Close but no cigar



Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said “I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren’t sitting back, paging through the emails.



The Guardian is convinced Trump was elected with Russian help….

Russian hackers were able to access thousands of emails from a top-ranking Democrat after an aide typed the word “legitimate” instead of “illegitimate” by mistake, an investigation by the New York Times has found.

The revelation gives further credence to the CIA’s finding last week that the Kremlin deliberately intervened in the US presidential election to help Donald Trump.

Kremlin hackers access to about 60,000 emails in Podesta’s private Gmail account. According to US intelligence officials, Moscow then gave the email cache to WikiLeaks. The website released them in October, and the email scandal dominated the news cycle and was exploited by Trump.

That conveniently ignores that the real scandal was broken by the New York Times in 2015…as the BBC admits….

Mrs Clinton’s email system became a national story the first week of March 2015, when the New York Times ran a front-page article on the subject. The article said that the system “may have violated federal requirements” and was “alarming” to current and former government archive officials.

Note in that BBC report there is no mention of Wikileaks and the Russians and the Podesta hack but for the Guardian, and paradoxically the BBC itself, as well as Obama, it was the Podesta emails that dominated the news cycle and influenced the outcome of the election.  OK…but wasn’t Clinton’s own email scandal the real issue, the one that Trump said he would see her in prison for?  That if  anything was the vote winner….there was huge scandal around Clinton’s emails before Podesta’s were released so late in the day.  Clinton ignored many, many warnings that her emails were vulnerable to hacking by foreign intelligence services. It is clear that the US government knew long ago that the Russians were possibly attempting to hack Clinton’s emails and yet only now does it become an issue.  Why?   The BBC constantly defends Obama’s lack of response by saying he accused the Russians on October 7 2016….but that was years after such claims were made public in the media…so why only now when Clinton loses does Obama suddenly turn on the Russians and expel their diplomats?

The BBC back in 2015 suggested that the email scandal could turn the result of the US election….but now it’s the Podesta hack?….

Make no mistake, Tuesday’s New York Times report on Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email account during her time as US secretary of state could turn into a major development in the 2016 presidential race.

The BBC has been helpfully conflating the two issues and implying that all Wikileak’s email releases, and indeed all the emails that are under discussion, come from the Podesta hack…

The stakes could scarcely be higher: a foreign state stands accused of mounting a campaign of hacking and leaking to help get its preferred candidate into the White House.

And whatever the final conclusions of the multiple investigations into the alleged Russian hacking operation, many of Clinton’s allies believe the steady trickle of embarrassing emails, drip-fed by Wikileaks through the last crucial weeks of the campaign, may have been enough to deny her the presidency.

And again…

The contents of those hacks, passed to Wikileaks and posted online, were embarrassing to the Democrats and shook up the presidential campaign.

By not differentiating clearly which emails came from which source and which are the ones that really felled Clinton the BBC is helping Obama’s narrative that the Podesta emails influenced the election for Trump when the years of revelations and scandals coming from the Benghazi investigation are the real downer for Clinton.

Obama chooses to ignore the inconvenient facts and the BBC happily colludes as it obligingly reports Obama’s claims that Russia hacked Democratic Party emails and thus hijacked the US election to the benefit of Donald Trump as fact.  But just how much fact is there in that sensational and highly political claim?  Look hard and you’ll barely find a mention of Wikileaks and Russians in the run up to the election…here’s Sky’s timeline for the email scandal…no  mention at all of Wikileaks and Russians….it is all about the US government’s own release of emails.

:: November, 2014: The House Select Committee investigating the 2012 attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, requests emails from Mrs Clinton. Some 300 emails from the private account are delivered to the committee.

:: December, 2014: Mrs Clinton’s office delivers about 55,000 pages – some 30,490 emails – to the State Department. Another 31,830 emails from her tenure are deemed private and not delivered.

What the Obama narrative ignores is Clinton herself and her unattractiveness as a candidate, her failed, lacklustre campaign, the failed government and policies of Obama and the fact that the email scandal did not originate from Wikileaks and not from the Russians…it came from within the US government itself and numerous FOI requests from news organisations and civil rights groups seeking their release…Clinton  herself stated she wanted the emails released…is she a Russian spy?….

I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.       

Not to mention the FBI’s own investigation….Is Comey also a Russian spy?  America seems to be rife with them at the highest level…,.

FBI director James Comey stunned the world when he announced the agency was investigating new e-mails sent or received by Mrs Clinton.

Note that this latest investigation was not due to any ‘leaked’ emails but due to a prior FBI investigation…so again no Russians…

The New York Times has reported the messages were discovered after the FBI seized four electronic devices belonging to Mrs Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner. 

