Softpanorama
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Shadow IT

News Danger of overcentralization Recommended Links Hillary Clinton email scandal Questions about Huma Abedin email forwarding The Power Elite
Bureaucracies Bureaucratic ritualism Bureaucratic Inertia Bureaucratic avoidance of responsibility Bureaucratic Collectivism Bureaucracy as a Political Coalition
Parkinson Law The Peter Principle Number of Servers per Sysadmin Corporate bullshit as a communication method    
Admin Horror Stories Tips History   Humor Etc

Contents


Introduction

Shadow IT can be defined as software and hardware solutions as well as associated manpower used in organization that are neither approved not supported by the formal IT organization. Typically this is a reaction on excessive centralization and bureaucratization of IT, endemic for large corporations.  It is also can be used for "double books" kind of scheme like for example in case of Hillary Clinton email scandal. In the latter case the key goal was to avoid accountability and disclosure of her emails while in the position of the Secretary of State of Obama administration:

In the past few years, it's gone from being considered a problem to being consider something more or less tolerated because over-centralized  (and/or outsourced ) IT organizations is essentially unable to solve user problems. Helpdesk tickets are travelling two or more days in a bureaucratic maze before assigning to a specialist who can resolve them, laptops are unable to install patches and take 10 minutes to boot; Bluetooth stop working two years ago and nobody care why. Servers can be down for a week.  Sounds familiar. It is ;-)

At the same time IT management is unwilling to acknowledge that the strategy to save cost via over-centralization is dead-ended and quickly reaches the stage of unintended consequences or as they are often called "centralization blowback". So, as we mentioned above, shadow IT naturally develops and mature as a reaction to excessive bureaucratization of central IT typical for large corporations. As well as loss of flexibility of IT (fossilization) resulting in the inability of IT to serve user needs. When a simple helpdesk ticket travels to central helpdesk and then is lingering somewhere for two days and then is assigned to clueless outsourcer, the user community quickly adapt, creates its own experts (out of the most knowledgeable users who run complex home networks, are involved with home automation or robotics) and knowledge centers and start ignoring official IT functions and services.

The term "blowback" is richer then the term of "unintended consequences" and includes the elements of hidden revolt or at least active counteraction to the policies of central IT. (The Full Wiki) :

Blowback is the espionage term for the violent, unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering it, the blowback typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them. Specifically, blowback denotes the resultant, violent consequences — reported as news fact, by domestic and international mass communications media, when the actor intelligence agency hides its responsibility via media manipulation. Generally, blowback loosely denotes every consequence of every aspect of a secret attack operation, thus, it is synonymous with consequence—the attacked victims’ revenge against the civil populace of the aggressor country, because the responsible politico-military leaders are invulnerable.

Originally, blowback was CIA internal coinage denoting the unintended, harmful consequences—to friendly populations and military forces—when a given weapon is carelessly used. Examples include anti-Western religious fanatics who, in due course, attack foe and sponsor; right-wing counter-revolutionaries who sell drugs to their sponsor’s civil populace; and banana republic juntas who kill American reporters.

This is the situation when, unfortunately,  implicitly sending central IT to hell became politically correct in regional offices. But as everything it is important to remember Talleyrand advice to young diplomats "first and foremost, not too much zeal" ;-). 

Forms of Shadow IT

Shadow IT has several forms:

All-in-all rise of "Shadow IT" signify both loss of control and loss of influence that IT organizations experienced during the last decade. It is the most pronounced when due to over-centralization the quality of service became unacceptably low (despite Potemkin villages of official reporting with their excellent and completely fake "incident resolution time" metrics)

Major symptoms of the loss of flexibility and alienation of users

There are several major symptom of this loss of flexibility and alienation from user needs:

Like with any counterculture there are risks in using shadow IT. It you overstep your boundaries you can lose your job. But if everybody is suffering from the same problem attempt to find a solution outside normal IT channel usually is not punished severely. Typically such cases are just swiped under the rag. Often solution initiated as part of "shadow IT' later find its way into mainstream. In this sense it serves as internal innovation incubator.

Countermeasures to the removal of administrative privileges on laptops

Reagan citing old Russian proverb "Trust but verify" was right not only about international relations, but also about best policy for the user laptops. "Trust but verify" compliance is a better approach then "scan and block".

