Analysis Of The FBI Hillary E-Mail Investigation
Posted by Pile
(3650 views) [E-Mail link]
|While this should be old news, the "Hillary e-mail server scandal" keeps popping up. I found an interesting analysis from someone who took the time to read through the whole report and summarize the specifics of the findings.... Here's the critical info you need to know..|
Copied from the Snopes forum, thanks to Sam Hing who read through the entire FBI report on the Clinton e-mail scandal and condenses the details for us here:
This is a breakdown that may be a huge help to people here, posted by someone I know:
I personally read the ENTIRE FBI released report about Hillary's Emails. I don't know anyone else who has.
1) When asked most people say something to the effect of... "Hillary deleted these emails with an evil cackling laughter to hide all her evil secret doings"... But the reality is... Hillary never deleted or sent any emails to the interview departments according to these reports. She was requested to send emails by the govt in july 2014. Her team emailed the IT guy with the search for all *.gov emails. He did this from Outlook .pst backups from old servers. He sent those back to the team.. Team sent the files to her Lawyers. Lawyers sent them to the govt. IT guy asked.. What do you want me to do with the not .gov emails? and remaining backups? At this time it is July 2014 - Over a year since Hillary left the state office. Hillary and team said well.. we dont need them? IT guy deleted them. Then he bleached the server as IT security guys do. His report says no one asked him to do this. Hillary.. never touched these emails. She is not very technical. How many people could sort through backed up .pst files reading this thread? How many even know what a .pst file even is? You think Hillary did this?
2) There were a total of 2093 classified emails found (although this number changes around a bit depending what you include as classified). Most of these classified emails according to the FBI report were things like Hillary Clintons travel and flight schedule. IE - this would be classified information as to when she was landing but it is not necessarily classified in the sense of national secrets most people are thinking about. Each and every sender and receiver of the 2093 "classified emails" was brought in, interviewed and questioned. They are in the reports. The FBI determined that 110 were classified at the time. About 0.17% of emails on the server. The FBI also found that NONE of the 110 "serious emails" were properly marked with headers and subject lines as classified.... Which is govt classified protocol. Hillary and her team discussed classified information in morning meetings, secure faxes and via secure phone calls - not via email. This is why she said there wasn't any. Because there should not have been. The emails were sent poorly by other people in the USA government. IE - The emails that were found - Hillary was part of the email threads that other people in the Gov't made mistakes on.
3)The hack emails are a whole other ball of wax... Most people mush them all together.. Often confusing the whole thing again showing lack of technical knowledge. Hillary's email has never been hacked. Wiki leaks published the entire Clinton Emails published under the FOIA here - https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/ I read a bunch.. nothing of note.
Guccifer the script kiddie hacked Sydney Blumenthal Aol email by... guessing his security password reset question - He emailed Hillary a lot on the server. Wiki leaks published a bunch of that here - https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/…
John Podestra emails released by Wikileaks has not been publicized how they got this information. But llikely an inital phising scheme and then as shown in this email - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6589 he published his password.. and then used the same password everywhere.ugh You can read those here - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/
So yeah. I have read a bunch of these countless emails. You can too. Most of 'the media' posting about these choose one or two emails that is Hillary's aides and pr team doing their jobs.. or posting their personal water cooler email opinions. IE- How to target younger voters in a certain state or What to do about Bernie Sanders. Most company internal emails would look similar. I looked at lots of them but I didn't see any OMG smoking gun or secret conspiracy in these either.
4) It is important to note how complete the FBI investigation was.. They cross checked server log in times, IT department tickets, every computer, laptop, etc. phone records.. They interviewed basically every person to ever remotely work for or with Clinton in any way. They never found "secret clinton scandals".. there is no insider deals. You can read countless pages of interview answers, transcripts, questions, of how non technical Hillary and her team are.. For people who sure didn't seem all that technical... it would be a miracle to cover up things like this.
