Hillary Used High Tech Scrubber, BleachBit, To Delete Emails

[SolomonVII]

It's still speculation, though. Something might have happened that left no trace, or something might not have happened. No one can say with any kind of certainty either way (unless involved in breaching the server, obviously).

What protection measures were in place to prevent a breach, or what was not installed? As you are obviously an expert on email server security?

That was already answered by the FBI director James Comey, who based his ruling on the findings of experts. It was ultimately unprovable if there had been a breach, but he could not imagine a universe in which there would not have been a breach of the lax security that had been put in place for communications of the sort that a Secretary of State would enter into.

 

[MrSpikey]

That was already answered by the FBI director James Comey, who based his ruling on the findings of experts. It was ultimately unprovable if there had been a breach, but he could not imagine a universe in which there would not have been a breach of the lax security that had been put in place for communications of the sort that a Secretary of State would enter into.

It was answered by the FBI director - there was no evidence of a breach. He did go on to say that some of the people she had conversed with via email looked likely to have been breached, but still - no evidence of a breach on Hillary's server.

I look forward to a reference for your quote that "he could not imagine a universe" in which her server had not been breached. I haven't seen anything where he said anything near that.

 

[SolomonVII]

It of course was not a direct quote. It was a provocative paraphrase.
I thought that that would go without saying by anyone who is even minimally informed about what Comey said.

 

[Vylo]

I'm not entirely confident that a server no one knew existed was hacked very easily, but meh.

 

[sdowney717]

I'm not entirely confident that a server no one knew existed was hacked very easily, but meh.

Emails have ip address destinations in them. Since her server had no security protections, it could have been easily read. the content of the emails would have flagged them as belonging to Clinton. No doubt all communications have hack attempts especially coming from government servers.
However the cracking-hacking is done, it is very sophisticated and technical and does happen all the time. Unless you deliberately design it to be hardened against cracking, which apparently it was not encrypted.
http://security.stackexchange.com/q...stination-ip-address-along-with-various-parts

 

[tall73]

Several years ago I was working for a company from my home. I used my personal email account for everything. I did save all company related emails in a separate folder from my saved personal emails and deleted the rest.
It never once occurred to me that if this company were to be investigated by the IRS or the Labor Department that they would want to see the emails that we had exchanged. That the investigators would be searching through all my personal emails looking for company related emails and that they may question the emails that I had deleted.

And was your work product covered by the Federal Records Act and subject to Freedom of Information requests?

Because Hillary was aware that her work product did come under the Records Act. And Comey's report and the IG report indicate that she did not turn over all her emails. They recovered thousands of work related emails from other sources that she did not properly retain, including server slack space.

 

[tall73]

It was answered by the FBI director - there was no evidence of a breach. He did go on to say that some of the people she had conversed with via email looked likely to have been breached, but still - no evidence of a breach on Hillary's server.

I look forward to a reference for your quote that "he could not imagine a universe" in which her server had not been breached. I haven't seen anything where he said anything near that.

He did not say "likely to be breached" in regards to her associates.

Comey indicated multiple people within the government she corresponded with were hacked, and at least one outside the government who sent classified information (Blumenthal) was known to be hacked. So some classified information was transmitted to bad actors no matter how you look at it because they all were corresponding outside the classified system.

Now, Bill Clinton indicated that these were huge email chains, around 300 career diplomats exchanging this data, in regular contact. No one had to hack the server to get the information if they get it from the hacked accounts who are in the chain.

And the IG report indicates that memos went out stating that these commercial accounts were hacked, and warning to not use private systems.

Yet Clinton and the rest kept on corresponding with folks outside the classified system.

 

[tall73]

Emails have ip address destinations in them. Since her server had no security protections, it could have been easily read.

It was not even that complicated. Her email had Clinton in it.

 

[PapaZoom]

I destroy my hard drive when I get a new computer. It's not that uncommon.

Well I do too but then I wasn't the Secretary of State and neither were you. And Hillary destroyed the hard-drive after Congress requested to see her emails. That shows intent and is criminal.

 

[PapaZoom]

Sounds like the short answer is "no." I saw "no direct evidence," and decided not to engage in mindreading amateur hour

Incorrect. The short answer is probably or very likely. Just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean no. We may have to wait for the October surprise to be sure.

Also, we don't settle most cases in court via direct evidence. In fact, it's rare where direct evidence is all that's needed. Most cases rest on an abundance of circumstantial evidence. You don't need a body or a weapon to convict of murder. Circumstantial evidence can do the job nicely if you know what to look for. It's been done time after time.

 

[PapaZoom]

I guess it means Hillary wanted to ensure that the emails she deleted could not be recovered, for whatever reason.

Because Hillary, famous for claiming transparency, likes to operate in secret.

