Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think it is suspicious that she has been ordered to turn everything over and started having folks delete them, yes.
As I mentioned originally, he does talk about personal domains, servers and accounts. The distinctions between these things isn't something that people will necessarily understand unless they have some background there.
The paragraph I pointed out is the only one where he uses personal email account rather than the other two; his statement that "She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails" seems pretty clear in distinguishing a personal email account (from which she sent some work emails) from a work one, dedicated to the subject.
I'd agree it could be clearer and I'm prepared to recognize the ambiguities in the statement. How about you?
But you never established she had a work one in the first place! All of this was relative to her personal. If you want to comb through all the FOIA released documents and show the presence of both of these accounts feel free. But he is relating the personal domain to the personal account in that paragraph. Because the personal account would be an account AT that personal domain. And it was obvious it was tied to her because her name, clinton, appeared in the domain name.
It is not ambiguous. His whole conversation related to her personal account, domain, server, etc. because that is what she used.
And you did not address the obvious fact. If she had separate accounts for work and personal, why would she need to week through them and delete? She would have all the work emails on one account. That is precisely what she did not do.
Maybe you have some timeline information I'm missing, but Comey's statement was the deletion was a regular practice prior to the legal orders - he didn't give weight to claims that there was a purge after.
My question about suspicious activity was in relation to emails being missed through keyword searches. Any thoughts?
The servers being taken out of commission, etc. resulted in loss of emails on those servers. As he described in one case the email system was deleted, so the data was fragmented. This happened over time. However, it is thought Clinton likely preserved some of the emails and transitioned them to the next server.
Hence his statement later about the purging by the lawyers, which he places in 2014, but for which there is no definitive date.
The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.
Hillary's head lawyer and another lawyer on staff received security clearance in late 2014, November and December respectively.
Either way, it ls likely this purge happened in late 2014.
Per this CNN article Gowdy requested the emails in December 2014, around that time frame.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-subpoena-gowdy/
Incidentally she was supposed to turn over records in her possession when she left the State Department. Certainly the deletions were after that.
And as I said, either way, she was supposed to preserve all documents, not delete work related documents. It is clear from the IG report and Comey's report she did not turn over all records, which she was required to do. She simply benefited politically from the fact that FOIA compliance was not investigated as part of Comey's team's work because it was out of the scope of the initial request.
As I already pointed out, a personal account is not the same as a personal server or a personal domain. You seem to have a little knowledge around this, but if you think she used "her personal account, domain, server, etc." in all interactions, they you need to do a little more research.
The original implication I was responding to, in terms of her personal account rather than personal domain, was about dissemination of classified material. That is an account level issue, not a server or domain issue.
I haven't concluded beyond doubt she had separate personal and work accounts. There really isn't enough there to do so. Comey talked about a personal account being used to send work emails in certain circumstances - do you think he'd describe her work email in that way? If not, how do you justify his wording?
I can't say I'm surprised that a term based search approach to identifying emails was "highly likely" to have missed some. Can you honestly say you think that is suspicious? I struggle to find archived items in my own email using keyword searches.
No, he didn't say in certain circumstances. He specifically noted her frequent overseas use because it was more dangerous than domestic use. He did not ever use the term "work" account. And if she had separate accounts, again, this would not be an issue. as it wouldn't need sorting. She used the same for personal and work, which was the issue all along.
I gave you a time reference from Comey's own statement. There are of course timelines online, but I am not sure which of the sources you would think credible.I did ask if you had a timeline I haven't seen in earlier post - there are quite a lot of assumptions about when things happened here. If you have one, I'd be interested in seeing it.
The source you quoted did.
"Comey states that: “Hostile actors gained access"
"To date, we have known only that the Romanian hacker, Guccifer"
"Comey, however, states that hostile actors (plural) gained access"
"So the FBI has evidence of more than one "
If you didn't agree with it, why quote it?
Agreed
Those charged with investigating it didn't agree. Your own opinion may differ, but that doesn't make it "clear".
I am far from being a support of Clinton. But it's been investigated, concluding in a decision it was not criminal behaviour and she did not deliberately mislead. Efforts to misrepresent that decision are mudslinging in it's most basic form, whoever you support.
OK, we can boil our disagreement down to this, I think:
"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"
If her personal and work email accounts were the same, why would he even mention her sending "work-related emails" from her personal account? She would be doing that all the time if they were the same. Yet, he drew a distinction - why?
For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.
Now the point of all of this is that emails were deleted or lost over time. But that in itself is a violation of the Records Act. These are supposed to be preserved. And that is why attempts were made to put her on a government device and account for archiving purposes, as outlined in the IG report.
The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014.
This later purge was an attempt to sort out the personal from the work emails. Again, that would be unnecessary if they were on separate work and personal accounts.
What would be a better approach, then?
OK, there you have a point. She wouldn't be the first politician to be a little slippery with her emails.
a. Using a classified government system to discuss classified material, as Comey agrees. The IG report indicates attempts to get her to do this.
b. Using separate work and personal accounts. Which if she had done so they wouldn't need to weed out the personal from the business, they would already be separate. The IG report also spells out that it was proposed she use two devices, one personal and government, but that also was not ultimately done
c. Since she already put her own server, then she should have, as the government employee, have gone through and personally searched each email to differentiate by content, not just subject or key word.
And I support going after ALL of them, regardless of party. This government doesn't accept "slippery" from businesses or citizens that they oversee. But complete, blatant disregard for public documents they are legally required to retain is overlooked? Why?
"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.
Sorry, there's no way you can call that a "purge" - no deletions are mentioned, it's about searching for relevant emails and missing some.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?