Buffalo Pundit what do you think of Hillary's comment?

[Jeff]

Who's email is the NY Times writing about?



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/us...ibya.html?_r=0

Those are not hacked/stolen emails.

[HipKat]

The fact that you don't comprehend the difference - or that you're being deliberately obtuse - is amusing.

Someone watched Shawshank Redemption recently.....

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Except Wikileaks was fencing stolen property. I wasn't. It was given to me by someone who had a legal right to possess the information.

The fact that you don't comprehend the difference - or that you're being deliberately obtuse - is amusing.

Again, I didn't comment on and don't care about how the email was obtained in either case. I simply commented on how they were used.

The moment Carl Paladino sent that email blast he lost all ability to complain about what happened with those communications. He was naive to think they wouldn't find their way to someone like yourself, would would use them like as you did. At the same time, the moment Clinton willfully ignored established protocols and setup her private email server, she lost all ability to complain about what happened. The protocols were there to protect against the very thing that happened. The only difference is, unless Clinton is an absolutely unqualified buffoon, there is no ability for her to claim ignorance on the result.

The outrage the 'left' has against Wikileaks today is comical. There was not the same outrage when Wikileaks was 'fencing stolen property' about Guantanamo Bay. News sources such as the New York Times, Salon and NPR all released and reported on that stolen information without pause. Stolen, not because of outright gross negligence like the Clinton case, but stolen nonetheless...not a single bit of outrage as to how it was obtained however. Either by the media or 'pundits' who comment on politics. Why? Because access to that information gave them a political advantage.

Yet when a similar situation happened to Clinton there is suddenly a storm of outrage? Ya, that's comical.

[buffalopundit]

Again, I didn't comment on and don't care about how the email was obtained in either case. I simply commented on how they were used.

The moment Carl Paladino sent that email blast he lost all ability to complain about what happened with those communications. He was naive to think they wouldn't find their way to someone like yourself, would would use them like as you did. At the same time, the moment Clinton willfully ignored established protocols and setup her private email server, she lost all ability to complain about what happened. The protocols were there to protect against the very thing that happened. The only difference is, unless Clinton is an absolutely unqualified buffoon, there is no ability for her to claim ignorance on the result.

The outrage the 'left' has against Wikileaks today is comical. There was not the same outrage when Wikileaks was 'fencing stolen property' about Guantanamo Bay. News sources such as the New York Times, Salon and NPR all released and reported on that stolen information without pause. Stolen, not because of outright gross negligence like the Clinton case, but stolen nonetheless...not a single bit of outrage as to how it was obtained however. Either by the media or 'pundits' who comment on politics. Why? Because access to that information gave them a political advantage.

Yet when a similar situation happened to Clinton there is suddenly a storm of outrage? Ya, that's comical.

I'll just come by and "leak" your car and TV then.

Wikileaks is a front for Russian intelligence. If you want to cheer for them, go for it because they helped your guy and hurt your opponent. Don't for a second thing they won't turn and do the same thing to your side whenever it becomes advantageous for Putin to do so.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

I'll just come by and "leak" your car and TV then.

Wikileaks is a front for Russian intelligence. If you want to cheer for them, go for it because they helped your guy and hurt your opponent. Don't for a second thing they won't turn and do the same thing to your side whenever it becomes advantageous for Putin to do so.

That blog. Oh man. It's funny how Wikileaks became a front for Russia, according to Democrats, the moment it started publishing damaging materials to...wait for it...Democrats. Couldn't be that wikileaks are simply cyber-anarchists.

Trump is not 'my guy' but think what you want. It's obvious you like to package up anyone who doesn't fit your profile in a box so you can knock them down with the punditry...so have fun.

As for the dangers of Putin getting access to things that he would use for his political advantage..ya..that's dangerous. Which is why your gal Clinton came pretty close to treason with her complete disregard to State secrets on her private email server setup and managed by an absolute moron. But that's not something you want to even comprehend.

Anyways, out to do some Christmas shopping. Happy holidays and all that stuff I suppose.

[buffalopundit]

That blog. Oh man. It's funny how Wikileaks became a front for Russia, according to Democrats, the moment it started publishing damaging materials to...wait for it...Democrats. Couldn't be that wikileaks are simply cyber-anarchists.

Trump is not 'my guy' but think what you want. It's obvious you like to package up anyone who doesn't fit your profile in a box so you can knock them down with the punditry...so have fun.

As for the dangers of Putin getting access to things that he would use for his political advantage..ya..that's dangerous. Which is why your gal Clinton came pretty close to treason with her complete disregard to State secrets on her private email server setup and managed by an absolute moron. But that's not something you want to even comprehend.

Anyways, out to do some Christmas shopping. Happy holidays and all that stuff I suppose.

Schindler isn't a Democrat, was vehemently opposed to Clinton. He's former NSA.

Also, check the date on that blog post - it's from August 2015 way before Wikileaks published stolen Podesta and DNC emails.

[nogods]

Hillaryites are using the Weiner defense - "the problem is people giving the press pictures of Weiner exposing his Weiner, rather than the content of the pictures of Weiner exposing his weiner."

