[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Thoughts On Comey And The FBI Let's talk about Comey and the newest "revelation" in the Hillary saga. There was this gagging sound that had to have been from Huma Abedin when the announcement was made. She protested she "didn't know" how the emails got on her estranged pervert husband's laptop, but it wasn't a few emails, as the Clinton camp originally protested -- it appears it was 650,000 emails. This is the consequence, incidentally, of the combination of technical incompetence and arrogance in the world of today. It is why there are protocols for secure communications, there are rules and laws governing classified data, and the government is, except when a Clinton is involved, assiduous about enforcing them. It is why classified information is never allowed on the Internet. It is why classified information is never allowed on a computer that is not under both active monitoring and control by people who's job it is to verify that said machine has been secure, remains secure, and the data on it is secure, and said machine never leaves that secure network and connects to insecure one. It is why the SD card slots and USB slots are locked out or physically disabled on such machines, so you can't stuff a thumb drive in there without it immediately setting off alarms at said monitoring locations and having The Hammer of God come down on your head. And it is why incompetent people when it comes to cyber security, combined with arrogance, usually turns into disaster. I've had several friends who had their machines "cryptolockered." To an individual they claim they never ran anything off the Internet. Yes they did. That's how it happens. They got a prompt, they clicked "ok", and.... oops. Once done you can't undo it, and yes, Mildred, encryption is real and if done properly it's damn near impossible to actually break. For "ordinary people" the answer is that you reformat the device and start over. Like it or not. I'm going to take an educated guess here that the email program in question on that laptop is Outlook. At some point Huma signed into the Clintonemail server using the Exchange protocol, which syncs emails, contacts and calendars. It's very convenient. It also makes a copy of everything on said server pertinent to your account on the local disk, synchronizes it whenever it is connected and never removes any of it absent explicit instruction to do so because it is far faster (never mind working when you're not connected to the Internet) to be able to do things like a keyword search if you do it on the local computer. It might have even been set to run all the time whenever the machine is on. It also makes the security of said email and calendars utterly reliant on whatever security exists (or the lack thereof) on every single computer that connects to said resource, individually! If any such machine is insecure then everything on it is also insecure, including all of those emails. In short software like this takes what is a reasonable degree of security at a central site and destroys it because it makes the least secure end-node machine the "best" security you now have, and if those computers are personal and not under some form of active management the security of said system as a whole is now effectively zero. In an environment where even a modest amount of security is required you must have all such computers under domain control with group policy settings, you must have full-disk encryption on (e.g. Bitlocker) with some rationally strong control of the keys for same and you must have set and push Exchange policies to prevent this sort of thing from happening. We know for a fact that none of those things were done because the public record shows that even rudimentary (SSL) security on the clinton email server was intentionally shut off at one point and there is zero evidence that any sort of domain control or group policy, say much less exchange policy settings or encryption of data-at-rest, was implemented. Why did all this happen? It happened because people who understand how to design, implement and operate a reasonably secure communication system are also intelligent enough to realize that if they aid and abet a potentially criminal enterprise they will go to prison! You therefore simply don't get the "best and brightest" or even the minimally competent people to do such a job, and those you do get will sit back and let one of the principals scream at them about security restrictions being "too much" and drop shields in response instead of replying with "That's insecure, I won't do it, and if you don't quit your hollering at me and shut your damned yap right now I quit!" How dumb is this? If there needs to be security, very dumb indeed. It is dumb not because Huma is stupid but because she was ignorant, and as it turns out she has a pervert for a husband. There's a very good reason why, when you're looked at for a security clearance, those who you associate with most-closely are looked at too. In this case it's utterly outrageous that Huma had any sort of clearance beyond Weiner's 2011 resignation from Congress because his inability to keep his dick in his pants and lying about it were, at that point, a matter of public record. Sexual indiscretions that you lie about and try to keep secret are one of the big red flags when it comes to security clearances because they are very potent blackmail material. Had Huma and Weiner divorced then and never lived or been together beyond that point there might be reason, post-2011, to let her have and retain a clearance. But that's not what happened. In point of fact Huma has been Clinton's "right hand woman" with access to both her and acting on her behalf during the entire time from 2009 to 2013 when she left as Secretary of State. Huma apparently was granted a Top Secret clearance in 2009; how she managed to not have it immediately revoked in 2011 given that her husband was at that point known to be a security risk and she did not leave him is pretty damn odd. But then again, these are the Clintons, right? Never mind Huma's past factual history through the 1990s and early 2000s in association with muslim organizations that have a colorable connection to extremism. Of course we'll never know what the investigation into that in 2009 disclosed, how in-depth it was and whether "someone" (e.g. Obama) essentially poisoned what is supposed to be an impartial review. Now let's talk about today. The Democrats are raising hell about Comey's "timing" and some are even arguing that he violated The Hatch Act. Let's get real -- Comey promised, under oath, to provide any updates he got on the email situation before Congress. He was advised of this a day before he told Congress about it, which is hardly "sandbagging" or anything like that. Quite arguably he had to notify Congress or potentially be held susceptible to a perjury charge, never mind his already-tarnished reputation. What's even worse is