They were taken during an investigation into illicit text messages between the former Congressman and a 15-year-old girl.

Emails released due to FOI request by Vice News just before the election….not Russians…

Today, at 3:30, State Dept w/release 1250 pgs of HRC emails recovered by FBI in response to lawsuit against FBI/State  


Wikileaks stated Clinton’s own emails came as result of its FOI requests …

From Wikileaks in 2016:

Hillary Clinton Email Archive

On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.

From Al Jazeera in March 2015:

Revealed: Clinton’s office was warned over private email use

The New York Times reported Monday night that Clinton used only private email accounts during her tenure — a move that prevented the National Archives and Records Administration from automatically archiving her correspondence for historical purposes when she left office. Instead, the newspaper reported, two months ago Clinton aides turned over some 55,000 pages of emails after they reviewed all the messages she sent and received during her four-year tenure.

The revelations have set off a firestorm for the potential 2016 presidential candidate among open-records advocates who question whether Clinton took this approach to circumvent the normal archiving process for a position of that level.

Issues of computer security have dogged public officials since the dawn of the Internet age. President Bill Clinton, for instance, saved his former CIA director, John Deutch, from prosecution by pardoning him for having classified materials on his laptops and relabeling them as unclassified.

From CBS News in September 2015:

Hackers linked to Russia tried to infiltrate Hillary Clinton’s emails

Hackers linked to Russia tried at least five times to pry into Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account while she was secretary of state, emails released Wednesday show.

The phishing attempts highlight the risk of Clinton’s unsecure email being pried open by foreign intelligence agencies.

During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department and other U.S. government agencies faced their own series of hacking attacks. U.S. counterterrorism officials have linked them to China and Russia. But the government has a large staff of information technology experts, whereas Clinton has yet to provide any information on who maintained her server and how well it was secured.

The emails released Wednesday also show a Clinton confidant urging her boss and others in June 2011 not to “telegraph” how often senior officials at the State Department relied on their private email accounts to do government business because it could inspire hackers to steal information.

The former first lady and New York senator had maintained that nothing was classified in her correspondence, but the intelligence community has identified messages containing “top secret” information.

Now, with Wednesday’s release, some 37 percent of Clinton’s work-related emails have been made public. The State Department has been releasing the emails at the end of every month, and it plans to finish publishing the emails in January, in accordance with a federal judge’s order.


From Wired April 2015:

For a secretary of state, running your own email server might be a clever—if controversial—way to keep your conversations hidden from journalists and their pesky Freedom of Information Act requests. But ask a few security experts, and the consensus is that it’s not a very smart way to keep those conversations hidden from hackers.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Close but no cigar

  1. RJ says:

    “The New York Times has reported the messages were discovered after the FBI seized four electronic devices belonging to Mrs Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner.

    They were taken during an investigation into illicit text messages between the former Congressman and a 15-year-old girl.”

    Have I got this straight?

    1) Clinton released 30,000 work e-mails from her private server, that the FBI spent a year looking at before deciding that there was no case for her to answer.
    2) The Russians hacked Clinton’s private servers where she’d hidden all the other e-mails that she wanted to be able to deny existed.
    3) The Russians down loaded all the e-mails that she thought had been deleted.
    4) The Russians copied all these deleted e-mail onto Abedin’s computer.
    5) The Russians framed Weiner for corrupting a minor so that the NYPD would find the e-mails and call in the FBI.
    6) Comey called off the FBI investigation into hundreds of thousands of e-mails a week later when he found his own suicide note among Clinton’s e-mails.
    7) It’s all Trump’s fault.

    Now it makes sense.


    • All Lives Matter says:

      Just another example of liberal narcissism, and what happens when you convince yourself that you’re an oppressed victim and thus are never accountable for your own errors and bad actions. It’s always someone else at fault.


  2. Owen Morgan says:

    “OK…but wasn’t Clinton’s own email scandal the real issue, the one that Trump said he would see her in prison for? That if anything was the vote winner….there was huge scandal around Clinton’s emails before Podesta’s were released so late in the day.”

    No! I agree with just about all of your article, but you are wrong to assume any aspect of the three separate e-mail scandals had any effect on the election. Until the result headed sharply south for Hillary Clinton, the last thing the MSM in America wanted to do was draw any attention to the e-mail scandals, least of all the most serious one, implicating Hillary Clinton in an incredible exposure of national (and international) security.

