Hillary Used High Tech Scrubber, BleachBit, To Delete Emails

[tall73]

Another quote from the same article:

I opted for convenience to use my personal email account which was allowed by the State Department because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two," Clinton said. "Looking back it would have been better if I had simply used a second email account and carried a second phone but at the time, this didn't seem like an issue."

She did not use separate personal and work accounts. Which of course is why she had to have the personal sorted.

 

[SolomonVII]

And of course this exclusive use of her personal email has been at the heart of the whole issue for some time.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-breaks-silence-on-her-emails/

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that her decision to use a personal email address for all of her government correspondence while at the State Department was a matter of convenience and allowed by the State Department.

Everybody knows that she is not telling the truth.
Of course it wasn't allowed by the State Department.

 

[tall73]

Everybody knows that she is not telling the truth.
Of course it wasn't allowed by the State Department.

Yes, and the quote where that was confirmed by the State IG was just quoted a bit ago. They did not, and would not have approved her exclusive use of her personal email.

Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM [Foreign Affairs Manual] stated that normal day-to-day operations. should be conducted on an authorized AIS, [automated information system] yet OIG [office of the Inspector General] found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO [chief information officer] 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 [Bureau of Diplomatic Security] and IRM [Bureau of Information Resource Management] 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 [Foreign Affairs Manual] and the security risks in doing so.

 

[MrSpikey]

Then that also undercuts your entire premise because you were stressing the term private account in Comey's statement to make a huge distinction that he never made. Comey never made reference to private and work accounts. In fact, his entire statement was about her usage of a private server, private account, private domain, etc.

And you still have not explained why she would need to weed through her emails to delete the private emails if she had separate private and work accounts.

We're going around in circles here.

I actually stressed the term personal account, not private account.

He made references to her personal account in one paragraph only. This was further highlighted by saying it was sometimes used for work purposes. Still waiting to hear why that would be said if it was only used for work purposes.

Private servers, accounts and domains are not the same thing. That you conflate them seems to me like you are missing or ignoring the point.

He stated she did use her personal account for work emails on some occasions, hence the need to keyword search work emails - not delete private emails.

 

[MrSpikey]

Another quote from the same article:

I opted for convenience to use my personal email account which was allowed by the State Department because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two," Clinton said. "Looking back it would have been better if I had simply used a second email account and carried a second phone but at the time, this didn't seem like an issue."

She did not use separate personal and work accounts. Which of course is why she had to have the personal sorted.

This states, as Comey did, that sometimes, she used her personal account for work emails. It doesn't say she always did so. I've asked you several times to explain his phrasing in relation to this, but you haven't answered. I can't see this conversation going anywhere other than round and round until you do.

 

[tall73]

We're going around in circles here.

I actually stressed the term personal account, not private account.

He made references to her personal account in one paragraph only. This was further highlighted by saying it was sometimes used for work purposes. Still waiting to hear why that would be said if it was only used for work purposes.

I did already explain that. But since you claim I didn't, post the precise part where you are referring to so there can be no confusion, and I will happily do so again.

As Hank has noted, I am willing to reply again.

 

[SolomonVII]

Yes, and the quote where that was confirmed by the State IG was just quoted a bit ago. They did not, and would not have approved her exclusive use of her personal email.

There was even a quote where she even figuratively spat in one of her underlings faces and scoffed at them for telling her that this was against policy.

Of course for her to come clean at this point would mean having to reveal what the real purpose of this private server was being used for, and that is someplace that she will not go.

 

[tall73]

Private servers, accounts and domains are not the same thing. That you conflate them seems to me like you are missing or ignoring the point.

Indeed they are not!

And I posted from the IG that she used a personal account exclusively, and you then tried to go around it again.

He stated she did use her personal account for work emails on some occasions, hence the need to keyword search work emails - not delete private emails.

He never referenced a work account. He only referenced a private account. Again, post the precise wording so we can analyze.


But if she had two accounts, which no source says, and you have not demonstrated, then she wouldn't need to delete the personal emails to sort through. She would just scour through the personal account for the few work emails and then move them to the other account.

 

[tall73]

There was even a quote where she even figuratively spat in one of her underlings faces and scoffed at them for telling her that this was against policy.

Of course for her to come clean at this point would mean having to reveal what the real purpose of this private server was being used for, and that is someplace that she will not go.

Well I think the IG report did go there in a round about fashion. She wanted to avoid the "personal" being subject to FOIA requests. Which of course could have been easily done if she just used a different account for the personal.

 

[tall73]

This states, as Comey did, that sometimes, she used her personal account for work emails. It doesn't say she always did so. I've asked you several times to explain his phrasing in relation to this, but you haven't answered. I can't see this conversation going anywhere other than round and round until you do.

I did answer already. But again, post the SPECIFIC section and we will look at it yet again.

 

[tall73]

Now while you are getting that, perhaps you can also look at the following:

http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/03/HRC-staff-QA-pdf.pdf

This is a copy of a memo from the office of Hillary Clinton, hosted by fact check as they looked into claims regarding her email.