Removal of administrative privileges is essentially declaration from the central IT that the user lost the trust. And it rises the classic question "Who are the judges ?" Why often incompetent (in comparison with staff of engineering and research departments often having Ph.Ds among members) and detached from reality central IT staff should impose without consultation and consent from business departments measures that undermines productivity in those departments? After all central IT is a parasitic organization that spends money earned by business units. Why business units can't be consulted what that need and want and treated like children, who are just told what to do and what don't?

That's why users without administrator privileges on his/her laptops often rebel. Sometimes there is no direct removal, but severe restrictions are imposed via Active Directory (AD fascism). Restrictions that make doing useful work for certain tasks within the framework imposed by organization next to impossible. Again, this typically is not a problem in accounting department (which actually can squeeze overzealous IT jerks pretty easily ;-) but in research units and labs who have creative people able to smash those restrictions, and who understand some part of IT much better then central IT (especially people involved with such things like genome sequencing, molecular modeling, etc where community is generally extremely computer literate.)

At this point it is the central IT which is a loser as people are much more creative and often invent elegant tricks to bypass restrictions imposed by IT infrastructure and create more usable alternative. In other words shadow IT exists because the business unit(s) perceive that IT is not meeting their needs and using official tools is either unsuitably cumbersome and slow or is detrimental to the success of business.

The key performance indicator for IT is availability. But users satisfaction is equally important and disgruntled users represent much bigger danger to IT infrastructure. The danger that stupid and/or overzealous members of security group that invert those measure fail to understand... In other words instead of improving security such measures are undermining it.

Countermeasures by "deprived" members

Let's discuss countermeasures that "deprived" members of corporate units (and that typically includes some It members, for example Unix administrators) can use to restore status quo. There are several avenue for undermining this decision.

  1. Pressure on "power hungry". Typically such measures are introduced during new hardware deployment. As environment is not perfect especially during new laptop deployment period you can always claim that existing arrangement does not allow you to performs some important part of your job. Logging a couple of tickets and putting a negative evaluation for unresolved ticket can help to speed the sobering of "drunk with power" members of IT team, but this is a razor sharp weapon and should be used with extreme caution and only as a reaction to a real screw-ups. You just no longer need to swipe them under the floor. And you need to find and cultivate allies. There is strength in numbers.
  2. Switch to alternative hardware.
  3. Switch to alternative OSes. Current laptops are so over specified that they can curry multiple OSes.
  4. Using "in the cloud" servers or services. Using alternative email is very common among company employees as using official email for private messages is one of the stupidest thing that you can do in the corporate environment.

Those points are of course raw and incomplete. But stupidity of official policy is the gasoline that fuels "shadow IT renaissance" and inventions of those who are affected. Creatively bypassing of those restrictions is a banner of real IT professional. Pleas note that this often puts company data on far less protected then a regular corporate PC environment. Excessive zeal in security often backfire in a very interesting ways.

In many instances, corporate IT policies and standardization efforts are simply stupid in the very exact meaning of this word. They are often created by a clueless bureaucrat that does not understand (and don't want to) understand the situation "in the trenches". That means that even parts of official IT staff can be engaged in "shadow IT" activities.

Creating shadow Web services

The existence of Shadow IT implies a failure on the part of IT to provide the services to meet the users need. As such this problem is a typical sign of the rotting of IT organizations ("fish rots from the head") -- a widespread phenomenon due to promotion of incompetent manages, outsourcing and other related phenomenon. IT is no longer young and losing IQ this is just one of the ailment of the old age.

Deployment of unreliable, slow, resource hungry systems like Lotus Notes, Lotus Sametime, Documentum and, especially, SAP/R3 (which often has very slow response that defeats the purpose and benefits of the centralization) also stimulate search for alternatives.

Like any counterculture creating your own Web services entails certain risks including security risks but it would be simplistic just to condemn it like many writers do. For example

The existence of Shadow IT within an organization is symptomatic of a lack of alignment between business units and IT and, possibly, even senior management and IT. Shadow IT is, at best, a shortsighted strategy that may work well for a given business unit, but be detrimental for the organization overall.

(see The Dangers that Lurk Behind Shadow IT — Datamation.com).  One precondition for creation of shadow Web services is the ability to run virtual mashine on you laptop desktop. Or on remote sites, availability of some local Linux expertise

Often Shadow IT is associated with Unix culture and open source software. Linux essentially started as countercultural phenomenon and only recently got corporate respectability. Firewall on Linux box can easily configured to exclude any outsiders. In with special non-routable network used  the service is not visible outside the particular site and it represents much lesser security risks.