    Recall when Bernie Sanders said he was fed up with hearing about Clinton’s e-mails. The DNC could breathe a collective sigh of relief. Clinton’s only challenger on the Democratic side wasn’t going to attack any of her Achilles’ heels, which meant that the MSM had no need to explain things they had resolutely avoided explaining for months. It does seem odd that one party in a national election can rule out discussion of issues embarrassing to itself, but that is, for practical purposes, how the American media (and the Beebyanka and the Telegraph and the people who provided the very feeble US coverage in the the Spectator) behaved; if Sanders was too clueless to show some curiosity, there was no way that Trump, Cruz, or Rubio would be given the opportunity to re-open the file.

    Similarly, although Democrats were once praising the incorruptibility of James Comey, Director of the FBI, they changed their minds pretty quickly, when Hillary’s e-mail question re-surfaced. Even then, the Clintonistas thought the Oval Office was already theirs. Only after the results came in did Comey get accused of skewing the result. The fact was that Comey’s late, half-hearted announcement probably went quite unnoticed by people who expect to get news via CNN, ABC, MSNBC et cetera.

    Hillary’s scandal should have been monumental, but, thanks to media bias, it wasn’t. What can you expect, when, with a straight face, somebody on MSNBC can come out with this…?


  3. TrueToo says:

    Owen Morgan, I agree. The US media, with the exception of Fox News and a handful of others, did everything it possibly could to minimise or simply ignore negative news re Clinton while digging obsessively for anything they could use against Trump. Lefty US media hacks, blinded by their ideology, disgraced their profession in identical fashion to the BBC.

    Apparently Bill Clinton was in debt when he left the White House but now the Clintons are worth hundreds of millions of dollars through collecting bribes from foreign governments for favours. And those governments include enemies of America.

    The Clintons, along with Obama, deliberately weakened America and empowered its enemies. The Clintons did it out of greed and Obama out of a deep and enduring hatred of white Christian America. They cunningly concealed their treachery by pretending to be ideologically pure and noble. In a rougher but more honest time they would have been put up against a wall and shot for treason.


  4. Mice Height says:

    So, the Russians won the election for Trump, but Obama claims he’d have won it had he run for a third term.
    How does that work??

    I thought it had been established that Podesta’s e mails were accessible after he replied to a spam/phishing e mail.
    I guess that $5,000,000 he’d won on the Nigerian lottery was just too much to resist.


  5. Amounderness Lad says:

    How many times has the bBBC been up in arms over the US trying to have a perfectly ordinary British citizen, with no connection whatsoever to any security services anywhere in the world, extradited for having hacked into highly secure US Defence and Government computer systems.

    Those incidents, and there are probably numerous more that we never hear about, have doubtless been carried out using home computer systems and laptops much like the ones almost all of us are using.

    Now we are meant to believe that it needs the whole of Russian Secret Services computer expertise to hack a private email account of the kind, once again, most of the people frequenting this site use and doubtless with the same amount of security, if any.

    The Clinton emails were not gleaned from a highly secure official US Government Server, which is what the Democrats, and their mouthpieces at the bBBC, would like us to believe but from a very insecure private email account which even a most inexperience would be hacker would be ashamed to fail accessing.

    As this article points out, if there is anything of a kind which would damage Clinton’s political ambitions contained in those emails then that is down completely to Clinton’s own stupidity and total lack of care when it comes to matters of security.

    The whole propaganda exercise is a bit like keeping thousands of pounds under your mattress and then, when it’s been stolen, trying to convince everybody that the loss was all because a gang of professional bank robbers got round the banks security system to distract people from the fact the theft was carried out because you left your doors unlocked and a petty thief wandered in and made off with the lot.

    But when did the bBBC let the simple truth get in the way of their own pro-left propaganda bias?


  6. deegee says:

    The Clinton/Podesta email scandals were just one reason, of many, for Hilary Clinton’s election loss. Other huge ones were that she was an unattractive candidate facing a ‘larger than life’ celebrity (something BTW that could not be said about either Bill or Obama); that she ignored or disparaged the white, working class and middle America in her campaign; that she based her campaign on personal attacks on Donald Trump which only focused on her weaknesses rather than her strengths; that this was the year being a supreme political insider was a handicap rather than an advantage and that this was a vote against Obama and any Democrat would have suffered.

    The bottom line on the email/server scandal. There are only three explanations. It was criminal; it was incompetence or it was irresponsible. None of them reflect well on the woman looking to take the American nation’s top job.


  7. TrueToo says:


    It was criminal; it was incompetence or it was irresponsible.

    It was all three. Besides being an arrogant narcissist and a pathological liar, Clinton is also an incompetent and irresponsible criminal.

    It was a close call. America could have been saddled with the dreadful witch for four or even eight years. I shudder at the thought.