No Russian Collusion? What now?

[Rigby5]

FYI
Clinton's private server was hacked by Russian operatives the night Candidate Trump made his "Russia, if you are listening...." comment, and there is PROOF, it is in the Mueller indictment of the Russian intelligence operatives.

Okay, let's see the proof please.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

This is the DNC hack, it is NOT the Clinton's personal email servers.
The DNC hack happened much sooner, around June or July of 2016.
Trump did not wonder about if the Russians could find the emails the Clintons deleted off their server until after that, Sept. I believe.

No one questions that the DNC servers were hacked.
Everyone disputes that the private email servers of the Clinton's were ever hacked.

You do realize that if the private Clinton servers were to have been hacked, that would make Hillary criminally responsible for using an insecure private server instead of the secure State Dept. one?

You should try harder to keep up on these details, or at least ask about them.

 

[Rigby5]

These is nothing in the list that is remotely like emails.
Emails cost nothing to copy, so there is nothing like a service at all involved.

LOLOL

Revealing a candidate’s personal hacked email is of value to their opposition. That’s self evident as Trump wouldn’t have solicited Russia to hack her unless it was worth something to him.

You don't get it.
Whether or not something is of value to someone is irrelevant.
The ONLY basis for campaign finance laws is that you can try to assure that no one uses secret money to buy up a monopoly on the media.
And PERSONAL value can't do that.
Lots of things have personal value.
But the campaign finance laws can't touch that unless it can be turned into control over the media.

And in fact, there is no evidence Hillary EVER got hacked at all.
It was the DNC that got hacked, but that was BEFORE Trump suggested the Russians look for Hillary's missing emails.
So you don't seem to know at all what is even being discussed?

FYI
Clinton's private server was hacked by Russian operatives the night Candidate Trump made his "Russia, if you are listening...." comment, and there is PROOF, it is in the Mueller indictment of the Russian intelligence operatives.

That is totally and completely wrong.
The Clintons contend their servers were NEVER hacked.
There is no evidence they ever were.

It was the DNC servers that were hacked, which is way easier.
And that was BEFORE Trump said anything about hacking email servers.

There can be no proof in the Mueller investigation because the Mueller investigation never touched on the Clinton servers.
Since they are private, the Mueller investigation could never even look at them.

Digital copies of the hard drives were provided to the FBI.

Yes, but those copies were missing over 30,000 emails, and were what Trump was suggesting the Russians might be able to find.
And digital copies are useless.
In order to find evidence of any hacking or illegal correspondence, you need the originals.
When things are deleted, they are not wiped off the drive.
They are just marked as being able for future writes to be able to write over.
They are still there.
But when you make a copy, you don't copy the parts that are marked as deleted.
So you won't get anything that someone wanted to hide.
You need the originals in order to find what someone tried to hide.
That is true whether it was evidence of hackers or of illegal actions by the Clintons.

 

[Faun]

LOLOLOLOL

Quick, call David Kernell and tell him he was wrongfully incarnated for ”unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.” Oh, and you’re wrong again. He was not convicted of stealing Palin’s identity. Had you actually bothered to read or understand the link I posted, you would have seen...

U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Phillips declared a mistrial on another charge, felony identity theft, after the jurors said they were hopelessly deadlocked.​

Basically, you’re just making up everything you’re posting at this point. And almost none of it’s true.

And I was kidding about calling up Mr. Kernell. You’d need a Ouija Board as he’s dead.

You are not making sense.
I never said he was convicted of anything, just charged with stealing Palin's identity.
And if you notice, it said ”unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.”
That implies it was a secured government computer, with additional layers of protections and warnings.
That is not the same as hacking Hillary's private email server or the DNC email server.
To make your case, you would have to prove a whole lot more details as to what he actually did.
People hack email all the time, whether from Nigeria or Russia, and no one gets convicted over copying email.
That simply is not a crime.
Nor could anyone prove they did not get it as it passed through some server on the way through the chain of servers.