Any modern desktop is extremely capable and powerful server in disguise, often superior to the "real" server from HP or Dell that is five years old.  If ti allow "dual boot" configuration you already has all the necessary infrastructure.

Also on remote sites there is always possibility to get "departmental" desktop and use it as departmental server. In case central IT goes nuts this is one path that might be considered. Using Internet ISPs and places like Amazon cloud is another possibility, but here the problem is that your data migrates outside of It infrastructure. This is a definite security risk and this way you might violate some corporate policy.  

Creation of shadow IT file servers

If using corporate file servers is too painful or the became too slow one extra laptop of desktop in the group can fill the void. A simple linux box with Samba is a decent and quick solution.

Creating of alternative email infrastructure

To a certain extent alternative email infrastructure existed as long as Web connectivity exist. Hotmail, Gmail and other Web-based mail applications automatically mean alternative email infrastructure. That only question if how widely it is used (it definitely should be used for all private emails). The fact that it is impossible to synchronize with corporate Blackberry or other smart phone works against shadow email infrastructure but many people have their own smart phones those days in additional to a corporate one.

Conclusions

Shadow IT is a reaction of users to the problem of fossilization and loss of efficiently and competence of over centralized IT organizations. As such it is just a symptom of the disease. In perverted world of corporate IT it is often serves to increase productivity and as such has the right for existence.

It is naive to think that an official edict can stop shadow IT from emerging in a typical large, bureaucratized IT organization with its multiple sites, multiple datacenters and multiple jerks, authoritarians ("kiss up, kick down" type), and psychopaths (especially dangerous are female psychopaths) at the top and middle levels of IT management.

Budgets cuts also stimulate looking for alternatives for officially supported IT products but not to the extent that bureaucratization and stagnation of "official" IT organizations.


Top updates

Softpanorama Switchboard
Softpanorama Search


NEWS CONTENTS

Old News

[Nov 21, 2016] Belgiums Dutroux Pedophile, Child Rape Affair A Road Map for Deep-State Criminality

Nov 20, 2016 | www.newnationalist.net
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."

4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and, of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.

6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.

7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.

13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.

[Nov 14, 2016] Bernie Sanders Indicting Hillary Would Be An Outrage Beyond Belief

Nov 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
by Submitted by Stefanie MacWilliams via PlanetFreeWill.com,

In his first post-election interview , Bernie Sanders has declared to should-be-disgraced Wolf Blitzer that Trump seeking to indict Hillary Clinton for her crimes would be "an outrage beyond belief".

When asked if President Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton, Sanders seems almost confused as to why a pardon would even be needed.

Blitzer notes that Ford pardoned Nixon before he could be charged, to which Bernie seemed again incredulous as to the comparison was even being made.

He goes on to state:

That a winning candidate would try to imprison the losing candidate – that's what dictatorships are about, that's what authoritarian countries are about. You do not imprison somebody you ran against because you have differences of opinion. The vast majority of the American people would find it unacceptable to even think about those things.

Either Senator Sanders is a drooling idiot, or he is being willfully obtuse.

No one wants to imprison Hillary Clinton because of her opinion.

They want to imprison Hillary Clinton because she has committed criminal actions that any other person lacking millions of dollars and hundreds of upper-echelon contacts would be imprisoned for.

Apparently, according to progressive hero Bernie Sanders, holding the elites to the same level of justice as the peons is undemocratic, authoritarian, and perhaps even dictatorial!

Enough with the damn emails?

Enough with any hope that the Democrats have retained a minute shred of credibility.

You can watch the full interview below:

[Nov 13, 2016] We were told confidently by Clinton surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldnt happen again

By John Cassidy conviniently forget that Hillary was/is a neocon warmonger, perfectly cable of unleashing WWIII. Instead he pushes "Comey did it" bogeyman"...
Nov 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

Peter K. : November 13, 2016 at 03:48 AM

EMichael and im1dc would rather have their head in the sand. We were told confidently by Clinton surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldn't happen again.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/media-culpa-the-press-and-the-election-result

MEDIA CULPA? THE PRESS AND THE ELECTION RESULT

By John Cassidy , NOVEMBER 11, 2016

Since Tuesday night, there has been a lot of handwringing about how the media, with all its fancy analytics, failed to foresee Donald Trump's victory. The Times alone has published three articles on this theme, one of which ran under the headline "How Data Failed Us in Calling an Election." On social media, Trump supporters have been mercilessly haranguing the press for getting it wrong.