[4248]

Were you "Brain washed by Russia" - do you feel the "Russians made you change your vote" ? The Dem Controllers want us to believe millions of Americans were "Brain washed" into changing their votes to Mr.Trump !

No voting machines were "hacked" - "No votes were changed" - so what did the Russians do?

They say the Russians released emails from Mrs Clintons staff. These emails are real - not even Mrs Clinton claimed they are fake. Not even Mr.Podesta who's emails were exposed denied they were factual/real.

So given that - if a person changed their minds on who to vote for - it was because "TRUTH" was exposed !

"TRUTH" made them vote for Mr.Trump instead of Mrs Clinton.

Or as the Dems want us to believe - millions of Americans were brain washed !

Merry Christmas

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Schindler isn't a Democrat, was vehemently opposed to Clinton. He's former NSA.

Also, check the date on that blog post - it's from August 2015 way before Wikileaks published stolen Podesta and DNC emails.

He's also someone who had to resign in disgrace for sending d*ck picks and compared Edward Snowden to Adolf Hitler. As a lawyer. I had incorrectly assumed you would know how to determine what a credible source looks like. But hey...as long as someone wrote something on a WordPress blog and the dates check out....it's legit right?

But let's call a spade a spade... D*ck picks aside, Schindler is someone who has long been in favor of and defending the US Governments secret surveillance efforts while attaching information activists like Manning, Snowden and Greenwald. Attaching Russia to the spectrum, truthful or not, is a pretty damn good way to rally the troops to lock sh*t down and continue as planned. Amiright?

All that aside, Russia or not, it's 2016 and this is the world we live in. If you want to have an honest conversation about the problem it needs to include the culpability of many players including your gal Clinton. It's obvious, for whatever reason(s), you simply refuse to broach this aspect of the spectrum. You want to put the gross incompetence and negligence of Clinton/DNC in a box and wrap what happened there as election tampering. Why? I can only assume that it's because you simply can't or refuse to accept how unpalatable Clinton was. Unless you want to try and paint a picture of how Russia tampered and rigged the Republican Primary (as we all know how the Democrats rigged their primaries so no need to discuss that) the fact is Clinton was beat by most likely the worst candidate to ever run for POTUS.

Regardless, any conversation with you on this subject is a faulty loop.

[WNYresident]

leftwnybecauseofBS
the fact is Clinton was beat by most likely the worst candidate to ever run for POTUS.

The book has not been written if Trump will be the worse candidate for POTUS.

At this point in time he the best candidate who ran because the man won. Simple as that.





I'm amazed at the hypocrites we have in the room when it comes to using emails against a candidate/party.

[buffalopundit]

He's also someone who had to resign in disgrace for sending d*ck picks and compared Edward Snowden to Adolf Hitler. As a lawyer. I had incorrectly assumed you would know how to determine what a credible source looks like. But hey...as long as someone wrote something on a WordPress blog and the dates check out....it's legit right?

Yet this particular site is replete with people who love and respect Carl Paladino for sending racist photographs and videos, and video of a woman having anal sex with a horse. So, y'know not everyone is perfect, and a guy sending a dick pick doesn't somehow magically render him not credible for purposes of the subject matter at hand.

But let's call a spade a spade... D*ck picks aside, Schindler is someone who has long been in favor of and defending the US Governments secret surveillance efforts while attaching information activists like Manning, Snowden and Greenwald. Attaching Russia to the spectrum, truthful or not, is a pretty damn good way to rally the troops to lock sh*t down and continue as planned. Amiright?

Are you doubting that Russian secret service - in fact, Russia is a spy agency with a country, as opposed to vice-versa - engages in cyberwarfare, espionage, etc?

All that aside, Russia or not, it's 2016 and this is the world we live in. If you want to have an honest conversation about the problem it needs to include the culpability of many players including your gal Clinton.

No sure I've ignored Clinton's own culpability, but it's fun to make stuff up I guess.

It's obvious, for whatever reason(s), you simply refuse to broach this aspect of the spectrum. You want to put the gross incompetence and negligence of Clinton/DNC in a box and wrap what happened there as election tampering.

I don't think the election was tampered with. I think that Russia's hacking and theft of private email communications and then publishing them through their useful idiots at Wikileaks was designed to do harm to the Democrats and help Donald Trump. Clearly, it had that effect. It is not the only reason why Clinton lost, but is one among many reasons why Clinton lost. Now cue some imbecile again saying I'm only blaming the emails.

Why? I can only assume that it's because you simply can't or refuse to accept how unpalatable Clinton was.

Ah, when you don't know, just assume! Brilliant! I think everyone knows how much Clinton is despised when running for office. BENGHAZI. HITLERY. CLINTON DEATH COUNT. It goes back literally three decades.

Unless you want to try and paint a picture of how Russia tampered and rigged the Republican Primary (as we all know how the Democrats rigged their primaries so no need to discuss that) the fact is Clinton was beat by most likely the worst candidate to ever run for POTUS.

Well, in actuality she was beaten by a white nationalist anti-immigrant populist demagogue, which seem to be quite in vogue in western democracies this season.