You’re still making shit up.

”That implies it was a secured government computer, with additional layers of protections and warnings.”

That implies no such thing; and in fact, it was Palin’s Yahoo! account which was hacked, not a “secure government computer.” And the hacker was convicted of hacking into her email account, so yes, it most certainly is a crime, despite your lies. Compared to Hillary, who did use her own personal email server.

Nonsense, you proved nothing of the kind.
Clearly the felony charges were things, like destruction of information.
The fact he reposted things also violated privacy laws.

LOLOL

The guy went to jail for hacking into her email; yet here you are, still denying it’s s crime.

Meanwhile, at the same time, nearly everything you’ve posted has been wrong.

No, if you read the charges, he destroyed emails. He committed identity theft to get passwords fraudulently. He was charged for doing damage, destroying information, and violating privacy by publishing them, not for just reading emails.

LOL

You keep going on about the charges while you ignore the convictions. Which of the two do you believe actually speak to whether or not a crime was committed? Indictments or convictions?

He wasn’t convicted of identity theft or wire fraud.

He was convicted on obstruction of justice and of “unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)

18 U.S. Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever—
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(c) information from any protected computer;​

 

[Faun]

FYI
Clinton's private server was hacked by Russian operatives the night Candidate Trump made his "Russia, if you are listening...." comment, and there is PROOF, it is in the Mueller indictment of the Russian intelligence operatives.

Okay, let's see the proof please.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

This is the DNC hack, it is NOT the Clinton's personal email servers.
The DNC hack happened much sooner, around June or July of 2016.
Trump did not wonder about if the Russians could find the emails the Clintons deleted off their server until after that, Sept. I believe.

No one questions that the DNC servers were hacked.
Everyone disputes that the private email servers of the Clinton's were ever hacked.

You do realize that if the private Clinton servers were to have been hacked, that would make Hillary criminally responsible for using an insecure private server instead of the secure State Dept. one?

You should try harder to keep up on these details, or at least ask about them.

Yes, Trump, like many Americans, was aware the DNC was hacked by Russians. Atmed with the knowledge that Russia was capable of hacking email accounts, he solicited them to go after Hillary’s deleted emails.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Revealing a candidate’s personal hacked email is of value to their opposition. That’s self evident as Trump wouldn’t have solicited Russia to hack her unless it was worth something to him.

You don't get it.
Whether or not something is of value to someone is irrelevant.
The ONLY basis for campaign finance laws is that you can try to assure that no one uses secret money to buy up a monopoly on the media.
And PERSONAL value can't do that.
Lots of things have personal value.
But the campaign finance laws can't touch that unless it can be turned into control over the media.

And in fact, there is no evidence Hillary EVER got hacked at all.
It was the DNC that got hacked, but that was BEFORE Trump suggested the Russians look for Hillary's missing emails.
So you don't seem to know at all what is even being discussed?

FYI
Clinton's private server was hacked by Russian operatives the night Candidate Trump made his "Russia, if you are listening...." comment, and there is PROOF, it is in the Mueller indictment of the Russian intelligence operatives.

That is totally and completely wrong.
The Clintons contend their servers were NEVER hacked.
There is no evidence they ever were.

It was the DNC servers that were hacked, which is way easier.
And that was BEFORE Trump said anything about hacking email servers.

There can be no proof in the Mueller investigation because the Mueller investigation never touched on the Clinton servers.
Since they are private, the Mueller investigation could never even look at them.

Digital copies of the hard drives were provided to the FBI.

Yes, but those copies were missing over 30,000 emails, and were what Trump was suggesting the Russians might be able to find.
And digital copies are useless.
In order to find evidence of any hacking or illegal correspondence, you need the originals.
When things are deleted, they are not wiped off the drive.
They are just marked as being able for future writes to be able to write over.
They are still there.
But when you make a copy, you don't copy the parts that are marked as deleted.
So you won't get anything that someone wanted to hide.
You need the originals in order to find what someone tried to hide.
That is true whether it was evidence of hackers or of illegal actions by the Clintons.