Clearly, this was a real issue. It's safe to say that most journalists, myself included, were surprised by Tuesday's outcome. That fact should be acknowledged. But journalists weren't the only ones who were shocked. As late as Tuesday evening, even a senior adviser to Trump was telling the press that "it will take a miracle for us to win."

It also shouldn't be forgotten that, in terms of the popular vote, Clinton didn't lose on Tuesday. As of 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, a tally by CNN showed that Hillary Clinton had received 60,617,062 votes, while Trump got 60,118,567. The margin in her favor-now at 498,495-is likely to grow as the remaining votes are counted in California. At the end of the day, Clinton may end up ahead by two per cent of the total votes cast. If the United States had a direct system of voting, Clinton would have been the one at the White House on Thursday meeting with President Obama. But, of course, Trump won the Electoral College. If the final count in Michigan remains in his favor, Trump will end up with three hundred and six Electoral College votes, to Clinton's two hundred and twenty-six.

Still, as journalists and commentators, we all knew the rules of the game: if Trump got to two hundred and seventy votes in the Electoral College, he'd be President. Why did so few observers predict he'd do it? Many Trump supporters insist it was East Coast insularity and ideological bias, and many in the media are now ready to believe that. To be sure, it's easy to get sucked into the media bubble. But there are also strong professional incentives for journalists to get things right. Why did that prove so difficult this year?

It wasn't because journalists weren't legging it to Michigan or Wisconsin or West Virginia. In this magazine alone, a number of writers-including Larissa MacFarquhar, Evan Osnos, George Packer, and George Saunders-published long, reported pieces about the Trump phenomenon in different parts of the country. Many other journalists spent a lot of time talking with Trump supporters. I'd point you to the work of ProPublica's Alec MacGillis and the photojournalist Chris Arnade, but they were just two among many. So many, in fact, that some Clinton supporters, such as Eric Boehlert, of Media Matters, regularly complained about it on social media.

To the extent that there was a failure, it was a failure of analysis, rather than of observation and reporting. And when you talk about how the media analyzed this election, you can't avoid the polls, the forecasting models, and the organizing frames-particularly demographics-that people used to interpret the incoming data.

It was clear from early in the race that Trump's electoral strategy was based on appealing to working-class whites, particularly in the Midwest. The question all along was whether, in the increasingly diverse America of 2016, there were enough alienated working-class whites to propel Trump to victory.

Some analysts did suggest that there might be. Immediately after the 2012 election, Sean Trende, of Real Clear Politics, pointed out that one of the main reasons for Mitt Romney's defeat was that millions of white voters stayed home. Earlier this year, during the Republican primaries, Trende returned to the same theme, writing, "The candidate who actually fits the profile of a 'missing white voter' candidate is Donald Trump."

The Times' Nate Cohn was another who took Trump's strategy seriously. In June, pointing to a new analysis of Census Bureau data and voter-registration files, Cohn wrote, "a growing body of evidence suggests that there is still a path, albeit a narrow one, for Mr. Trump to win without gains among nonwhite voters." As recently as Sunday, Cohn repeated this point, noting that Trump's "strength among the white working class gives him a real chance at victory, a possibility that many discounted as recently as the summer."

Among analysts and political demographers, however, the near-consensus of opinion was that Trump wouldn't be able to turn back history. Back in March, I interviewed Ruy Teixeira, the co-author of an influential 2004 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," which highlighted the growing number of minority voters across the country, particularly Hispanics. Drawing on his latest data, Teixeira, who is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress, offered some estimates of how many more white working-class voters Trump would need to turn out to flip states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. "It's not crazy," he said. "But I think it would be very hard to pull off."

Trump managed it, though. He enjoyed a thirty-nine-point advantage among whites without college degrees, according to the network exit poll, compared to the twenty-six-point advantage Romney saw in 2012. "What totally tanked the Democrats was the massive shift in the white non-college vote against them, particularly in some of the swing states," Teixeira told me by telephone on Thursday. "And that by itself is really enough to explain the outcome."

