[ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the state department
spike66 at att.net
Wed May 11 16:46:55 UTC 2016
>… On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Subject: Re: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the state department
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:
>>…With that theory in mind, and Guccifer’s plausible explanations for how he got in there, how easy it was and how the server was “an open orchid on the internet” I must conclude that others found the same weakness...
>…Granting your theory for sake of argument, it does not necessarily follow that others must necessarily have hacked in...It's certainly possible. It'd be foolish to assume they definitely did not. But...it is also incorrect, and can lead to problems, if one assumes that anyone did, let alone any specific one…
Adrian that is a damning admission that Hillary and her people cannot make.
The secure world isn’t like criminal court where the prosecutor must prove that the defendant committed the act. In the security world, if anyone compromises a document, source, info, anything like that, it is the task of the clearance holder to prove that the info was not compromised. That’s why they set up those secure servers the way they do, and the reason we know the State Department’s unclassified server was hacked, who hacked it and what was compromised: the security people set it up so that it finds that kind of thing, and limits the damage if it is compromised.
In the info-secure world, everything is archived, everything is monitored, everything is set up such that if mistakes are made, we can determine what was compromised, who could have the info, how they did it, etc.
But the point is this, and watch for it, all over the news, a failure to understand or perhaps an intentional effort to obfuscate a critical distinction: in criminal court, there is a presumption of innocence. In the secure world, there is not.
If something goes wrong in the secure world, it is the task of the defendant to prove innocence. There are plenty of tools for doing that: the archives, the logs, the other tricks they use, some pretty cool ones, the security cameras everywhere, the yakkity yak and the bla bla. In the unsecure world, well, if you set it up that way, sure, you might be able to prove no one hacked in. But… the server in question was not set up that way. (Why not?)
In the secure world, if there is any indication of a compromise, such as an unsubstantiated claim by anyone that he did it, and you can’t prove innocence, oh boy. In the criminal court world, any he-said-she-said situation is a draw, and the defendant goes free. In that similar he-said-she-said situation in the secure world, he wins if she cannot prove her side. He wins if she cannot produce all that material which she intentionally deleted. If there is a trace of evidence he is telling the truth, such as… an actual example of an email… uh oh. He definitely wins, as he sits in prison and she campaigns for still more power. And if she intentionally erases those yoga routines which would have been desperately needed to prove innocence, she just proved her guilt, as much (or more so) than Tricky Dick’s missing 18 minutes of audiotape implicated the hell outta him. Nixon knew what that looked like. He knew whatever he erased was worse than having everyone make assumptions. Mrs. Clinton knew all this when she started wiping evidence.
Now we hear this morning that the FBI asked Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills a simple and obvious question: What criteria were used to determine which of the private emails would be erased?
How easy would it have been to just say: Word search and erase any email containing the words “yoga” “wedding” “Chelsea” or “Bill.” Can’t let those leak, far too embarrassing dontchaknow. Simple. Instead, she walked out of the interview. Mills could not plead the fifth, for she wasn’t testifying under oath. But she could walk out, for she was not under arrest or deposition.
We must now ask the obvious: why didn’t she answer that simple question? And: is it an improper question? And: Is it the fault of the FBI? And: is the FBI involved in some vast Bernie-wing conspiracy? And: is there some line of reasoning whereby we can dismiss this whole thing as a witch hunt? And: is there some line of reasoning to explain why Mills could not have just offered those four key words? And: does this refusal to answer suggest there were other keywords in the seek-and-destroy mission on the server? And: does not CoS Mills realize that by punting on that question, she has just implicated the hell out of Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan, Bryan Pagliano, Timmy Davis, Patrick Kennedy, Phil Reines, David Kendall, Sid Blumenthal and perhaps others? Does she think the FBI will not talk to them too? Then compare their stories?
I detect a strategy however. We have Mr. Gruber bragging that the voters are stupid, and that the government takes advantage of that (he’s right.) We have Ben Rhodes telling the NYT that the government shapes public opinion by doing Jedi mind tricks on child reporters by creating an echo chamber of phony experts (he’s right.) We have Jen Psaki telling us that it is OK for the government to lie or mislead the public (she’s wrong.)
So… the strategy for the Clinton syndicate was to write off the minority who understand the critical distinction between criminal court and the security world, and intentionally blur the distinction between the two. If they can pull that off, destroying the evidence even while under subpoena, is perfectly understandable. Governments have been doing that forever. But this time… they have been caught. This time, we caught them. Like the barking dog chasing cars, one day he catches one. Now what?
I am seeing all the same tired arguments now as a previous case. We are told that some investigations are improper, the questions should never have been asked. We see Trey Gowdy’s commission being Starred, criticized and treated as if the investigation itself is improper. We see the FBI being Starred, criticized, treated as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. After a while, it starts to look and feel like the events of 30 June to 2 July 1934 in Germany. Anyone who objected must be part of some vast conspiracy, ja? The victims’ fates justified?
Then… if this were not bad enough, both major party apparent nominees appear to be hardline warhawks and authoritarians. They are out and out totalitarians from my point of veiw. It is difficult to determine which one is worse (I still haven’t been able to figure it out.) We are left longing for the benign mental absence of that vacuous blank-stare guy whose name no one can ever remember (Linc somebody?) He was brain-dead, but that is preferable to actively malicious.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat