donald and mj

I am high ,,, watching an awesome old movie called "Escape from Alcatraz ",,,Yehaaaaaaaaa

Cruz is gone....... Donald will be the nominee........ Bernie will con't........ pulling Hillary further left........ leaving most of the Independents for political name......... He don't need all the woman vote he needs a bout 6 or 7 percent more of it........... Hillary best get her big girl pantsuit on.

What Donald political name has done is nothing short of remarkable......... like him or not........ he has done what all the so called experts said he had no chance in hell of doing.

Go Bernie, ,,,he beat Hillary in Indiana. Cool,,,political name will for sure kick her butt in The General

SmokinMom said:

I don't quite understand why people say political name can't win. He's the front runner, Cruz isn't even close to catching him. With all the supporters he has, of course he's capable of winning.

I wish Sanders was doing better.

Click to expand...

he has 50% of the republican vote. NOT NEAR enough. he says soo many wrong or uneducated thoughts. but voters are mad as hell. doesn't matter how dumb he looks or appears. voters are dumber. it does appear he will have the nomination. see next move by the base, elites who have alota power and hate him as much..

Grower13 said:

What Donald political name has done is nothing short of remarkable......... like him or not........ he has done what all the so called experts said he had no chance in hell of doing.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

Clint for president......

Hillary Clinton came into this election season with more advantages than any Democratic candidate in the last century.



Before even a single American had voted, Clinton had a 351-superdelegate lead. She had the best pre-election name recognition of any non-incumbent presidential candidate in a half-century. She had the implicit support of a popular incumbent president. She had not even a single half-serious primary competitor from within her own party. She had a massive, intimidating war-chest of funds as well as a near-infinitude of potential fundraising streams. She had the best-organized and best-funded super-PACs anyone has ever had. She had the gratitude of state Democratic parties across the country, having lined their coffers with funds both directly and indirectly for years. She had held the most high-profile president-like job (Secretary of State) for four years. She had a popular ex-president for a spouse.

Clinton had the support of nearly every Democratic-leaning organization in America. She had experience running for President and a team of presidential-campaign veterans at her beck and call. She had the Democratic National Committee in her back pocket, which ensured that she’d only have to attend as many Democratic debates as she chose. She had deep and longstanding support from within the media establishment. She had historical significance as the woman most likely to be the first-ever female President. She had eight years of White House experience and six years in the U.S. Senate. She had state election statutes that made it hard or impossible to either register or vote as an independent in most Democratic primaries.

Clinton had a primary schedule that put most of her strongest states first. She had the tacit agreement of media professionals nationwide that unpledged delegates could and would be reported in the exact same fashion as pledged delegates. She had as much time as she wanted to campaign, having no job at the time she announced other than voluntary non-profit work and for-profit speeches. She had the implicit assurance of CNN and MSNBC that she’d have a surrogate or supporter, and usually two or three, on every political panel they convened.

And she had a 60-point lead on her next-closest competitor.

It’s now April 18th, and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been statistically tied in every single national poll taken in the last month.

Bernie Sanders entered the 2016 primary election a superlatively old — and, to be honest, old-looking — Independent socialist Jew with a bevy of Old-World tics (like talking with his hands), no fashion sense whatsoever, unruly hair, no super-PACs, and no national name recognition. The Democratic Party felt no loyalty to him, at either the state or national level. He was at three percent in the polls. He was from one of the smallest states in the nation, one of the ones that few outside New England ever talk about or think about. He had no money. He had no friends in the media. He had surrogates, indeed a diverse cast of them, but somehow they never got invited onto major-media political panels. He had a “fringe-candidate” sign on his back that it seemed he would never get off. He had no way to force Clinton to do more than four or five debates, all of which would be held, per the decree of the Democratic National Convention, at the most inconvenient hours. He had a penchant for blunt talk that seemed certain to sink him in a political climate where every mental lapse quickly becomes a meme.

I’m sorry, but the truth is that less than a year ago Bernie Sanders had absolutely nothing, and Hillary Clinton was better positioned to win the Democratic nomination for President than any Democrat in the year before an election since Franklin D. Roosevelt. That we pretend that any measure in which Sanders comes up short — say, in his support among African-Americans — is somehow a fatal flaw in the man and not a sign that absolute nobodies don’t become household heroes in under six months is an insult to America’s collective intelligence.