In the lead-up to the election, the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote while losing the Electoral College was well understood but, in hindsight, not taken seriously enough. In mid-September, David Wasserman, an analyst at the Cook Political Report, laid out a scenario in which turnout among white non-college voters surged and turnout among some parts of the Democratic coalition, particularly African-Americans, fell. "Clinton would carry the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points," Wasserman wrote. "However, Trump would win the Electoral College with 280 votes by holding all 24 Romney states and flipping Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Maine's 2nd Congressional District."

In the days and weeks leading up to the election, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver also considered the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote and losing the election. But he, Wasserman, and others who looked at the matter believed this was an unlikely outcome. On Tuesday, the FiveThirtyEight forecasting model estimated that the probability of such a scenario happening was about one in ten.

There was a straightforward reason for all the skepticism about Trump's chances: when you looked at the state-level polling, it looked like Clinton's "blue wall" was holding. Take Wisconsin, which turned out to be a state that Trump won. The Huffington Post's polling database lists the results of more than thirty polls that were taken in the Badger State since June: Trump didn't lead in any of them. Three of the final four surveys showed Clinton ahead by six points or more, and the Huffpollster poll average put her lead at 6.3 percentage points. Trump carried the state by one point. In other key states, the pattern was similar. The final Huffington Post poll averages showed Trump losing by nearly six points in Michigan, and by four points in Pennsylvania.

In a public statement issued on Wednesday, the American Association for Public Opinion Research said bluntly, "The polls clearly got it wrong this time." The organization announced that it had already put together a panel of "survey research and election polling experts" tasked with finding some answers. Several possible explanations have already been floated.

First, it's possible there was a late swing to Trump among undecided voters, which the state polls, in particular, failed to pick up. Another possibility is that some Trump voters didn't tell the pollsters about their preferences-the "shy Trump supporter" hypothesis.

A third theory, which I suspect may be the right one, is that a lot of Trump voters refused to answer the pollsters' calls in the first place, because they regarded them as part of the same media-political establishment that Trump was out railing against on the campaign trail. Something like this appears to have happened in Britain earlier this year, during the run-up to the Brexit referendum. Turnout wound up being considerably higher than expected among lower-income voters in the north of England, particularly elderly ones, and that swung the result.

Whatever went wrong with the polls in this country, they inevitably colored perceptions. "The reason it surprised me was because, like everyone else, I was taken in by those pesky polls," Teixeira told me. "It didn't look like, by and large, that he was running up as big a margin as he needed among non-college whites."

The prediction models didn't help things. On Tuesday morning, FiveThirtyEight's "polls-only" prediction model put the probability of Clinton winning the presidency at 71.4 per cent. And that figure was perhaps the most conservative one. The Times' Upshot model said Clinton had an eighty-five per cent chance of winning, the Huffington Post's figure was ninety-eight per cent, and the Princeton Election Consortium's estimate was ninety-nine per cent.

These numbers had a big influence on how many people, including journalists and political professionals, looked at the election. Plowing through all the new polls, or even keeping up with all the state and national poll averages, can be a time-consuming process. It's much easier to click on the latest update from the model of your choice. When you see it registering the chances of the election going a certain way at ninety per cent, or ninety-five per cent, it's easy to dismiss the other outcome as a live possibility-particularly if you haven't been schooled in how to think in probabilistic terms, which many people haven't.

The problem with models is that they rely so much on the polls. Essentially, they aggregate poll numbers and use some simulation software to covert them into unidimensional probabilistic forecasts. The details are complicated, and each model is different, but the bottom line is straightforward: when the polls are fairly accurate-as they were in 2008 and 2012-the models look good. When the polls are off, so are the models.

Silver, to his credit, pointed this out numerous times before the election. His model also allowed for the possibility that errors in the state polls were likely to be correlated-i.e., if the polls in Wisconsin got it wrong, then most likely the Michigan polls would get it wrong, too. This was a big reason why FiveThirtyEight's model consistently gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models did. But the fact remains that FiveThirtyEight, like almost everyone else, got the result wrong.

I got it wrong, too. Unlike in 2012, I didn't make any explicit predictions this year. But based on the polls and poll averages-I didn't look at the models much-I largely accepted the conventional wisdom that Clinton was running ahead of Trump and had an enduring advantage in the Electoral College. In mid-October, after the "Access Hollywood" tape emerged, I suggested that Trump was done.