You’re thoroughly confused.

The hard drive copies were taken from the DNC’s servers. The 33,000 deleted emails were on Hillary’s servers. The two had nothing to do with each other.

“And digital copies are useless.
In order to find evidence of any hacking or illegal correspondence, you need the originals. When things are deleted, they are not wiped off the drive. They are just marked as being able for future writes to be able to write over. They are still there. But when you make a copy, you don't copy the parts that are marked as deleted.”

Too fucking stupid. <smh>

They didn’t create the copies with Windows Explorer, dragging files from one location to another — they did a byte-for-byte copy which duplicates every byte from the source drive onto a destination drive. that includes data from files marked for deletion as well as actually deleted files (except for such data that is overwritten).

The copy contains everything that can be found on the source drive. Which is why the FBI said this was an “appropriate substitute.”

 

[Hale]

Yes, Trump, like many Americans, was aware the DNC was hacked by Russians. Atmed with the knowledge that Russia was capable of hacking email accounts, he solicited them to go after Hillary’s deleted emails.

Answer truthfully please, do you really believe what you just wrote? Are you claiming omniscient power to determine exactly what happened here, due process and proof be damned?

No, I don't expect you to answer, I'm just pointing out the silliness of your statement in hopes that others, less affected, might take notice.

 

[Faun]

Yes, Trump, like many Americans, was aware the DNC was hacked by Russians. Atmed with the knowledge that Russia was capable of hacking email accounts, he solicited them to go after Hillary’s deleted emails.

Answer truthfully please, do you really believe what you just wrote? Are you claiming omniscient power to determine exactly what happened here, due process and proof be damned?

No, I don't expect you to answer, I'm just pointing out the silliness of your statement in hopes that others, less affected, might take notice.

Sure, I’ll answer. I admit when I’m wrong....

I misspelled “armed.”

 

[jc456]

Now that Cohen has been revealed as a total nothing-burger, what shall we do next?

Should we pretend Cohen never happened and continue the collusion narrative, promising an impending Mueller "bombshell"? Or shall we take a different, wiser tangent? One thing is certain, Trump is GUILTY and UNFIT, and something must be done. Even a Republican like me knows that!

So in a true bipartisan spirit, I've compiled some possibilities that should be considered. I've run these through the same computer used to predict global warming, so the actual probabilities are included. They're 100% accurate, you can trust me:

• Trump is an alien from the planet Flaflooga, sent to take over the Earth with his mind-ray: 87%
• Trump is literally Hitler, thawed from cryogenic suspension and here to establish the New Reich: 92%
• A Genuine Birth Certificate will be found proving that Trump is a Russian national (how ironic!): 41%
• Cancelled checks from Trump to Putin with the memo "Thanks for the boost" will surface: 78%
• Trump and Pence will both get "an offer they can't refuse" from Kim: 18%
• Pelosi and Schumer will prove that Trump is actually their 17 year old love child: 29%
• AOC will tweet a clapback so stunning that Trump will resign in shame: 65%

As you can see, there is at least a 410% chance that Trump should not be President. I'm sure there are more possibilities, but the computer overheated. This should take us well past 2020.

You're welcome, Democrats!

I guess those other million pages they are pouring over are clean as well. So far, anyone that has been with trump since 2012 has been arrested and either has been tried and convicted or awaiting trial. There are a few that Mueller hasn't approached yet but he will. The best thing for Trump and the good of the Nation is for Trump to do a Nixon. For you idjit cupcake rightwingfruitcakes, Nixon was impeached but the didn't have the votes in the senate to convict him. Plus, the charges, if brought today, would not have stood up legally. But, like Trump, Nixon was loosing it and on one special day, resigned.

when will mueller approach them since you know what he's doing?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Now that Cohen has been revealed as a total nothing-burger, what shall we do next?