So it’s time to get real.

And the sign that it’s well past time for somebody to just say what most of America already knows to be true is that today Philip Bump of The Washington Post wrote a scathing editorial complaining that Bernie Sanders says his average contribution is $27 when it’s in fact $27.89.

It’s official: We’ve been through the looking glass for far too long, America.

Enough.

Enough with a media so stuck in its own shirtsleeves that it can’t take the long view of anything anymore.

Clinton is a bad candidate and the whole country knows it.

Sanders would be killing it this election season if he hadn’t spent all his time and energy just trying to get a single surrogate on CNN or introducing himself for the very first time to a middle-class housewife or union plumber in Missouri.

My point is, you’re damn right Sanders supporters are angry.

And you’re damn right they think that Sanders — facing the longest odds it’s possible to imagine any politician in the contemporary era facing — can win.

Here’s why.

Despite all her pre-election and ongoing advantages, Hillary Clinton is nearly as disliked as Donald political name (-24 favorability/unfavorability rating), even as Sanders is, per the most recent polling, the most popular presidential candidate in either party (+9). She’s performed worse than Sanders — over and over and over again — against all of the remaining GOP candidates in head-to-head polling. In the battleground states that will decide the November election, Sanders consistently outperforms her against the Republican contenders. Already under federal investigation by more than 100 FBI agents for running a private, unsecured email server out of her basement — an investigation which will cripple her for the rest of the election season no matter where it goes — she’s now added to that a public refusal to release even a single transcript of the numerous $225,000/hour speeches she gave to the same Wall Street criminals who nearly sent the nation into another Great Depression just five years ago.

Clinton’s background is that of a moderate Goldwater Republican whose positions continue to be to the right of the Democratic base — and where they’re not, it’s only because she’s changed her positions over the past six months to curry favor with Democratic voters. Her judgment, throughout her professional life, has been poor — everywhere from Iraq to Libya, from her inexplicably off-grid email server to the speeches she gave for cash at a time she was expecting to run for president, from dodgy conflicts of interest relating to the Clinton Global Initiative to trying to become a carpet-bagging New York Senator before she’d even moved to the state. She did little in the Senate that anyone remembers — she certainly did nothing whatsoever about the housing crisis — and had a checkered record at the State Department. She’s not seen as honest or trustworthy by a majority of general-election voters, and she herself bears a substantial part of the responsibility for that state of affairs.

And that’s why she can’t win the nomination with the voters.

That’s why she’ll need to clinch the nomination using the “unpledged super-delegates” whose loyalty to her was purchased beforehand via private big-money fundraisers she attended.

Despite nearly a year of false delegate counts that included unpledged super-delegates as though they were pledged — thus scaring off Democratic challengers and, later, potential Sanders voters — and a news media that has given her surrogates a voice in the daily news cycle that Sanders’ people have never enjoyed, Clinton won’t be able to close the deal exclusively through an appeal to the people who matter most: voters.

She leads by 28 points among African-Americans in New York? It’s a miracle Sanders is performing even as well as he is, given the structural disadvantages he suffers relative to his opponent because of how we run elections in America.

She has a 2.4-million vote lead in the popular vote? That this is an eight-point race (54 percent to 46 percent) is an absolute indictment of Hillary Clinton as a candidate. Anyone with her advantages would be up on an old socialist Jew from Vermont with rumpled suits and unruly hair by fifty points right now.

Let’s stop kidding ourselves.

Hillary is holding on by a thread, because she’s a terrible candidate.

Sanders is only tied in the national polls, rather than way ahead — and 194 delegates down in the pledged-delegate race rather than 200 ahead — because we have a system that makes it a jaw-dropping Mystery of the Universe that he’s doing as well as he is.

In New York, Sanders faces a primary he almost certainly would win — and everyone knows it — if same-day party registration were permitted. And even without it, he’d win if he had two more weeks to campaign, as the polling in New York has gone from Clinton +48 to Clinton +22 to Clinton +13 to Clinton +6 in just the last three weeks.

So how can Sanders win?

He can win by being what he so obviously is when we strip away the ten-mile head start Hillary Clinton had in this election season: by being the better candidate.

In almost every state, Sanders performs better with voters the more they’re exposed to him, and Hillary worse the more voters are exposed to her.