Clearly, he wasn't. In retrospect, the F.B.I. Director James Comey's intervention ten days before the election-telling Congress that his agency was taking another look at e-mails related to Clinton's private server-may have proved decisive. The news seems to have shifted the national polls against Clinton by at least a couple of points, and some of the state polls-in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and other places-also moved sharply in Trump's direction. Without any doubt, it energized Republicans and demoralized Democrats.

One thing we know for sure, however, is that in mid-October, even some of the indicators that the Trump campaign relied on were sending out alarm signals. "Flash back three weeks, to October 18," Bloomberg News's Joshua Green and Sasha Issenberg reported on Thursday. "The Trump campaign's internal election simulator, the 'Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory,' showed Trump with a 7.8 percent chance of winning. That's because his own model had him trailing in most of the states that would decide the election, including the pivotal state of Florida."

Of course, neither the Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory software nor I knew that fate, in the form of Comey, was about to take a hand.

[Nov 11, 2016] Abedin and her husband had money, or a source of income, above beyond what their salaries would indicate. The latter could be the former.

Notable quotes:
"... Abedin had top secret information on a laptop in her home that she never disclosed to FBI interviwers. She and her husband had money, or a source of income, above & beyond what their salaries would indicate. The latter could be the former. ..."
"... If military intelligence folk gave Trump his insider knowledge about Weiner's laptop, maybe they suspected the source of leaking intelligence. Dig? ..."
Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
JSM November 10, 2016 at 3:51 pm

Willing to go out on a speculative limb. Some people want answers like Giuliani, and not because they're interested, as Holder shrilly claimed, in 'jail[ing] political opponents.'

Abedin had top secret information on a laptop in her home that she never disclosed to FBI interviwers. She and her husband had money, or a source of income, above & beyond what their salaries would indicate. The latter could be the former.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-adviser

If military intelligence folk gave Trump his insider knowledge about Weiner's laptop, maybe they suspected the source of leaking intelligence. Dig?

[Nov 07, 2016] Mike Pence Responds to FBI Mishandling Classified Information Is a Crime

I think email sandals essentially zeroed Hillary changes to win any traditional Republican states... But we will know for sure in two days. It also exposed such a level of incompetence by Hillary herself and her close entourage that is really staggering even after Bush II administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Pence was not having it. "Ladies and gentlemen, mishandling classified information is a crime." He reminded the audience that "Hillary Clinton said there's nothing marked classified on her emails, sent or received, and the FBI director told to Congress, that's not true." ..."
"... Separate emails also indicated that a top State Department official had attempted to offer the FBI quid pro quo if the bureau agreed to let Clinton alter the classified status of the documents found on her private server. ..."
www.breitbart.com

Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence tells New Hampshire residents that "mishandling classified information is a crime" and is discussing Hillary Clinton's ethical lapses.

During a rally in North Carolina on Sunday, Pence taled about FBI Director James Comey, shortly after news broke that Comey issued a written that the bureau had "not changed" its conclusions that Clinton should not face indictment over her raucous email scandal.

Speaking at the Hickory Regional Airport, Pence said, "You have a four-star general that might get five years in prison, before the end of this year, for mishandling classified information," of retired Gen. James Cartwright who was charged with lying to the FBI about discussing classified information with reporters about Iran's nuclear program, during a probe.

Pence continued, "you have a sailor that just went to jail for taking a half-a-dozen photographs in a classified area of a nuclear submarine. So let me say this, if only for their decades of self-dealing with the politics of personal enrichment, mishandling classified information and compromising our national security, we must ensure that Hillary Clinton is never elected president of the United States of America."

... ... ...

Comey wrote, "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton."

Pence was not having it. "Ladies and gentlemen, mishandling classified information is a crime." He reminded the audience that "Hillary Clinton said there's nothing marked classified on her emails, sent or received, and the FBI director told to Congress, that's not true."

He also pointed out that Clinton said she did not email any classified information to anyone. "And the head of the FBI told to Congress, there was classified information that was emailed."

Separate emails also indicated that a top State Department official had attempted to offer the FBI quid pro quo if the bureau agreed to let Clinton alter the classified status of the documents found on her private server.

RNC chairman Reince Priebus issued a statement to Breitbart News, following Comey's announcement, making it clear that the FBI's public corruption investigation of the Clinton Foundation - which has raised billions of dollars - is ongoing:

The FBI's findings from its criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's secret email server were a damning and unprecedented indictment of her judgment. The FBI found evidence Clinton broke the law, that she placed highly classified national security information at risk and repeatedly lied to the American people about her reckless conduct. None of this changes the fact that the FBI continues to investigate the Clinton Foundation for corruption involving her tenure as secretary of state. Hillary Clinton should never be president.


