Breaking!!! Assange Internet has been disabled by state attack!

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: carewemust
a reply to: Azdraik


Her involvement in 'breaking' the law is passive when it comes to these Emails. What they reveal is a different story.

Imagine you own a company car, and it is stolen at night while you're asleep.

Would you complain if you were fired? Would it be your fault depending on where you parked it?
Would you accept that stealing company property is wrong, and you deserve to be fired, even if the only way you're connected to it was the original possession? Is it your fault it was stolen?

Compare this to Alex Jones, who sells the company car to a gang for parts.

Now imagine the company car is chocked full of sensitive material giving away company secrets that you accidentally left unsecured. Yep, you'd be fired.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: imjack

None of it equally would have happened if the hacker didn't hack the server.

This is a pathetic deflection.

The whole reason for those protocols is because IT IS ASSUMED that hackers are actively looking for this kind of information. Therefore NOT following said protocols and LAWS is CRIMINAL negligence.

No #?
Still doesn't mean she intentionally did anything.
Still doesn't mean that my observation that her involvement was a passive one is wrong.

The guy literally said "we don't know if it was intentional"
Bull****, she was hacked, it's pretty clear that's not intentional.

a reply to: imjack

Bull****, she was hacked, it's pretty clear that's not intentional.

We have these protocols because hackers of all kinds are looking for this info.

From state actors to hacker activists.

We know this as a matter of course in the military.

But you want me to give the Seats of Government Departments the benefit of pardon knowing the law was broken and that such violations created this mess in the first place?

Dude, why are you trying so hard to shill for these people?

Rumour doing the Rounds that Assange is dead.


newsworldpaper.com...

a reply to: UKTruth

No question you'd be fired.
The question is, is it your fault?
Would you complain?

Those are the questions.

a reply to: imjack

The question is, is it your fault?

Yes.

If you are charged with protecting that information and you are negligent with it, then it is your fault.

Assange watch new periscope

I reckon this is risky, filming an embassy in the middle of all this but...

a reply to: projectvxn

Her conviction is largely based on intent.

I'm just fk-ing over listening to bull# accusations that she intentionally has leaked this information.

You can call my honest opinions shills all you want. I don't care. I'm not voting for Hillary, or have ANY interest in convincing anyone to vote for anyone.

In fact, I sell campaign ads. If you want to run for President, you talk to me. The more Parties the better as far as I'm concerned.

a reply to: imjack

I'm just fk-ing over listening to bull# accusations that she intentionally has leaked this information.

That's not the accusation.

The accusation, which is correct, is that her negligent handling of classified information, negligent transmission contrary to federal law and established protocol, created the circumstances by which this information was leaked.

How the hell can you not understand that?

Edit:

I don't care who you're voting for or not.

I don't subscribe to political religion and I find just about everyone in this race to be deplorable and idiotic.

I do, however, have a lot of experience with secure networks, how they are to be treated, and how the information contained within them is required by law to be handled.

a reply to: projectvxn

The hacker has to have 'some' amount of accountability!? After all he stole the information.

The only point- to the point, is that mutual parties are at fault.

And to just drone I suppose more, MANY more people than Hillary, on BOTH SIDES were put at risk.

The narrative is being heavily edited to make it against Clinton as much as possible. This only makes things worse and spreads information that's actually dangerous faster.

a reply to: projectvxn

The person I quoted, who you quoted me quoting, said she potentially INTENTIONALLY released the information.

I was talking to the person in the thread who directly made that accusation.

I've said this twice, my point is addressing a false accusation. You can stop telling me 'what's really up'. I'm only addressing a single point to a single person, and it's not even you.

a reply to: imjack

The hacker has to have 'some' amount of accountability!? After all he stole the information.

Of course. But remember, these hacks didn't happen on SIPR or above networks.

This does not excuse criminal negligence. This does not mean that your hypothesis that Clinton had a passive role, when it was her unsecured server, her and her staff sending this stuff via unsecured networks to gmail accounts, is correct.

a reply to: imjack

I've said this twice, my point is addressing a false accusation. You can stop telling me 'what's really up'. I'm only addressing a single point to a single person, and it's not even you.

This is a discussion forum. If you don't want to be part of the discussion, stop posting.

Besides what I quoted was a reply to ME.

Pay attention. You're getting your BS mixed up.

a reply to: projectvxn

Then address my single fking point I've made in 10 posts, and stop deflecting.

The person said Hillary potentially released the information with intent.

Do you agree? Oh you don't because that's absurd? Okay, glad that's over.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: projectvxn

Then address my single fking point I've made in 10 posts, and stop deflecting.

The person said Hillary potentially released the information with intent.

Do you agree? Oh you don't because that's absurd? Okay, glad that's over.

I'm addressing the things YOU have said.

I don't care what other people have said.

a reply to: imjack

We can split hairs on the "intentionally" part. The way I see it she knowingly used an unauthorized, unsecured network. That means anyone managing said network has access to all of the information sent through that network. So imho yes she intentionally released information onto that network. Was it her intention to have that network get breached? I doubt it. Honestly what did she expect when there was no zero security setup on the server?

a reply to: imjack

She sent classified information over an insecure networks with the excuse they were not labeled properly, even though she signed a SF 312 which specifically states that classified information does not have to be classified as such This thread shows that there was a deal made to reclassify her emails.

destroyed evidence that was under congressional subpoena

and told the FBI that "I could not recall" on 40 different occasions and said that she could not recall any of her briefingsAll the 40 times Hillary Clinton told the FBI "I could not recall".

Which boils down to, She's either incompetent or a criminal.