Should we pretend Cohen never happened and continue the collusion narrative, promising an impending Mueller "bombshell"? Or shall we take a different, wiser tangent? One thing is certain, Trump is GUILTY and UNFIT, and something must be done. Even a Republican like me knows that!

So in a true bipartisan spirit, I've compiled some possibilities that should be considered. I've run these through the same computer used to predict global warming, so the actual probabilities are included. They're 100% accurate, you can trust me:

• Trump is an alien from the planet Flaflooga, sent to take over the Earth with his mind-ray: 87%
• Trump is literally Hitler, thawed from cryogenic suspension and here to establish the New Reich: 92%
• A Genuine Birth Certificate will be found proving that Trump is a Russian national (how ironic!): 41%
• Cancelled checks from Trump to Putin with the memo "Thanks for the boost" will surface: 78%
• Trump and Pence will both get "an offer they can't refuse" from Kim: 18%
• Pelosi and Schumer will prove that Trump is actually their 17 year old love child: 29%
• AOC will tweet a clapback so stunning that Trump will resign in shame: 65%

As you can see, there is at least a 410% chance that Trump should not be President. I'm sure there are more possibilities, but the computer overheated. This should take us well past 2020.

You're welcome, Democrats!

I guess those other million pages they are pouring over are clean as well. So far, anyone that has been with trump since 2012 has been arrested and either has been tried and convicted or awaiting trial. There are a few that Mueller hasn't approached yet but he will. The best thing for Trump and the good of the Nation is for Trump to do a Nixon. For you idjit cupcake rightwingfruitcakes, Nixon was impeached but the didn't have the votes in the senate to convict him. Plus, the charges, if brought today, would not have stood up legally. But, like Trump, Nixon was loosing it and on one special day, resigned.

when will mueller approach them since you know what he's doing?

When he tells us.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet this is precisely what you are doing;

Correct. Let me rephrase:

On or about the day Trump asked Russia to find Hillary's misisng emails, they attempted to hack her personal account.

Feel better?

 

[Rigby5]

You are not making sense.
I never said he was convicted of anything, just charged with stealing Palin's identity.
And if you notice, it said ”unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.”
That implies it was a secured government computer, with additional layers of protections and warnings.
That is not the same as hacking Hillary's private email server or the DNC email server.
To make your case, you would have to prove a whole lot more details as to what he actually did.
People hack email all the time, whether from Nigeria or Russia, and no one gets convicted over copying email.
That simply is not a crime.
Nor could anyone prove they did not get it as it passed through some server on the way through the chain of servers.

You’re still making shit up.

”That implies it was a secured government computer, with additional layers of protections and warnings.”

That implies no such thing; and in fact, it was Palin’s Yahoo! account which was hacked, not a “secure government computer.” And the hacker was convicted of hacking into her email account, so yes, it most certainly is a crime, despite your lies. Compared to Hillary, who did use her own personal email server.

Nonsense, you proved nothing of the kind.
Clearly the felony charges were things, like destruction of information.
The fact he reposted things also violated privacy laws.

LOLOL

The guy went to jail for hacking into her email; yet here you are, still denying it’s s crime.

Meanwhile, at the same time, nearly everything you’ve posted has been wrong.

No, if you read the charges, he destroyed emails. He committed identity theft to get passwords fraudulently. He was charged for doing damage, destroying information, and violating privacy by publishing them, not for just reading emails.

LOL

You keep going on about the charges while you ignore the convictions. Which of the two do you believe actually speak to whether or not a crime was committed? Indictments or convictions?

He wasn’t convicted of identity theft or wire fraud.

He was convicted on obstruction of justice and of “unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)

18 U.S. Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever—
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(c) information from any protected computer;​

A public email system is NOT private, and everyone has authorization to access all email because it is all public if it goes through the public internet.

In contrast, the State Department uses private servers that are off the internet, and you need to use something like VpN or other secure and private means of access to your console machine.

The courts have ruled that email on public servers is not private.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A public email system is NOT private, and everyone has authorization to access all email because it is all public if it goes through the public internet.

