Clinton hacker ‘Guccifer’ expected to plead guilty

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

When a story say things like may have happened it doesn't mean it did.

a reply to: carewemust

Good god you guys just hang your hopes on the thinnest filament.
If this criminal ever had anything on Hillary we would already know it.
The man is a braggart. He shows and tells. He hacked a president and told for crying out loud.
But nooooooo Hillary's stuff for what ever reason he decides to hold back. That's really stretching possibilities and a complete change in his modus operandi. How does it sound logical or feasible? What would have motivated him to treat this particular hack differently from all the others? Why would he have held on to her stuff and not told?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Thinnest filament?
It appears that the man has cut a deal.

The thinnest filament in the current Hillary story is the one that has her selling state secrets in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

As much as Hillary has lied already, nothing would surprise me at this point.

a reply to: Sillyolme

You're still around?

Here is some information from the State Department report on Cybersecurity:

...Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by FISMA and the FAM.

But she says it was secure, so we should just take her word for it, eh? She also said she was allowed to use a private server:

According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.

...

These officials all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff.

...

The pertinent testimony from the former Chief of Staff, who declined OIG’s request for an interview, reads as
follows:

Q
Was anyone consulted about Secretary Clinton exclusively using a personal email address for her work?

A
I don't recall that. If it did happen, I wasn't part of that process. But I don’t believe there was a consultation around it, or at least there's not one that I’m aware of, maybe I should better answer that way based on my knowledge.

Q
So no private counsel?

A
Not that I'm aware of.

Q
Okay. The general counsel for the State Department?

A
Not that I'm aware of.

Q
Okay. Anybody from the National Archives?

A
Not that I'm aware of. But I can only speak to my knowledge, obviously.

Q
Sure. And anyone from the White House?

A
Not that I'm aware of.

She lied, and continues to lie, about being authorized to use a privately-owned, internet-connected, non-secure server.

More about the security of the server:

On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to.” Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.”159

159
In another incident occurring on May 13, 2011, two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was “hacking into her email” after she received an email with a suspicious link. Several hours later, Secretary Clinton received an email from the personal account of then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs that also had a link to a suspect website. The next morning, Secretary Clinton replied to the email with the following message to the Under Secretary: “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” Department policy requires employees to report cybersecurity incidents to IRM security officials when any improper cyber-security practice comes to their attention. 12 FAM 592.4 (January 10, 2007). Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information. 12 FAM 682.2-6 (August 4, 2008). However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.

So not only was her server subjected to multiple attempts (that were seen, no way to know how many were not seen) at being hacked, neither she nor her staff notified the proper department that these attempts took place.

Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements direct .pdf link to report at state.gov

Deleted

a reply to: butcherguy

Cut a deal by pleading guilty. Must have a # for brains lawyer.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Can't understand the purpose of a plea bargain?

A person charged with a criminal or traffic offense (the defendant) may be offered a plea “bargain” (or plea deal) in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a less serious offense or only some of the charges and, in exchange, the prosecutor is not required to conduct a full trial to prove the defendant guilty of ...

They already had all they needed to convict him of every charge they hit him with. They wanted something from him in exchange for pleading guilty.


What for brains?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Cut a deal by pleading guilty. Must have a # for brains lawyer.

His lawyers have lots of gray matter.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It wasn't a plea bargain it was pleading guilty. He's being sentenced Sept 1.
I read the entire indictment, the arrest warrant and extradition papers. He appeared in court on April 1st without a lawyer. So yeah his own council. Real smart.
There is nothing to suggest he's getting any kind of deal. The indictment listed three victims 8 counts including identity theft, wire fraud, cyber stalking, obstruction of justice. ( that sounds like he was real cooperative doesn't it) and possession of a protected computer.
Every news agency is treating his claim about having hacked Clinton's server as a bogus claim.
So yeah thin filament without substance hope. But they're not getting anything from this guy.
He's nothing but a liar and the US will most likely request he serve his sentence here then return to Romania. All in all he will see the outside in about 40 years.

a reply to: xuenchen

He appeared without a lawyer. He's getting a public defender for his sentencing hearing.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Well his deal included pleading guilty to every charge in the original indictment so I'm not sure he's getting the best of the bargain. The extradition paper list the original charges. The court documents show he pleaded guilty to every one as charged. Soooo what kind of deal could he have made?

a reply to: Sillyolme

The kind of deal that releases to the FBI the 2 GB's of hacked data he had stashed.

a reply to: Sillyolme

It wasn't a plea bargain it was pleading guilty.

Oh really? You might want to update your information:

PLEA AGREEMENT

Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; Maya D. Song and Jay V. Prabhu, Assistant United States Attorneys; Peter V. Roman and Ryan K. Dickey, Senior Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice; the defendant. MARCEL LEHEL LAZAR; and the defendant's counsel have entered into an agreement pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Criminal No. I:l4-cr-213
Honorable James C. Cacheris direct .pdf link

A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal, copping a plea, or plea in mitigation) is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.[1]

Wiki

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

He appeared without a lawyer. He's getting a public defender for his sentencing hearing.

The court papers say he had a lawyer.

PLEA AGREEMENT ............

the defendant. MARCEL LEHEL LAZAR;

and the defendant's counsel have entered into an agreement pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Court Papers May 25, 2016

a reply to: Sillyolme

Well his deal included pleading guilty to every charge in the original indictment...

Again, you are 100% wrong:

The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count Five of the indictment, charging the defendant with unauthorized access to a protected computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), and Count Seven, charging the defendant with aggravated identity theft. in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l).

And as part of the bargain the remaining charges are dismissed:

The United States of America, by and through the undersigned attorneys, hereby moves this honorable Court to dismiss Counts 1-4, 6, and 8-9 against defendant MARCEL LEMEL LAZAR, in accordance with the written plea agreement entered into between the United States and defendant, upon the Court's acceptance of defendant's guilty plea to Counts 5 and 7 in the Indictment.

If you are going to argue your points, at least you should be aware of the facts first.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Ok but he pleaded guilty to every count so he didn't make any deal.
Plus there was never any evidence that he had anything. That is all internet rumor. There is not one shred of evidence to support his claim. And you guys are the only ones who believe he has these files.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I want to read all of that. What's your source. Mine was the dept of justice.



www.justice.gov...

this doesn't say any exclusions

a reply to: Sillyolme

Ok but he pleaded guilty to every count so he didn't make any deal.

Hello? McFly? Can you not read?

The United States of America, by and through the undersigned attorneys, hereby moves this honorable Court to dismiss Counts 1-4, 6, and 8-9 against defendant MARCEL LEMEL LAZAR, in accordance with the written plea agreement entered into between the United States and defendant, upon the Court's acceptance of defendant's guilty plea to Counts 5 and 7 in the Indictment.

Criminal No. I:l4-cr-213
Honorable James C. Cacheris direct .pdf link

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I want to read all of that. What's your source. Mine was the dept of justice.



www.justice.gov...

this doesn't say any exclusions

My source is the actual plea agreement filed by the court.

Link above in this post.