[Nov 07, 2016] Former House Intelligence Chairman Im 100 Percent Sure Hillarys Server Was Hacked

It is unclear whether it was actually hacked, but the server was so unprofessionally managed that hacking it is within the reach of medium qualification hacker. It violates the USA guidelines for setting government mail server in all major areas. The only thing that could saved it from hacking is that it looked very much as honeypot. On state level hacking there are no idiots or script kiddies. They would never attack the server directly. They would probably go first after 'no so bright" Bryan Paglian home network, or, better, after home network of completely clueless in computer security Huma Abedin. There are many ways to skin the cat, and after the USA developed Flame and Stixnet the gloves went off. At least for Iranians, who were targeted by those cyber attacks.
Notable quotes:
"... he is "100 percent confident" that Clinton's secret private email server was hacked by foreign enemies. ..."
"... Clinton could face espionage charges if FBI investigators find that she permitted national defense information to be "lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed" through "gross negligence," which includes dishonesty. ..."
"... Wouldn't we love to have in real time, the emails and the electronic communications of the Russian foreign minister, the Iranian foreign minister, and the Chinese? They're going to use that to exploit their advantage in their global strategy. That is what was going on. Our enemies were getting information on our national security issues, our economic security issues, in real time to plan their strategy for how they will thwart American interest. ..."
"... So what did we lose? Did she identify some of our sources? Some of the people that were working for the United States getting information. If we did, then we've got to go back and get those people out of the field. People might have died because of the information that she left and put onto her server. ..."
www.breitbart.com

Former House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Pete Hoekstra said that he is "100 percent confident" that Clinton's secret private email server was hacked by foreign enemies.

"I said this right away when we found out she had a secret server. I said, 'OK, that thing was hacked by the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and maybe some other governments,'" Hoekstra said on "Breitbart News Saturday" on Sirius/XM Channel 125.

Clinton could face espionage charges if FBI investigators find that she permitted national defense information to be "lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed" through "gross negligence," which includes dishonesty.

... ... ...

Wouldn't we love to have in real time, the emails and the electronic communications of the Russian foreign minister, the Iranian foreign minister, and the Chinese? They're going to use that to exploit their advantage in their global strategy. That is what was going on. Our enemies were getting information on our national security issues, our economic security issues, in real time to plan their strategy for how they will thwart American interest.

So what did we lose? Did she identify some of our sources? Some of the people that were working for the United States getting information. If we did, then we've got to go back and get those people out of the field. People might have died because of the information that she left and put onto her server.

Breitbart News has led the media in exposing the national security ramifications of Clinton's private email server. In a recent piece entitled, "Hillary Clinton Email Case Explained," Breitbart News reported:

Hillary's 2008 campaign IT specialist Bryan Pagliano labored for months in a room on K Street in Washington, D.C., building the server for Clinton to use.

Hillary Clinton kicked off her State Department career in Foggy Bottom in January 2009 with a private Apple server, then switched to Pagliano's handcrafted server in March 2009

…Hillary Clinton went to great lengths to hide the fact that she was using a private email server. She emailed with President Obama while Obama was using a pseudonym. She kept her own State Department IT Help Desk in the dark about her secret email activities, because her private email account got flagged when she tried to send emails to her own staff. "It bounced back. She called the email help desk at state (I guess assuming u had state email) and told them that. They had no idea it was YOU," Abedin told her. Clinton even paid a firm in Jacksonville called "Perfect Privacy LLC" to plug in phony owner names for her email network on Internet databases.

The server had an open webmail portal, making it easily vulnerable to run-of-the-mill hackers. James Comey noted evidence showing hacks by "hostile actors." Capitol Hill sources speak in hushed tones about the "Russian Files," which are said to include information about a Russian hack. Clinton was warned of a security "vulnerability" on her BlackBerry on her first official trip to China, and the State Department told her to stop using it. But Clinton decided to keep using it. She told a private audience in a paid speech that her BlackBerry was under attack constantly by the Chinese and Russians.

The State Department warned Clinton to stop using her Blackberry to conduct email business after the Department flagged a major security "vulnerability" on Clinton's first official trip to China as Secretary of State. But Clinton ignored the warning and kept using her Blackberry.