100% wrong. Completely madeup nonsense.

 

[Rigby5]

You don't get it.
Whether or not something is of value to someone is irrelevant.
The ONLY basis for campaign finance laws is that you can try to assure that no one uses secret money to buy up a monopoly on the media.
And PERSONAL value can't do that.
Lots of things have personal value.
But the campaign finance laws can't touch that unless it can be turned into control over the media.

And in fact, there is no evidence Hillary EVER got hacked at all.
It was the DNC that got hacked, but that was BEFORE Trump suggested the Russians look for Hillary's missing emails.
So you don't seem to know at all what is even being discussed?

FYI
Clinton's private server was hacked by Russian operatives the night Candidate Trump made his "Russia, if you are listening...." comment, and there is PROOF, it is in the Mueller indictment of the Russian intelligence operatives.

That is totally and completely wrong.
The Clintons contend their servers were NEVER hacked.
There is no evidence they ever were.

It was the DNC servers that were hacked, which is way easier.
And that was BEFORE Trump said anything about hacking email servers.

There can be no proof in the Mueller investigation because the Mueller investigation never touched on the Clinton servers.
Since they are private, the Mueller investigation could never even look at them.

Digital copies of the hard drives were provided to the FBI.

Yes, but those copies were missing over 30,000 emails, and were what Trump was suggesting the Russians might be able to find.
And digital copies are useless.
In order to find evidence of any hacking or illegal correspondence, you need the originals.
When things are deleted, they are not wiped off the drive.
They are just marked as being able for future writes to be able to write over.
They are still there.
But when you make a copy, you don't copy the parts that are marked as deleted.
So you won't get anything that someone wanted to hide.
You need the originals in order to find what someone tried to hide.
That is true whether it was evidence of hackers or of illegal actions by the Clintons.

You’re thoroughly confused.

The hard drive copies were taken from the DNC’s servers. The 33,000 deleted emails were on Hillary’s servers. The two had nothing to do with each other.

“And digital copies are useless.
In order to find evidence of any hacking or illegal correspondence, you need the originals. When things are deleted, they are not wiped off the drive. They are just marked as being able for future writes to be able to write over. They are still there. But when you make a copy, you don't copy the parts that are marked as deleted.”

Too fucking stupid. <smh>

They didn’t create the copies with Windows Explorer, dragging files from one location to another — they did a byte-for-byte copy which duplicates every byte from the source drive onto a destination drive. that includes data from files marked for deletion as well as actually deleted files (except for such data that is overwritten).

The copy contains everything that can be found on the source drive. Which is why the FBI said this was an “appropriate substitute.”

I am not confused at all.
It was someone else who claimed Hillary's email server was hacked and I was the one trying to point out that was the DNC that was hacked, not Hillary.

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense. You will be copying the file table as well as just raw data, so then will have extreme difficulty trying to even find files, much less read them.
But the point is it would be easy for people to avoid anything they wanted to delete when doing the copying.

If anyone at the FBI knew what was appropriate, they would be working for a computer company and not the FBI.

 

[Faun]

You’re still making shit up.

”That implies it was a secured government computer, with additional layers of protections and warnings.”

That implies no such thing; and in fact, it was Palin’s Yahoo! account which was hacked, not a “secure government computer.” And the hacker was convicted of hacking into her email account, so yes, it most certainly is a crime, despite your lies. Compared to Hillary, who did use her own personal email server.

Nonsense, you proved nothing of the kind.
Clearly the felony charges were things, like destruction of information.
The fact he reposted things also violated privacy laws.

LOLOL

The guy went to jail for hacking into her email; yet here you are, still denying it’s s crime.

Meanwhile, at the same time, nearly everything you’ve posted has been wrong.

No, if you read the charges, he destroyed emails. He committed identity theft to get passwords fraudulently. He was charged for doing damage, destroying information, and violating privacy by publishing them, not for just reading emails.