 

[PapaZoom]

It was answered by the FBI director - there was no evidence of a breach. He did go on to say that some of the people she had conversed with via email looked likely to have been breached, but still - no evidence of a breach on Hillary's server.

I look forward to a reference for your quote that "he could not imagine a universe" in which her server had not been breached. I haven't seen anything where he said anything near that.

"Comey states that: “Hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact.” As the New York Times put it: “And that would have meant that tracking the trail of electronic breadcrumbs back to her server would have been a pretty simple task. After that, their ability to break in would have been a mix of skill and luck, but they had plenty of time to get it right.”"

"To date, we have known only that the Romanian hacker, Guccifer, breached Clinton advisor, Sidney Blumenthal’s account. Comey, however, states that hostile actors (plural) gained access to the accounts (plural) of Clinton’s regular contacts. So the FBI has evidence of more than one successful hack of accounts of Clinton associates. In this light, Comey’s statement that a hack of Clinton’s account was “possible” is a gross and peculiar understatement."

https://ricochet.com/comey-hostile-foreign-actors-plural-hack-hillarys-associates/

If Hillary wasn't hacked, she's very very lucky. We may never know for sure. Or we'll find out in October.

 

[SolomonVII]

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/transcript-james-comey-clinton-email-225103#ixzz4Ie1joZox
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Just to clear up the misinformation being put out on this thread, meh, lots of people knew about what Clinton was doing, and she was extremely careless of how she was treating sensitive information.

But she is a Democrat. That is all that matters to people who continue to brush this issue off as sweet little nothings.

 

[SolomonVII]

From Ricochet link above:

Does not Clinton’s decision to use an unprotected “homebrew” server exclusively throughout her entire tenure as Secretary of State prove intent to evade and violate federal laws and regulations concerning the treatment of classified information?

People really need to start asking themselves what Hillary's purpose of setting up her own private server was?
Common sense dictates that the answer to that is pretty obvious.

For his part, Comey left the final decision to a jury of her peer, which is the American electorate. He made it clear to all that Clinton was reckless and dishonest beyond words to describe.
So far the jury of her peers as personified in the Democratic electorate is making it clear that for the most part, truth is not a value that motivates them much. Even having a smoking gun in her hand, as laid out by Comey, is not evidence of a smoking gun.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Incorrect. The short answer is probably or very likely.

Which is not the same as "yes."

Just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean no.

So you're fine with spreading rumors. Good to know.

 

[PapaZoom]

Which is not the same as "yes."

So you're fine with spreading rumors. Good to know.

It also doesn't mean "no" which is what you claimed. And it's not rumors, there are many facts out there for any reasonable person to formulate a conclusion. My position is reasonable based on what we do know.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Several years ago I was working for a company from my home. I used my personal email account for everything. I did save all company related emails in a separate folder from my saved personal emails and deleted the rest.
It never once occurred to me that if this company were to be investigated by the IRS or the Labor Department that they would want to see the emails that we had exchanged. That the investigators would be searching through all my personal emails looking for company related emails and that they may question the emails that I had deleted.

Did you have to have a FBI clearance. Did you have top secret Emails? Although Obama is so good at collecting his tax money I doubt if anything gets past him.

 

[SolomonVII]

It also doesn't mean "no" which is what you claimed. And it's not rumors, there are many facts out there for any reasonable person to formulate a conclusion. My position is reasonable based on what we do know.

Any conclusion that HRC was using a private server for perfectly innocent purposes is an unreasonable position to take.
It is just common sense to recognize that the very existence of this system was to allow her to operate under the radar, and to keep things hidden that she did not want the American public to know. Nothing, not even security issues, were sufficient to deter her in the endeavor to hide her dealings from the American public.
That is the only reasonable conclusion that an honest person could come to when it comes to Hillary Clinton and her unauthorized use of a private server to conduct government business.

 

[PapaZoom]

Any conclusion that HRC was using a private server for perfectly innocent purposes is an unreasonable position to take.
It is just common sense to recognize that the very existence of this system was to allow her to operate under the radar, and to keep things hidden that she did not want the American public to know. Nothing, not even security issues, were sufficient to deter her in the endeavor to hide her dealings from the American public.
That is the only reasonable conclusion that an honest person could come to when it comes to Hillary Clinton and her unauthorized use of a private server to conduct government business.

Exactly right.

 

[SolomonVII]

Exactly right.

The lack of just basic curiosity on behalf of the MSM and the Democratic electorate as to the reasons why HRC had this private server in the first place is appalling. Comey laid out the basic case of how Clinton was grossly careless about her use of such a server, and how she was dishonest in every explanation she had given to that point in time, and then, for whatever reasons, left the final decision to the American electorate rather than to the criminal courts.
Democrats have been fed a BS sandwich by HRC and they know it. It is truly amazing to watch them bite right into and aver that it is honey.