that it appears the FBI person who did know about them earlier is potentially poisoned himself by Clinton-linked campaign donations to a family member! Now here's the problem -- by making the notification Comey basically shot himself politically. This, after multiple press reports that he already had a literal mutiny on his hands both within the FBI and at his home, with his own wife being furious that he had not referred the investigation for indictment previously. Let's remember that Comey stood up on national television, described in public the presence of all of the elements of a violation of Federal law, and then said "no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case." He essentially told the nation that because it was a Clinton under investigation the presence of a smoking gun, hair, blood and fingerprints belonging to Hillary on the weapon and a dead body at her feet the "facts" would not lead any "reasonable prosecutor" to charge her! Absolutely nobody who is literate and can read the actual Statute (which is public, I remind you) could possibly get through that news conference and have it pass the giggle test. Yet he did it, and had a mutiny on his hands -- with good reason -- for doing so. I have said publicly, and I stand in front of those words, that utterly nobody should ever assist or respect the FBI or any other law enforcement agency so long as this sort of blatant, raw, political corruption remains in America. I'm not alone in that sentiment. The FBI is supposed to be the elite federal law enforcement agency of the United States and is supposed to investigate and refer any clear violation of federal laws for prosecution. When the director stands on national television, describes such a violation in detail, putting forward every element of said crime as printed in the Statute, and then dismisses same on national television he has destroyed said agency and its integrity. Period. So why did Comey do it? I don't know. Maybe what was really there is so thermonuclear that he believed that if he did refer it the ultimate result would be the destruction of the nation. Maybe he's a political hack. Maybe he was threatened by Clinton; it's not like that hasn't happened before. What I do know is that by sending his letter last week Comey did an extraordinary thing and the only reason to do it is that failure to do it was more harmful, in his opinion, than doing it. Let's remember here that what led to this was an investigation of Weiner allegedly sexting an underage girl. The investigation began with NY authorities and then the FBI gained jurisdiction when it became clear that the other party was across state lines. This is an extremely serious charge, standing alone folks -- interstate sexual offenses involving minors are serious business and people go to prison for a very, very long time if they are proved to have committed those acts. Those are good laws, not bad ones. By the point the FBI got jurisdiction and exclusive control of the evidence, however, it has to be assumed that NY State authorities, either in the NYPD or the NY State Police, had access to at least some of the material in question via forensic investigation, and perhaps to all of it. That leads me to believe that what was uncovered in those emails and on that laptop was nuclear waste-grade incriminating evidence and not toward Weiner or Huma, either of whom could be charged individually without much of an impact on anything else. No, whatever was found had to relate to Hillary personally, it had to be of sufficient magnitude that James Comey came to the conclusion by manifest weight of the evidence that Hillary Clinton had committed acts so serious that she could not serve in the Office of President. There are plenty of rumors flying around about exactly what was discovered. Those 650,000 emails may well include every one that Hillary and her staff tried to "bleach." If even one of them evidences felony criminal conduct then the game is up because we have now gone from the conduct itself to intentional destruction of evidence for the purpose of covering up a crime. My best guess is that not only is that conduct documented in these emails but that one or more of the acts involve something so outrageous that James Comey decided that irrespective of his personal reputation, his job and maybe even his life he could not allow Hillary Clinton to be elected come next Tuesday, and he was willing to flush everything he is and has down the toilet to stop it from happening. Before you call my belief on this regard crazy consider this -- there was a judge who signed off on a warrant for that laptop on the weekend, which means they called him or her up, presented the evidence and he or she agreed it was serious enough to provide the FBI with the warrant they were requesting to search that device on an immediate basis -- said judge believed that approval could not wait until normal business hours, nor was it a "close call" and thus required some time to think it over, despite the FBI having the device in their possession and thus there being no risk of it being tampered with or destroyed. We'll see if I'm right, but in the meantime consider this: If he's right, and you ignore both his decision and that of a federal judge, in that you choose to vote for Hillary anyway, then you, not he, are personally responsible for whatever occurs as a consequence -- including, quite possibly, the literal death of not only America but also your children, grandchildren and yourself. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
Comey did Hillary a favor - he took attention away from the play for pay 66 million dollar selling of influence. The facts are already disclosed - she could not wiggle out of that corruption -- she can wiggle out of the email thing - if fact she already has. Knowingly or unknowingly - Comey muddied the water.
No, whatever was found had to relate to Hillary personally, it had to be of sufficient magnitude that James Comey came to the conclusion by manifest weight of the evidence that Hillary Clinton had committed acts so serious that she could not serve in the Office of President. There are plenty of rumors flying around about exactly what was discovered. Those 650,000 emails may well include every one that Hillary and her staff tried to "bleach." If even one of them evidences felony criminal conduct then the game is up because we have now gone from the conduct itself to intentional destruction of evidence for the purpose of covering up a crime. My best guess is that not only is that conduct documented in these emails but that one or more of the acts involve something so outrageous that James Comey decided that irrespective of his personal reputation, his job and maybe even his life he could not allow Hillary Clinton to be elected come next Tuesday, and he was willing to flush everything he is and has down the toilet to stop it from happening. Amen...
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||