LOL

You keep going on about the charges while you ignore the convictions. Which of the two do you believe actually speak to whether or not a crime was committed? Indictments or convictions?

He wasn’t convicted of identity theft or wire fraud.

He was convicted on obstruction of justice and of “unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)

18 U.S. Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever—
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(c) information from any protected computer;​

A public email system is NOT private, and everyone has authorization to access all email because it is all public if it goes through the public internet.

In contrast, the State Department uses private servers that are off the internet, and you need to use something like VpN or other secure and private means of access to your console machine.

The courts have ruled that email on public servers is not private.

LOLOL

I showed you the very law which convicted a man for hacking someone’s email account on Yahoo! and here you are, still trying to deny it’s a crime.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense.

Oh look, we have us a cyber forensics expert, here!

Just so we are all clear on this line of bullshit from you:

You claim to know more about this than the government forensic scientists who have dedicated their lives to this field.

Do I have that right?

 

[Faun]

FYI
Clinton's private server was hacked by Russian operatives the night Candidate Trump made his "Russia, if you are listening...." comment, and there is PROOF, it is in the Mueller indictment of the Russian intelligence operatives.

That is totally and completely wrong.
The Clintons contend their servers were NEVER hacked.
There is no evidence they ever were.

It was the DNC servers that were hacked, which is way easier.
And that was BEFORE Trump said anything about hacking email servers.

There can be no proof in the Mueller investigation because the Mueller investigation never touched on the Clinton servers.
Since they are private, the Mueller investigation could never even look at them.

Digital copies of the hard drives were provided to the FBI.

Yes, but those copies were missing over 30,000 emails, and were what Trump was suggesting the Russians might be able to find.
And digital copies are useless.
In order to find evidence of any hacking or illegal correspondence, you need the originals.
When things are deleted, they are not wiped off the drive.
They are just marked as being able for future writes to be able to write over.
They are still there.
But when you make a copy, you don't copy the parts that are marked as deleted.
So you won't get anything that someone wanted to hide.
You need the originals in order to find what someone tried to hide.
That is true whether it was evidence of hackers or of illegal actions by the Clintons.

You’re thoroughly confused.

The hard drive copies were taken from the DNC’s servers. The 33,000 deleted emails were on Hillary’s servers. The two had nothing to do with each other.

“And digital copies are useless.
In order to find evidence of any hacking or illegal correspondence, you need the originals. When things are deleted, they are not wiped off the drive. They are just marked as being able for future writes to be able to write over. They are still there. But when you make a copy, you don't copy the parts that are marked as deleted.”

Too fucking stupid. <smh>

They didn’t create the copies with Windows Explorer, dragging files from one location to another — they did a byte-for-byte copy which duplicates every byte from the source drive onto a destination drive. that includes data from files marked for deletion as well as actually deleted files (except for such data that is overwritten).

The copy contains everything that can be found on the source drive. Which is why the FBI said this was an “appropriate substitute.”

I am not confused at all.
It was someone else who claimed Hillary's email server was hacked and I was the one trying to point out that was the DNC that was hacked, not Hillary.

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense. You will be copying the file table as well as just raw data, so then will have extreme difficulty trying to even find files, much less read them.
But the point is it would be easy for people to avoid anything they wanted to delete when doing the copying.

If anyone at the FBI knew what was appropriate, they would be working for a computer company and not the FBI.

I said, ”Digital copies of the hard drives were provided to the FBI,” clearly speaking of the DNC’s servers, which had nothing at all to do with Hillary’s servers; to which you replied... ”yes, but those copies were missing over 30,000 emails, and were what Trump was suggesting the Russians might be able to find.”

Yes, you are completely confused as “those copies” were not “missing over 30,000 email.” Again, those were copies of the DNC servers; while the 33,000 missing email were deleted from Hillary’s servers, not the DNC’s.

