congressional investigators. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee has found evidence of attempted intrusions into Clinton's server in 2013 and 2014, according to a letter Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) sent Monday to a Florida-based security firm tasked with protecting the hardware. Story Continued Below The contractor, SECNAP Network Security, identified the attacks, but according to internal emails cited and briefly quoted in the Johnson letter, Clinton's sever may have lacked a threat-detection program for three months, Johnson says. The Associated Press first reported the news. The attempted security breaches and apparent gaps in protection raise further questions about the level of security Clinton used to prevent malicious intrusions from breaching her network. The FBI is currently probing whether her rare email arrangement at State — exclusively using her own personal server rather than a State.gov account — ever put national security at risk. The State Department has now classified more than 400 Clinton emails that were stored on that hardware, though Clinton's team notes they were not marked classified at the time. The last batch of Clinton's emails released by the State Department under a court order in a Freedom of Information Act suit showed that Clinton received at least five emails from hackers linked to Russia. If Clinton opened attachments in the emails, her account and server could have been vulnerable to hacking, although it is unclear if she did so.

Pay attention to the language. Even the MSM sources cannot state definitively whether or not she was hacked.

It's all speculation.

Surely an intelligent person such as yourself can admit that much of this is unsubstantiated speculation.

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

He was replying to Introvert. We get you. Best place to have a discussion is going to be in this thread.

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

Not you, welcome, by the way.

I was asking Introvert, who seems bound and determined to defend and support Hillary as much as humanly possible, ignoring everything suspect that she has done in her long and sordid career.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

So is it your opinion that Hillary has never lied about anything?

I have not said that. Hillary is a liar, as are all of us.

Whether or not she committed a crime is up to the investigators/courts.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

Not you, welcome, by the way.

I was asking Introvert, who seems bound and determined to defend and support Hillary as much as humanly possible, ignoring everything suspect that she has done in her long and sordid career.

Defend? Absolutely. Every American deserves to be defended by constitutional principle until proven guilty in the court of law.

Support? No thanks. There are enough people out there to do that. She doesn't need mine.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

So is it your opinion that Hillary has never lied about anything?

I have not said that. Hillary is a liar, as are all of us.

Whether or not she committed a crime is up to the investigators/courts.

Not "all of us" worked as Secretary of State, or have held the position as First Lady, or was a Senator from New York.

a reply to: introvert

Pay attention to the language. Even the MSM sources cannot state definitively whether or not she was hacked.

It's all speculation.

Surely an intelligent person as yourself can admit that much of this is unsubstantiated speculation.

I'm not sure what I walked into.
That is a silly argument, of course I understand that this is speculation. All speculation is merely an observation based on the information we have at our disposal.

The degree to which her server was woefully under protected is documented. There were multiple phishing attacks targeting her - including one that she responded too. As well as targeted attacks through the open ports on her server.

Claims from Guccifer are just claims. However, he has shown nothing yet that would make me speculate that he didn't compromise her server. In fact, he has shown the opposite.

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

Your post on that matter was succinct, well spelled out and very convincing. The understood vulnerability of her server shouldn't be in question.

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

I'm not sure what I walked into.

Introvert. Your post was awesome and that Reddit post was incredibly well formatted and well done. You'll find some people here that are very outspoken about certain topics.

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

I also find it odd that Guccifer would admit to a felony (and all that entails)...if he DIDN'T hack her.

a reply to: introvert

I can respect that, you want to see the process adhered to and be certain she is treated equally under the law.

I do too.

I happen to think she will somehow skate or be given a pardon as Obama is headed out the door.

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

That is a silly argument, of course I understand that this is speculation.

You have incomplete information, unless you are part of the investigation team. Are you part of that team? If so, you will not be for long.

All speculation is merely an observation based on the information we have at our disposal.

The information we have is based on MSM reports and un-sourced accounts.

The degree to which her server was woefully under protected is documented. There were multiple phishing attacks targeting her - including one that she responded too. As well as targeted attacks through the open ports on her server.

Your sources cast doubt on that claim.

The last batch of Clinton's emails released by the State Department under a court order in a Freedom of Information Act suit showed that Clinton received at least five emails from hackers linked to Russia. If Clinton opened attachments in the emails, her account and server could have been vulnerable to hacking, although it is unclear if she did so. POLITICO reported last week that there were likely many more so-called phishing messages sent to Clinton during her four years as secretary, but virtually all those messages appear to have been deemed "personal" by Clinton's attorneys and deleted, although the FBI is reportedly making progress recovering some or all of the messages from tech firms that worked on Clinton's server.

According to you sources, even the FBI cannot confirm any such claim. They are "making progress" though.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

I can respect that, you want to see the process adhered to and be certain she is treated equally under the law.

I do too.

I happen to think she will somehow skate or be given a pardon as Obama is headed out the door.

I don't want her to skate by. She should be held to account, but only if it can be proven and those that have convicted her already are enemies of the constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.