Sanders’ performance with every demographic besides the very old is improving over time. Heck, Hillary is losing delegates even between the time people vote for her at a primary or caucus and the time they’re supposed to show up at county and state conventions — which Hillary supporters aren’t, in shockingly large numbers.

It’s a good thing Harry Reid didn’t stay neutral in Nevada as he’d promised, as the strings he pulled on Election Day in the Silver State ensured a narrow victory for Clinton — which predictably disappeared in the second stage of the voting, the county-convention stage.

It’s a good thing Arizona had reduced polling stations in its most populous county by 80 percent, given that on Election Day Sanders beat Clinton in live voting 50 percent to 46.5 percent. Thousands walked away from those six-hour lines without voting.

It’s a good thing ties in Massachusetts, Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa were put on CNN’s “Magic Wall” as every bit the overwhelming victories for Clinton as were the primary votes in Alabama and Mississippi. An honest media would’ve put those four — and, yes, Sanders’ win in Michigan — on the board as votes that more or less split down the middle, not just in the popular vote but in the delegate count. Our system disfavors insurgents by making a loss by one vote look like every bit the resounding defeat that a loss by a million votes is. The truth? With the advantages she had, those votes in Massachusetts, Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa were all losses for Clinton. No candidate with her advantages and worth her salt would’ve won those states by anything less than 10 percent. Get a political pundit in private and they’ll admit it to you.

The point: Clinton misused super-delegates from the jump by bringing them on-board before a single vote had been cast, by permitting the media to tally them as though they were pledged delegates, by allowing them to flaunt their states’ votes, and by frankly not caring one whit if they supported the popular-vote or delegate-count leader — as she was neither back in 2015 when they all agreed to vote for her in Philadelphia.

Now, despite her endless slate of electoral and media and circumstantial advantages, she’s going to fail to reach 2,383 delegates via pledged delegates alone.

And the only argument she can make to being the better candidate in fact is that her head start on Sanders was so extraordinary in its size and scope that all he could do was battle her to a virtual draw in the delegate battle in March (51 percent to 49 percent) and beat her so far in the delegate battle in April (55 percent to 45 percent). Indeed, her pre-election lead was so great that half the country’s Democrats still believe she’s more electable in the fall than Sanders, despite there being no statistical evidence to support the claim — and a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

So let’s be clear: In a world in which both candidates start on an even footing and receive equal treatment from the media, the current Clinton-Sanders race would be Sanders +15. And everybody in American politics knows it, including all of the unpledged super-delegates.

So when both Clinton and Sanders fail to clinch the nomination via pledged delegates alone, and both head to Philadelphia with an eye toward wooing the (still completely unpledged) super-delegates, Clinton will win if her advantages are treated as assets rather than signs that she should have been beating this old socialist Jew from Vermont with the rumpled suits and unruly hair by twenty or more points all along.

And Sanders will win if the Democrats pick the better candidate — which, given the harrowing dangers of a political name presidency, I damn well hope they do.

https://usaonlinetoday.com/seth-abramson-sanders-can-win-heres-why/

Here are five immediate repercussions to Ted Cruz dropping out of the Republican primary:

1. News coverage for the Democratic primary, and thus Bernie Sanders, will increase exponentially — immediately.

Without political name in the field, all of the focus on future election nights — nine states and several territories over the next 45 days — will be on Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

2. Sanders will pick up a huge number of what would otherwise be political name votes in states where voters are still able to register for upcoming Democratic primaries, or are able to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary due to being a registered independent.

Sanders’ vote share in nearly every upcoming primary and caucus just increased, though we don’t know by how much. In some instances, it could be a substantial bump, given that there’s no strategic reason to cast a vote for Donald political name anymore — now that the Republican National Committee has officially declared him the presumptive nominee and a John Kasich dropout is likely imminent.

3. Clinton will have to start spending a great deal of money to fight a two-front war against Donald political name, who’ll begin his ultra-negative primary campaign against Clinton immediately, and Bernie Sanders, who will avoid attacking Clinton directly but has nevertheless vowed to take the Democratic primary to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

This is the worst imaginable scenario for Clinton, as her negatives have always gone up when she’s in the midst of a campaign — and now she’s in the middle of two at once. With Clinton’s attention divided, her ability to respond to any Bernie Sanders surge in upcoming states will be limited.