As far as your knowledge on hard drives, it really wasn’t necessary for you to exhibit sheer ignorance on the technology. You did get the size correct though, I’ll give you that. The destination drive must have at least as much storage capacity as the source drive, and ideally in this case, would be the same size, but that’s all you got right. And I expect a professional company as CrowdStrike, who are in that industry, know enough to know that.

 

[Rigby5]

Nonsense, you proved nothing of the kind.
Clearly the felony charges were things, like destruction of information.
The fact he reposted things also violated privacy laws.

LOLOL

The guy went to jail for hacking into her email; yet here you are, still denying it’s s crime.

Meanwhile, at the same time, nearly everything you’ve posted has been wrong.

No, if you read the charges, he destroyed emails. He committed identity theft to get passwords fraudulently. He was charged for doing damage, destroying information, and violating privacy by publishing them, not for just reading emails.

LOL

You keep going on about the charges while you ignore the convictions. Which of the two do you believe actually speak to whether or not a crime was committed? Indictments or convictions?

He wasn’t convicted of identity theft or wire fraud.

He was convicted on obstruction of justice and of “unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)

18 U.S. Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever—
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(c) information from any protected computer;​

A public email system is NOT private, and everyone has authorization to access all email because it is all public if it goes through the public internet.

In contrast, the State Department uses private servers that are off the internet, and you need to use something like VpN or other secure and private means of access to your console machine.

The courts have ruled that email on public servers is not private.

LOLOL

I showed you the very law which convicted a man for hacking someone’s email account on Yahoo! and here you are, still trying to deny it’s a crime.

The article very clearly said that the charges were for mostly for destroying files.
He was also charged with identity theft.

 

[Rigby5]

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense.

Oh look, we have us a cyber forensics expert, here!

Just so we are all clear on this line of bullshit from you:

You claim to know more about this than the government forensic scientists who have dedicated their lives to this field.

Do I have that right?

Of course I do know more than anyone working at the FBI, who is not going to have nearly as much experience as I do.
I build computers over the decades from scratch. Not all aspects but most of them, and I have to know about all of them.
The FBI does not have to know much at all, and can't know very much because you can't learn this stuff while working at the FBI.
I have built mainframes, minis, personal computers and smart devices.
I do operating systems, firmware, embedded systems, network protocols, pacemakers, etc.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course I do know more than anyone working at the FBI, who is not going to have nearly as much experience as I do.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

The guy went to jail for hacking into her email; yet here you are, still denying it’s s crime.

Meanwhile, at the same time, nearly everything you’ve posted has been wrong.

No, if you read the charges, he destroyed emails. He committed identity theft to get passwords fraudulently. He was charged for doing damage, destroying information, and violating privacy by publishing them, not for just reading emails.

LOL

You keep going on about the charges while you ignore the convictions. Which of the two do you believe actually speak to whether or not a crime was committed? Indictments or convictions?

He wasn’t convicted of identity theft or wire fraud.

He was convicted on obstruction of justice and of “unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)

18 U.S. Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever—
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(c) information from any protected computer;​

A public email system is NOT private, and everyone has authorization to access all email because it is all public if it goes through the public internet.

In contrast, the State Department uses private servers that are off the internet, and you need to use something like VpN or other secure and private means of access to your console machine.

The courts have ruled that email on public servers is not private.

LOLOL

I showed you the very law which convicted a man for hacking someone’s email account on Yahoo! and here you are, still trying to deny it’s a crime.

The article very clearly said that the charges were for mostly for destroying files.
He was also charged with identity theft.

It doesn’t mater what he was charged with. He could have been charged with milking a cow, which is not illegal. Being charged wouldn’t show it’s a crime. Being convicted does.

And here’s the law again under which he was convicted...

18 U.S. Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever—
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(c) information from any protected computer;​

... you’ll note, hopefully, that destroying files is not a required element of the section of that law. Merely accessing information from a protected computer without authorization is.

Furthermore, where the article spoke of destroying files — it meant the destruction of his own files as he tried to destroy evidence of his guilt from his own computer. For which he was convicted of obstruction of justice.

So you got that wrong too.