Romanian Clinton Server Hacker: ‘It Was Easy’

The Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer” who hacked into Hillary Clinton’s private email server told Fox News that “it was easy.”

“For me, it was easy … easy for me, for everybody,” Marcel Lehel Lazar, also know as “Guccifer,” told Fox News’ Catherine Herridge in a phone interview.

Lazar said that he first hacked into Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL account in March of 2013 and used it to get into Clinton’s server that he says he accessed twice. He explained that he did research on the internet and then guessed the answers to Blumenthal’s security questions.

Lazar said that the security questions to Clinton’s email and Blumenthal’s were not the same.

“For example, when Sidney Blumenthal got an email, I checked the email pattern from Hillary Clinton, from Colin Powell from anyone else to find out the originating IP. When they send a letter, the email header is the originating IP usually,” Lazar said.

The speaking fees were paid to Bill after he left office. That’s how they’ll skate on that, unless there’s evidence in the emails that there was some quid-pro-quo from Hillary while she was SECSTATE.

Certainly it HELPS make the corruption case if there was a quid pro quo - but unless there is strict separation of Bill and Hill financially (yeah, right), this is a case, written right in the Constitution, where the appearance of impropriety is impropriety. The Constitution forbids acceptance of gifts and it forbids acceptance of “emoluments” - that is, salaries. It does not say, “unless the emolument can arguably be said to have been earned,” nor does it say, “gifts are OK if disbursed for noble purposes” as determined by the POTUS.” It says that to accept a gift or a stipend you have to have the approval of Congress.
Even if you argue that the Congress somehow bought off on their grifting when it ratified her nomination to SoS, that decision could not bind succeeding Congresses, such as the one elected in 2010.
What the Clinton server does do, indubitably, is to function as a character reference in the Craig Livingstone affair. Somebody in the Clinton WH hired Craig Livingstone. Hillary had motive and opportunity - and now we have clear indication of her lack of compunction against doing the deed.

HILLARY HIRED CRAIG LIVINGSTONE.
The Clintons do it wholesale. Then when they are criticized wholesale, their acolytes say, “It’s those mean Republicans again.”

Noble purpose - Clinton Foundation.

“arguably said to have been earned” - Speaking fees, which are a time-honored tradition. Even Reagan spoke for money.

Strict financial separation - “But we’re married, of course all the money goes into the family account!”

The Clintons are professional grifters. They’ve thought this all out. They’ve gotten out of worse jams, jams which involved dead bodies. The only thing they didn’t figure on was her emails being recovered. But prosecution will require spines, which are in short supply.

The only thing they didn’t figure on was her emails being recovered. But prosecution will require spines, which are in short supply.

True, but it doesn’t take spine to not vote if you know your party has nominated a grifter. The only question is whether Trump is as good at telling the truth about Hillary as he was at casting aspersions on honest people.
Recall that there is a huge difference between criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” prosecution on the one hand, and not being "trusted beyond a reasonable doubt" - the standard which should apply to a presidential candidate. When you are a voter in a private booth - still more, when you decide whether to show up at the polls at all - it takes no courage, and you can apply the standard that seems right to you. You could even decide against someone because you don’t like their looks - which plainly happens a lot in politics.
We know that someone hired Craig Livingstone. That person, never publicly admitted to by President Clinton, was important enough to have the authority to do it, and important enough not to be thrown under the bus when Livingstone’s actions - many hundreds of counts of a felony, committed in the WH itself - became a huge embarrassment. We know that that person could have been Hillary, she had “opportunity.” She had motive. And if the home server means anything at all, we know that she respects no limits on her handling of classified information.

Noble purpose - Clinton Foundation.

“arguably said to have been earned” - Speaking fees, which are a time-honored tradition. Even Reagan spoke for money.

Yes, Clinton Foundation - but the Constitution says it takes an act of Congress to make that permissible. Not a presidential decision, not the SoS’s decision, not the Red Cross’s decision or whatever noble charity you care to name. Congress.
And in the case of Reagan, I think that even that was tacky - but neither President Reagan nor anyone else (Nancy, most certainly) who benefited from that money was working for the government at the time.
And, in the context of what you as a voter can choose to apply as a criterion, nobody should vote for a candidate who was soliciting donations from, or even doing legitimate business with, a foreign government which expected him/her to run for the presidency. Irrespective of whether that candidate was on the U.S. dime in some way at the time. SCOTUS has stretched a point on freedom of speech/press to the breaking point to sustain campaign finance “reform” - but what prevents “honoraria” from foreign governments from being used in unlimited amounts by Hillary to pay for political campaigning???
Speaking of “being on the Federal dime,” Reagan - and Clinton - were drawing a federal pension at the time they accepted the foreign government honoraria. But in the comparison of Reagan’s honoraria with Clinton’s, the Russian saying, “quantity has a quality all its own” must be considered. When the difference in quantity is two orders of magnitude, that is certainly true. And the Clinton’s have raked in, IIRC, something approaching a fifth of a billion dollars. This, after Hillary pronounced that the Clintons were “dead broke” in 2001.

The decision NOT to indict has been made. This is FBI leak #1.

This is how I think this is all going to go down.

The Clintons are the boss dogs in the Dem party, which has set them up for all kinds of graft.

Once Obama leaves office, he's gonna want that graft, so he's gonna have to take out the boss dog to be the new boss dog.

But that kind of fighting is done through surrogates. So he will stay above the fray but quietly encourage a drip of leaks all the way up to the convention, with a big bombshell just before the convention. Hillary ends up being pushed aside for Biden or Sanders, but either one ends up losing to Trump come November.

Trump prosecutes Hillary once he takes office, and Obama can label it a partisan attack as he setups up his own global foundation and starts getting the Clinton slop poured into his new trough.

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.