4. Sanders now has a greatly increased chance of winning all of the remaining Democratic primaries and caucuses.

Sanders was already looking strong in Oregon, West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota, Kentucky, North Dakota, and California, but given that he’s within single digits in New Jersey (where political name is very popular) and performed incredibly well with nonwhite voters in Indiana (meaning New Mexico could be in play), it’s not unthinkable that Hillary Clinton could lose all of the remaining primaries and caucuses and therefore as many as thirteen or fourteen contests in a row to finish the Democratic primary season.

This would send Clinton to Philly a deeply wounded front-runner, even if she maintains a strong (but much diminished) delegate lead over Sanders. So there’s a chance that Clinton will go to Philly with a delegate lead but also having lost 22 or 23 of the final 30 contests in the Democratic primary.

If that happens, it’s tough to say how super-delegates will view a Clinton candidacy, especially now that the latest national polling (Rasmussen) already has her down by two points to political name.

5. The Democrats will have a contested convention, and the Republicans won’t.

Few saw this coming, but assuming Bernie Sanders maintains his pledge to contest the Democratic convention unless Clinton can get 2,383 pledged delegates by June 14th — which she can’t, barring a miracle — only one of the two major parties will go to their convention divided, and with (not for nothing) the sort of logistical hurdles that come with that. For instance, when does Clinton roll out a Vice Presidential candidate? Before a convention she knows will be contested? At a time when a few super-delegates might abandon her?

The larger question: do some quantity of super-delegates switch to Sanders if the possibilities explored in items #1 through #4 above — particularly with respect to the upcoming primaries and caucuses — come to pass?

All we know for sure is that Ted Cruz dropping out of the Republican race has changed the Democratic race almost as profoundly as the Republican one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-...ers-wins-big-with-cruz-dropout_b_9834348.html

Hamster Lewis said:

Here are five immediate repercussions to Ted Cruz dropping out of the Republican primary:

1. News coverage for the Democratic primary, and thus Bernie Sanders, will increase exponentially — immediately.

Without political name in the field, all of the focus on future election nights — nine states and several territories over the next 45 days — will be on Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

2. Sanders will pick up a huge number of what would otherwise be political name votes in states where voters are still able to register for upcoming Democratic primaries, or are able to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary due to being a registered independent.

Sanders’ vote share in nearly every upcoming primary and caucus just increased, though we don’t know by how much. In some instances, it could be a substantial bump, given that there’s no strategic reason to cast a vote for Donald political name anymore — now that the Republican National Committee has officially declared him the presumptive nominee and a John Kasich dropout is likely imminent.

3. Clinton will have to start spending a great deal of money to fight a two-front war against Donald political name, who’ll begin his ultra-negative primary campaign against Clinton immediately, and Bernie Sanders, who will avoid attacking Clinton directly but has nevertheless vowed to take the Democratic primary to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

This is the worst imaginable scenario for Clinton, as her negatives have always gone up when she’s in the midst of a campaign — and now she’s in the middle of two at once. With Clinton’s attention divided, her ability to respond to any Bernie Sanders surge in upcoming states will be limited.

4. Sanders now has a greatly increased chance of winning all of the remaining Democratic primaries and caucuses.

Sanders was already looking strong in Oregon, West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota, Kentucky, North Dakota, and California, but given that he’s within single digits in New Jersey (where political name is very popular) and performed incredibly well with nonwhite voters in Indiana (meaning New Mexico could be in play), it’s not unthinkable that Hillary Clinton could lose all of the remaining primaries and caucuses and therefore as many as thirteen or fourteen contests in a row to finish the Democratic primary season.

This would send Clinton to Philly a deeply wounded front-runner, even if she maintains a strong (but much diminished) delegate lead over Sanders. So there’s a chance that Clinton will go to Philly with a delegate lead but also having lost 22 or 23 of the final 30 contests in the Democratic primary.

If that happens, it’s tough to say how super-delegates will view a Clinton candidacy, especially now that the latest national polling (Rasmussen) already has her down by two points to political name.