5) The media has had a hay day with this because people are not technical. "The Media" is not technical. And I mean seriously.. who reads all these documents besides me? How did you reading this get your information about the "email scandal"... ? All the information most people have.. is some guy who wrote about what he read.. and likely they are not very technical. Do they know what .pst is? Bleach bit? Back up servers? Do they know how IMAP works? Sent messages? Secure FTP? All things mentioned in the FBI files? I just don't think 'the media' understands what they are reading per say or focus on the sensationalized parts more than others. How come most people know there is classified emails.. but NOT that Hillary never touched the emails sent or deleted for example...
In MY opinion, Clinton's email scandal is such a thing.. because for the first time .. the people of the world are looking at and are interested in how the technology in the USA gov't works. And its bad. The USA gov't like most organizations is SERIOUSLY behind on technical knowledge, training and protocol around technology. This is my opinion based off what I personally have read. You may have a different one.
I agree with the FBI findings.. She shouldn't have done it. And she was careless. But there is no.. crooked, evil, cackling plots like most people think. The USA Gov't needs to seriously work on their technology protocols. This isn't the first email scandal BTW... Other gov't officials have too - including Bush, he had a private email on the republican server. He had tons of missing emails off THAT server.. conveniently around the Weapons of mass Destruction time period after Sept 11... No one heard a peep about Crooked Bush .. and he was the PRESIDENT.
"All Lives Matter" is this generation's "Support Our Troops"
Posted by Pile
(7338 views) [E-Mail link]
|Maybe you've said it? Maybe you've had a friend say it? "ALL lives matter!" |
It's a great way to prove a point, but are you really proving a point, or are you merely trying to silence someone or something that makes you feel uncomfortable?
This isn't the first time we've run into this...
Up to and during the Iraq invasion, there was a substantive grass-roots effort to oppose additional military action, and once it got underway, the meme, "Support Our Troops" was shouted from the top of every media news report to the bottom of every vehicle bumper. Slapping those goofy yellow ribbons made everyone recognize the nobility of your priorities, right?
But how ultimately useful was the phrase, "Support Our Troops?" Were there Americans going around wanting to undermine them? The same thing goes with "All Lives Matter!" Is there a need to fend off an uprising of people who are campaigning undermine the value of anybody else's life?
What we have here is what's called a "Truism."
A Truism is defined as, a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.
Like, "You get what you pay for." Ok, thank you for that Captain Obvious.
Do these truisms reveal anything important? Why would anybody not want to support troops that are "fighting for our freedom?" Does that even need to be said?
The same goes for "All Lives Matter?" That too would make a great slogan across a magnetic ribbon on your vehicle. Are the BLM protesters really telling everyone their lives are more important? No.
Let's recognize both sayings are promoted for the same purpose: To stop discussion and dialogue. To shut down any deeper examination of whether what's going on is fair or legitimate. It was done during the Iraq war, with people suggesting if you criticized the war, you wanted troops hurt, not unlike how they're suggesting now that "Black Lives Matter" advocates the hurting of cops. It does not.
The Iraq invasion would likely have been a different story if more discussion and debate had not been stifled by the false dichotomy of these underhanded talking points. Likewise, the "All Lives Matter" meme has as its objective, the purpose of shutting down the discussion being raised.
We as a people, should not allow third parties to marginalize and dismiss issues we hold as important by clouding the issue with unrelated arguments. It's time we recognize these Truisms as a destructive force, not designed to prove a counter-point as much as they are deployed as a distraction to change the subject away from an uncomfortable reality some would prefer to not acknowlege.
- Mark Pile
A Lesson On What's At Stake In The 2016 Election
Posted by Pile
(4131 views) [E-Mail link]
|Now that the 2016 race is down to the two primary candidates, there will no doubt be a lot of argument over whether there are any viable third-party candidates and discussion over the similarities and differences between the Democratic and Republican nominees.|
It's time for a BSAlert history lesson to succinctly illustrate exactly what's at stake... and the stakes are higher than you can imagine...
Let's go back to the year 2000.
Al Gore got the Democratic nomination. George W. Bush was the Republican nominee.
Like now, the population back then was not hardly excited about either of those two possibilities.