Secretary Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of
her first weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously
used).

 

[MrSpikey]

I did already explain that. But since you claim I didn't, post the precise part where you are referring to so there can be no confusion, and I will happily do so again.

As Hank has noted, I am willing to reply again.

Sure.

Throughout the statement, he refers to email servers and email domains. Email servers can host multiple domains, email domains can host multiple accounts. No info is given on what was actually hosted, just generalities about the server and domain.

In one paragraph, and one paragraph alone, he references a personal email account:

"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."

[Bolding mine]

Note the continued references here to email domains - the point he is making is that use of her personal email account for non-classified matters included the details of her email domain and server. If recipients email accounts were hacked, they could see the sever used to operate her personal account and all others.

This is further underlined by this statement:

"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."

[Bolding mine]

If her personal and work email accounts were one and the same, why would he note that work related emails were sent from her personal account on some occasions? If they were the same, it would be on all occasions - so why did he draw a distinction?

 

[MrSpikey]

Indeed they are not!

And I posted from the IG that she used a personal account exclusively, and you then tried to go around it again.

"They did not, and would not have approved her exclusive use of her personal email" does not equate to "she used her personal account exclusively".

He never referenced a work account. He only referenced a private account. Again, post the precise wording so we can analyze.


But if she had two accounts, which no source says, and you have not demonstrated, then she wouldn't need to delete the personal emails to sort through. She would just scour through the personal account for the few work emails and then move them to the other account.

He stated explicitly that her personal account was used to send work mails on certain occasions. This is why a search was necessary.

 

[tall73]

Another statement from the Clinton camp:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/house-panel-subpoenas-hillary-clinton-emails-115775


“Secretary Clinton used one email account when corresponding with anyone, from department officials to friends to family,” Merrill said.

 

[MrSpikey]

Now while you are getting that, perhaps you can also look at the following:

http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/03/HRC-staff-QA-pdf.pdf

This is a copy of a memo from the office of Hillary Clinton, hosted by fact check as they looked into claims regarding her email.

Secretary Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of
her first weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously
used).

That statement relates to the accounts she used while operating in an official capacity.

She could use a hotmail account to talk to the kids and it would not be mentioned, as it is of no significance, being a personal matter and of no relevance to her role.

The fact she mixed these roles up has both confused things and not helped her case, I'll grant you.

 

[tall73]

Sure.

Throughout the statement, he refers to email servers and email domains. Email servers can host multiple domains, email domains can host multiple accounts. No info is given on what was actually hosted, just generalities about the server and domain.

In one paragraph, and one paragraph alone, he references a personal email account:

"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."

[Bolding mine]

Note the continued references here to email domains - the point he is making is that use of her personal email account for non-classified matters included the details of her email domain and server. If recipients email accounts were hacked, they could see the sever used to operate her personal account and all others.

This is further underlined by this statement:

"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."

[Bolding mine]

If her personal and work email accounts were one and the same, why would he note that work related emails were sent from her personal account on some occasions? If they were the same, it would be on all occasions - so why did he draw a distinction?

He did not say on some occasions. Please post the wording where he says that. It does not exist.

He said she used the personal account extensively while outside the United States, which is a higher risk than using it in the United States.

 

[MrSpikey]

He did not say on some occasions. Please post the wording where he says that. It does not exist.

He said she used the personal account extensively while outside the United States, which is a higher risk than using it in the United States.

Do you think "extensively" means "at all times"?

 

[tall73]

That statement relates to the accounts she used while operating in an official capacity.

She could use a hotmail account to talk to the kids and it would not be mentioned, as it is of no significance, being a personal matter and of no relevance to her role.

The fact she mixed these roles up has both confused things and not helped her case, I'll grant you.

As to the kids....


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/house-panel-subpoenas-hillary-clinton-emails-115775


“Secretary Clinton used one email account when corresponding with anyone, from department officials to friends to family,” Merrill said.

 

[tall73]

Do you think "extensively" means "at all times"?

I think that using her email in a foreign country "extensively" has a higher risk than using it "occasionally", again a threat assessment.

It is a risk to use a non-secured personal account. It is a bigger risk to use it overseas. It is an even bigger risk to use it over seas EXTENSIVELY.

 

[tall73]

That statement relates to the accounts she used while operating in an official capacity.

She could use a hotmail account to talk to the kids and it would not be mentioned, as it is of no significance, being a personal matter and of no relevance to her role.

The fact she mixed these roles up has both confused things and not helped her case, I'll grant you.

But that is not what you claimed. You claimed the "personal" account also had work stuff on it. Which this statement does not agree with.

And of course, we also have the statement that she used the same for work, friends and family.


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/house-panel-subpoenas-hillary-clinton-emails-115775


“Secretary Clinton used one email account when corresponding with anyone, from department officials to friends to family,” Merrill said.