5. The Democrats will have a contested convention, and the Republicans won’t.

Few saw this coming, but assuming Bernie Sanders maintains his pledge to contest the Democratic convention unless Clinton can get 2,383 pledged delegates by June 14th — which she can’t, barring a miracle — only one of the two major parties will go to their convention divided, and with (not for nothing) the sort of logistical hurdles that come with that. For instance, when does Clinton roll out a Vice Presidential candidate? Before a convention she knows will be contested? At a time when a few super-delegates might abandon her?

The larger question: do some quantity of super-delegates switch to Sanders if the possibilities explored in items #1 through #4 above — particularly with respect to the upcoming primaries and caucuses — come to pass?

All we know for sure is that Ted Cruz dropping out of the Republican race has changed the Democratic race almost as profoundly as the Republican one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-...ers-wins-big-with-cruz-dropout_b_9834348.html

Click to expand...

she still has a couple million vote lead over Bernie...... she has the super delegates....... she has the backing of the Democratic party......... Hillary has already moved to the general election......... the dems will make sure he doesn't get good press.......... his staying in Hurts Hillary........ which is good with me.

Bernie can't catch Hillary, ,the dems have Made sure of it. They have DONE to Bernie what they(the establishment ) wanted to do to Donald. Donald will beat Hillarys butt in the General.

Dang Hammy you can type,,,,,,lol.

My teenage son is running around saying "make America great again", in the deepest voice he can make. He might be a bigger supporter than you are Weedhopper, lol.

From what I've read, people are starting to warm up to political name. And with Cruz gone, it'll really start happening. I know republicans don't want another democrat in the White House.

Now would be a good time for Bernie to announce he's running for independent, then he'd stand a chance.

WOW! now thats a vent, ham. damn.. i love your passion and truly hope u are correct. damn... anyway got popcorn ready. love ur passion too weedhop. u have been right- so far.

Thank you Grasshopper. Honestly its not hard to figure. Ppl are sick and tired of the same old lying *** politicians doing nothing. My business has not been the same for several years. I need a Business man to fix business and stop ilegals from cutting Contractors throats because they have no License, ,,insurance,,or taxes to worry about. Ive been in Construction most my life and it has gotten worse and worse. Will he fix things,,i have no idea,,,but i know for Damn sure that lying *** Hillary wont do **** but line her pockets. Donalds pockets are already lined.
Anyway, ,, i bet ya he is our next President ..

Why don't the bring charges against Hilary if they found some criminal activity..are they going to wait til she is in office?

Bernie... Bernie...Bernie... I can't speak of the republican nominee.. I am in shock and I am not of this world if this world votes for political name...

Rosebud said:

Why don't the bring charges against Hilary if they found some criminal activity..are they going to wait til she is in office?

Bernie... Bernie...Bernie... I can't speak of the republican nominee.. I am in shock and I am not of this world if this world votes for political name...

Click to expand...

Romanian hacker Guccifer: I breached Clinton server, 'it was easy'

EXCLUSIVE: The infamous Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer,” speaking exclusively with Fox News, claimed he easily – and repeatedly – breached former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal email server in early 2013.
"For me, it was easy ... easy for me, for everybody," Marcel Lehel Lazar, who goes by the moniker "Guccifer," told Fox News from a Virginia jail where he is being held.
Guccifer’s potential role in the Clinton email investigation was first reported by Fox News last month. The hacker subsequently claimed he was able to access the server – and provided extensive details about how he did it and what he found – over the course of a half-hour jailhouse interview and a series of recorded phone calls with Fox News. Fox News could not independently confirm Lazar’s claims.
The former secretary of state’s server held nearly 2,200 emails containing information now deemed classified, and another 22 at the “Top Secret” level.
The 44-year-old Lazar said he first compromised Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal's AOL account, in March 2013, and used that as a stepping stone to the Clinton server. He said he accessed Clinton’s server “like twice,” though he described the contents as “not interest[ing]” to him at the time.
“I was not paying attention. For me, it was not like the Hillary Clinton server, it was like an email server she and others were using with political voting stuff," Guccifer said.