In fact, many popular leftist icons weighed in with unambiguous statements.
Ralph Nader said, "There's no difference between a vote for Gore and a vote for Bush."
Many feel now as many felt then, that the two-party-system had left them down.
But the idea that both Gore and Bush were equally bad choices continued to resonate among certain groups of voters, determined to carve a new path.
Noam Chomsky has been making similar claims:
"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population."
It's hard to imagine now, people arguing that there was little difference between the two candidates, but there were heated debates about this.
Of course, the two candidates' pros and cons were never fairly framed. Just like the right equates Clinton's lies about an affair with Bush's lies about WMDs, there are false equivalences large enough to build a sports stadium within.
George W. Bush's family was clearly entrenched in the fossil fuel industry. Al Gore was an environmentalist preaching the necessity of alternative renewable energy and the need to address global warming. George W. Bush refused to acknowledge man-made climate change. Gore was no war hawk. Bush certainly was.
Enter Ralph Nader, an icon of the left, a consumer activist, who wanted to carve out a place for his green party. It was incredibly ironic that the year he decides to run an all-out race to the White House, he's up against Al Gore, the most environmentally-aware candidate ever to garner a major party nomination. It truly was a bizarre time in our nation's history. And given the fact that Nader would not acknowledge Gore's credibility in the movement, a time that ushered in dire consequences.
In the end Nader, the third party candidate, cost Gore the election and forever changed the course of both American and world history. Some may argue Nader did skew the election, but those arguments split hairs over subsets of state results and argue that Nader voters wouldn't necessarily have gone to Gore... their arguments don't hold water despite the many web pages one can Google to claim otherwise.
Nader put George W. Bush in the White House.
We know what happened next...
* 9/11 (which could have been avoided had the President paid attention to intelligence reports)
* The passage of the USA Patriot Act, which gutted the Bill of Rights and destroyed peoples civil liberties
* The creation of the Dept of Homeland Security, another bloated and ineffective beauracracy
* The "no-fly list" an unconstitutional blacklist of people punished with no due process
* The appointment of incompetent cronies to positions of great power and the subsequent debacles they presided over (such as the Hurricane Katrina disaster)
* The continued rolling back of depression-era regulations on financial institutions, directly leading to financial and housing crises, and then the fleecing of taxpayers to bail out the banks just before W left office
* The invasion of Iraq, prompted by fabricated lies, costing America 3000+ American soldiers' lives and 800,000+ innocent middle eastern civillians
* Numerous illegal and treasonous activities from the administration outing their own CIA agents who provided evidence contradicting their WMD lies, to the establishment of secret torture camps, etc.
* The creation of ISIS, the destruction of untold amounts of priceless cultural artifacts, communities and the ruination of goodwill from almost every other civilized nation on the planet
* The inability to even hold those accountable for 9/11, or recognize the true source of terrorism
* Rolling back of plans to promote alternative renewable energy and instead pushing for more gas-guzzling vehicles via tax incentives and more domestic fossil fuel production which resulted in more environmental disasters
The list goes on and on....
There may have been some similarities between Gore and Bush, but there is no rational argument that would suggest a Gore presidency would have done many of the things cited above. Eight years alone, of disregarding the climate change crisis is a singularly serious charge that may have potentially fatal consequences for everyone on this planet - only time will tell, but it's one of dozens of horrible subsequent chains of events that would have been avoided with the installation of Gore instead of George W. Bush.
Fast forward to 2016
Here we are again. In the exact same situation.
People comparing Hillary to Trump, suggesting they're both equally unappealing and unhelpful for the country.
The differences in these two candidates policies are as night-and-day as Gore and Bush, and in some cases mirror those two candidates.
Trump is anti-environmentalist. He is a climate change denier.
Hillary not only recognizes the significance of climate change, but has a comprehensive plan to address it, and is pushing for more alternative renewable energy.
It's deja vu all over again.
And the Bernie people are determined to cloud the issue and suggest Hillary is just as corrupt and untrustworthy. They are as wrong then as the Nader people were wrong in 2000.
And the potential consequences are just as serious.