IS A CRIMINAL PROBE OF CLINTON NEAR?

It would appear that the Democrats are about to host a circular ambush among themselves. Even for Democrats, that would require a breathtaking level of stupidity. I have trouble believing the Obama administration or Democrat party will take action against Hillary.

For all of the histrionics, it seems no one wants to address the realities of the situation. For example:

Hillary Clinton’s private email server had established trust relationships with at least two (supposedly) secure government networks, bypassing the air gaps, gateguards, and other security features of those networks.

Multiple. hostile nation Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs), compromised her server and made it part of their poisoned Domain Name Server (DNS) Command and Control (C&C) networks.

These APTs used her server to exfiltrate sensitive and classified government data as 3-5 megabyte, encrypted, Roshal Archive graphics files. Using their poisoned DNS C&C networks, the APTs, transferred this data to the governments of the various hostile nations.

They also used her server to install multiple, low probability of intercept (LPI), low probability of detection (LPD), backdoors on the U.S. networks with sophisticated capabilities for obfuscation and non-attribution.

Even if Hillary’s email server is removed from any network connectivity and physically destroyed, the hostile nations retain their access to (supposedly) secure U.S. government networks, thanks to Hillary’s arrogance, stupidity, corruption, negligence, and incompetence.

I wonder how many of those hostile nations are funneling money to her campaign?

Because if Hillary wins the 2016 election, she will have one or more “private” servers installed in the White House.

NOTE TO NYT EDITORS RE: clarification of your Clinton Email Coverage (reprinted below)

Did you report to your readers that a high government official (particularly the Secy of State) to utilize day to day a non government computer for communications in the performance of their job is in violation of security laws in dozens of ways?

Did you factor into your report that emails emanating from Hillary's private server contained classified ntl security data?

Did you bother to determine that the US govt tech system is really fussy----particularly about emails from the US State Dept?

Did you determine that a govt official (particularly the Secy of State) cannot simply buy a brand new computer with licenses and programs and expect to have it certified?

Did you report that US govt officials are required to have a government-purchased computer, set up by the govt, utilizing a CACC card cleared technician?

Last but not least---would you have been this accommodating if the subject of your story was a Republican?

=============================================

Contact The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
Tel: (212) 556-7777
Fax: (212) 556-7088 or (212) 556-5830

EMAIL FORM PAGE
https://myaccount.nytimes.com/membercenter/help.html

===============================================

NY TIMES CLARIFICATION REPRINT: The Times reported online Thursday night (and in some print editions Friday) that the State Department IG ---and US intelligence agencies had sent a referral to the Justice Department requesting a “criminal investigation” into whether Mrs. Clinton “mishandled sensitive government information” on the email account. That article was based on multiple high-level government sources.

Shortly after the article was published online, however, aides to Mrs. Clinton contacted one reporter to dispute the account. After consultation between editors and reporters, the first paragraph was edited to say the investigation was requested “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled,” rather than into whether Mrs. Clinton herself mishandled information. That type of substantive change should have been noted immediately for readers; instead, a correction was not appended to the article until hours later.

On Friday, another question arose — whether the investigation being sought was a “criminal” inquiry. As other news organizations followed up on The Times’s report, the Justice Department confirmed to them that a “criminal” investigation had been requested. Officials also gave that description again to Times reporters who were rechecking their initial story. But later in the day, the Justice Department and the inspectors general said that the request was not a “criminal referral” but rather a “security referral,” meant to alert the F.B.I. about a potential mishandling of classified information. It was not clear how the discrepancy arose.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.