The hacker spoke freely with Fox News from the detention center in Alexandria, Va., where he’s been held since his extradition to the U.S. on federal charges relating to other alleged cyber-crimes. Wearing a green jumpsuit, Lazar was relaxed and polite in the monitored secure visitor center, separated by thick security glass.
In describing the process, Lazar said he did extensive research on the web and then guessed Blumenthal’s security question. Once inside Blumenthal's account, Lazar said he saw dozens of messages from the Clinton email address.
Asked if he was curious about the address, Lazar merely smiled. Asked if he used the same security question approach to access the Clinton emails, he said no – then described how he allegedly got inside.
“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 explained.
He said, “then I scanned with an IP scanner."
Lazar emphasized that he used readily available web programs to see if the server was “alive” and which ports were open. Lazar identified programs like netscan, Netmap, Wireshark and Angry IP, though it was not possible to confirm independently which, if any, he used.
In the process of mining data from the Blumenthal account, Lazar said he came across evidence that others were on the Clinton server.
"As far as I remember, yes, there were … up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world,” he said.
With no formal computer training, he did most of his hacking from a small Romanian village.
Lazar said he chose to use "proxy servers in Russia," describing them as the best, providing anonymity.
Cyber experts who spoke with Fox News said the process Lazar described is plausible.The federal indictment Lazar faces in the U.S. for cyber-crimes specifically alleges he used "a proxy server located in Russia" for the Blumenthal compromise.
Each Internet Protocol (IP) address has a unique numeric code, like a phone number or home address. The Democratic presidential front-runner’s home-brew private server was reportedly installed in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and used for all U.S. government business during her term as secretary of state.
Former State Department IT staffer Bryan Pagliano, who installed and maintained the server, has been granted immunity by the Department of Justice and is cooperating with the FBI in its ongoing criminal investigation into Clinton’s use of the private server. An intelligence source told Fox News last month that Lazar also could help the FBI make the case that Clinton’s email server may have been compromised by a third party.
Asked what he would say to those skeptical of his claims, Lazar cited “the evidence you can find in the Guccifer archives as far as I can remember."
Writing under his alias Guccifer, Lazar released to media outlets in March 2013 multiple exchanges between Blumenthal and Clinton. They were first reported by the Smoking Gun.
It was through the Blumenthal compromise that the Clintonemail.com accounts were first publicly revealed.
As recently as this week, Clinton said neither she nor her aides had been contacted by the FBI about the criminal investigation. Asked whether the server had been compromised by foreign hackers, she told MSNBC on Tuesday, “No, not at all.”
Recently extradited, Lazar faces trial Sept. 12 in the Eastern District of Virginia. He has pleaded not guilty to a nine-count federal indictment for his alleged hacking crimes in the U.S. Victims are not named in the indictment but reportedly include Colin Powell, a member of the Bush family and others including Blumenthal.
Lazar spoke extensively about Blumenthal’s account, noting his emails were “interesting” and had information about “the Middle East and what they were doing there.”
After first writing to the accused hacker on April 19, Fox News accepted two collect calls from him, over a seven-day period, before meeting with him in person at the jail. During these early phone calls, Lazar was more guarded.
After the detention center meeting, Fox News conducted additional interviews by phone and, with Lazar's permission, recorded them for broadcast.
While Lazar's claims cannot be independently verified, three computer security specialists, including two former senior intelligence officials, said the process described is plausible and the Clinton server, now in FBI custody, may have an electronic record that would confirm or disprove Guccifer’s claims.
"This sounds like the classic attack of the late 1990s. A smart individual who knows the tools and the technology and is looking for glaring weaknesses in Internet-connected devices," Bob Gourley, a former chief technology officer (CTO) for the Defense Intelligence Agency, said.
Gourley, who has worked in cybersecurity for more than two decades, said the programs cited to access the server can be dual purpose. "These programs are used by security professionals to make sure systems are configured appropriately. Hackers will look and see what the gaps are, and focus their energies on penetrating a system," he said.
Cybersecurity expert Morgan Wright observed, "The Blumenthal account gave [Lazar] a road map to get to the Clinton server. ... You get a foothold in one system. You get intelligence from that system, and then you start to move."
In March, the New York Times reported the Clinton server security logs showed no evidence of a breach. On whether the Clinton security logs would show a compromise, Wright made the comparison to a bank heist: "Let’s say only one camera was on in the bank. If you don‘t have them all on, or the right one in the right locations, you won’t see what you are looking for.”
Gourley said the logs may not tell the whole story and the hard drives, three years after the fact, may not have a lot of related data left. He also warned: "Unfortunately, in this community, a lot people make up stories and it's hard to tell what's really true until you get into the forensics information and get hard facts.”
For Lazar, a plea agreement where he cooperates in exchange for a reduced sentence would be advantageous. He told Fox News he has nothing to hide and wants to cooperate with the U.S. government, adding that he has hidden two gigabytes of data that is “too hot” and “it is a matter of national security.”
In early April, at the time of Lazar’s extradition from a Romanian prison where he already was serving a seven-year sentence for cyber-crimes, a former senior FBI official said the timing was striking.
“Because of the proximity to Sidney Blumenthal and the activity involving Hillary’s emails, [the timing] seems to be something beyond curious,” said Ron Hosko, former assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division from 2012-2014.
The FBI offered no statement to Fox News on the claims by Lazar.
There was no immediate response from the Clinton campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ifer-breached-clinton-server-it-was-easy.html