Regardless, any conversation with you on this subject is a faulty loop.

[buffalopundit]

The book has not been written if Trump will be the worse candidate for POTUS.

At this point in time he the best candidate who ran because the man won. Simple as that.

I'm amazed at the hypocrites we have in the room when it comes to using emails against a candidate/party.

I think you might be stupid. Seriously, can you read?

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Yet this particular site is replete with people who love and respect Carl Paladino for sending racist photographs and videos, and video of a woman having anal sex with a horse. So, y'know not everyone is perfect, and a guy sending a dick pick doesn't somehow magically render him not credible for purposes of the subject matter at hand.

I think this site is full of people who don't care that Carl sent those things when talking about other positions he has. Similar to what you're trying to do with this guy. Which is a valid position if you hand't taken the exact opposite position with Paladino.

Are you doubting that Russian secret service - in fact, Russia is a spy agency with a country, as opposed to vice-versa - engages in cyberwarfare, espionage, etc?

Not at all. Of course they are. Just as every major nation does. But I don't think Wikileaks is run by Russia. I think Wikileaks will take whatever they can get if it's something they can use.

I don't think the election was tampered with. I think that Russia's hacking and theft of private email communications and then publishing them through their useful idiots at Wikileaks was designed to do harm to the Democrats and help Donald Trump. Clearly, it had that effect. It is not the only reason why Clinton lost, but is one among many reasons why Clinton lost. Now cue some imbecile again saying I'm only blaming the emails.

The way the email server was setup and who set it up...a novice hacker could have done the damage. Also it's yet to be proven it was Russia. But whatevs....

Kinda funny that wikileaks are 'useful idiots' now that they are not publishing damaging info on Bush/Cheney. Funny how that works.

I am sure you're going to have the same concern with those 'useful idiots' at Wikileaks when they publish the inevitable damaging files related to the Trump administration.

[buffalopundit]

I think this site is full of people who don't care that Carl sent those things when talking about other positions he has. Similar to what you're trying to do with this guy. Which is a valid position if you hand't taken the exact opposite position with Paladino.

Which guy?

Not at all. Of course they are. Just as every major nation does. But I don't think Wikileaks is run by Russia. I think Wikileaks will take whatever they can get if it's something they can use.

I think it's quite clear that Wikileaks is a Russian front organization, and you've shown no evidence to rebut that.

The way the email server was setup and who set it up...a novice hacker could have done the damage. Also it's yet to be proven it was Russia. But whatevs....

The DNC and Podesta leaks weren't from Hillary's server - in fact, zero emails were hacked and published by Wikileaks from Clinton's server. The DNC and Podesta leaks came via phishing.

Kinda funny that wikileaks are 'useful idiots' now that they are not publishing damaging info on Bush/Cheney. Funny how that works.

I have been opposed to Wikileaks and what they do since day one. Since day one of the diplomatic cables. You're accusing me of something that simply isn't true.

I am sure you're going to have the same concern with those 'useful idiots' at Wikileaks when they publish the inevitable damaging files related to the Trump administration.

I am, because it is beyond the pale for a foreign intelligence organization to steal emails from private citizens and publish them on the web without redaction.

[4248]

Wasn't Secretary of State Clintons emails hacked years ago as well ? I believe the Foundation was also hacked and her home email server. How soon people forget or just deny !

http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Hi...tate&FORM=EWRE
"If there’s a bad thing that hasn’t yet been written about Hillary Clinton’s private email scandal, don’t worry: It will be. At the rate things are going, it seems inevitable.

Breitbart News reported this week that the company Clinton hired to manage her email network suffered a “massive international hack” while Clinton was serving as secretary of state. Among other concerns, the episode highlights the logic behind laws that require government employees to maintain their communications only on federal networks.

“The company that Hillary Clinton paid to manage her private email network was the victim of a massive international hack during the period in which Clinton was employing it, Breitbart News has learned,” the website reported Tuesday:

Hillary Clinton used the company Internap as the internet service provider for her private email account during her tenure as Secretary of State. Internap, based in Atlanta, has a facility in Manhattan, near the the physical location of the IP address for clintonemail.com.

In March 2011, the security company RSA was hacked. The hackers got into the company’s system through a malware-infested email sent to an employee, then installed a “backdoor” and stole data. RSA called it “an extremely sophisticated cyber attack.”

… Five different “blocks” of Internap hosted services — which could include websites, email services, and email-storage and cloud services — were hit in the 2011 attack. A computer expert tells Breitbart News that Internap networks could have been used by the hackers to help it get to RSA or other targets.

China was the home source of 299 of the 338 command and control networks that the hackers used to carry out the attacks, according to an analysis at the time by cyber security expert Brian Krebbs.

Clinton’s Internap service was one of more than 760 other companies and groups affected by the hack, Breitbart notes. The company did not reply to Breitbart’s request for comment.

Clinton served as secretary of state from January 2009 until February 2013. She set up and maintained her government email communications from a privately run server, one completely off the grid of federal communications systems, from the time she began her tenure until the time she left the State Department.