Who will they pick? Will it really matter?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boIN-GG0gks[/ame]

Politicians running for president are graded by Politfact and the order runs in the way you would expect it to if you find yourself annoyed when Donald political name is speaking. Donald political name, the Republican front-runner, is at the bottom of the list with a sad 9% of true or mostly true statements. Just 9% of the things Donald political name says are mostly related to the truth.

political name lies so much that in 2015, Politifact awarded him the Lie of the Year for numerous statements he made, because the team couldn’t pick the most egregious lie. Out of 77 statements checked, 76 of them were found to be mostly false to false to pants on fire lies.



What does it mean that the man who tells the most lies is the most popular with the Republican base? This is a question I would be asking myself if I were a Republican strategist. The answer is not simple, in spite of the escalating finger pointing on the right. But I would direct them toward their propensity for denial, lack of accountability, and refusal to take responsibility for their own policies.

I say this because it makes sense, but also, the rest of the list tells this story. Senator Ted Cruz, who is a con artist of the Sarah Palin variety but more educated and wily, gets a 24% rating for true or mostly true statements.

Now we will start to leave the land of conservative media bubbles and find reality.

In reality land, we have Governor John Kasich, the only Republican 2016 candidate who isn’t terrifying for his lack of sanity, and Kasich has a 51% rate for saying things that are true or mostly true. Kasich is a hardcore Republican (anti union, anti women) but he hasn’t left the planet. He is grounded in the reality of his ideology and he is sane. This distinguishes him from the rest of the Republican field and makes him the only viable alternative were a person to be voting Republican. But Republicans have nothing but contempt for Kasich. He doesn’t lie enough to appease the base.
Kasich is tied with Senator Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Socialist, who is a fierce advocate of a government that works for the people, who also scores 51% of true and mostly true statements. I point out his ideology because the right has been taught scary things about Sanders, yet here he is at the top of the truth pile. Something to think about.

At the top, with a 52% true or mostly true rating is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who also has a long record of fighting for the middle class and poor, working families, women and children.

Basically the top three are tied, with Clinton, Sanders and Kasich being the most honest in the 2016 field. These are the three grown ups in the race.

Republicans started off by not holding their own to the fire of accountability and those justifications and that sense of entitlement have been the only trickle down they’ve seen. Now they have a party full of voters who do not want to deal with reality, who feel entitled to have privileges over minorities, and who love to be lied to. Think of the aging wealthy man who believes the young girl is with him because he’s so hot. That’s the base level deception and emotional motivation driving the Republican party voters – they want someone who makes them feel good about themselves, who holds up a mirror that makes them hot, right and rich.

They love the lie because ideologies comfort the voter. Everyone wants to feel like they are right, righteous, and morally superior. The problem comes when people can’t accept reality because reality says they were not right. And instead of admitting that and adjusting course, they demand that everyone get blamed equally while still claiming they never made a mistake. (And the “fourth estate” not only allows this but plays dumb regarding basic facts in order to make this work.) This level of petulant avoidance of reality is what got the Republican party to the point where their base loves the biggest liar the best.

They don’t care that Donald political name lies; they love him because his lies soothe them. His lies appease them. His lies make them feel justified and righteous. His lies make them feel good about who they are. The voters are the children who do not want to be grown ups and the grown ups in the party have indulged them and fed them candy to keep from having to parent, and now they are stuck with a monster of a child.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/31/ninety-one-percent-donald-political name-false.html