[Nov 07, 2016] Gen. Mike Flynn Hillary Clintons Email Setup Was Unbelievable Active Criminal Behavior

Nov 07, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Flynn said that the media is covering up Clinton's alleged crimes:

People need to know what this is and so the mainstream media-all of the media, basically 99 percent of the media-doesn't even bother with it anymore. Nobody even covers it anymore. This is dangerous for our country and then you throw in all this stuff from this past week-you have this case against Anthony Weiner and he's directly tied to Hillary Clinton.

He's under multiple investigations. Then you have the Clinton Foundation, which is under multiple investigations by the FBI, and not just one but multiple.

You have the reopening of the national security investigation by the FBI directly against Hillary Clinton, that's another one that's open.

So I mean we are stupid people, we are stupid people in this country is we elect Hillary Clinton to be our next president because we're going to have nothing but scandal and dark cloud scandal over our country for the next four years and we cannot afford it with all the problems we face in this country and all the problems we face around the world.

What we need is we need to drain the damn swamp .

We need to get new leadership in our country, we need to get fresh blood in our country, and we need to stop the madness we are facing with this era of corruption in our country that has been going on for decades. We have got to stop it.

[Nov 06, 2016] Emails Warrant No New Action Against Hillary Clinton, F.B.I. Director Says

Now the question is: if this is true, why the invetigation was reopened in the first place? For many voters, this story comes too late. More than 12m votes have already been cast across the country in early voting, representing around 10% of the likely total votes in this election.
www.nytimes.com

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, told Congress on Sunday that he had seen no evidence in a recently discovered trove of emails to change his conclusion that Hillary Clinton should face no charges over her handling of classified information.

... ... ...

The letter was a dramatic final twist in a tumultuous nine days for both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey, who drew widespread criticism for announcing that the F.B.I. had discovered new emails that might be relevant to its investigation of Mrs. Clinton, which ended in July with no charges. That criticism of Mr. Comey from both parties is likely to persist after the election.


[Nov 06, 2016] Hillary Accepted Qatar Money Without Notifying Government, While She Was Head Of State Dept

Notable quotes:
"... according to the State Department, the previously undisclosed donation suggests there may be an ethics violation by the foundation, even though the State of Qatar is shown on the foundation's website as having given at least that amount. There is no date listed for the donation. ..."
"... Underscoring the potential flagrant abuse of ethical guidelines if the Qatar payment is confirmed, Hillary Clinton promised the U.S. government that while she served as secretary of state the foundation would not accept new funding from foreign governments without seeking clearance from the State Department's ethics office . The agreement was designed to dispel concerns that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by donations to the foundation. ..."
"... She has another problem. Previous posts on ZH indicate that there exists a conflict between the Clinton Foundation and the CHAI the Clinton Health Access Initiative. ..."
"... The board of CHAI is upset that the CF accepts money intended for CHAI but this money never flows through to CHAI. The CF accepts funds and encourages donations based on CHAI activity but these funds do not appear to be transferrred to the legal entity undertaking the health work. ..."
"... "Pay my foundation": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GHth-bt0Qs ..."
"... We (CHAI) are very concerned about cases where we meet Clinton Foundation donors who believe they have given money to support CHAI's work because they have donated to the CF, when in reality CHAI does not receive the funds. ..."
"... only 5.7% goes to charitable causes. The remainder goes to salaries, travel and confrences. In other words, goes to pay Hillary's and Bill's personal and political expenses. ..."
"... The Clintons out Mafia the Mafia. ..."
"... "The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, 'We're going to go public with this if you don't reopen the investigation and you don't do the right thing with timely indictments,'" ..."
Nov 06, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

Three weeks ago, when we first reported that Qatar had offered to pay the Clinton Foundation $1 million after a hacked Podesta email disclosed that the ambassador of Qatar " Would like to see WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] 'for five minutes' in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011 ", we said that in this particular case, the Clinton Foundation may also be in violation of State Department ethics codes.

As we said in early October, while this has been seen by critics of the Clinton Foundation as yet another instance of influence pandering and "pay-to-play", this time there may actually be consequences for the Clinton Foundation: according to the State Department, the previously undisclosed donation suggests there may be an ethics violation by the foundation, even though the State of Qatar is shown on the foundation's website as having given at least that amount. There is no date listed for the donation.

Underscoring the potential flagrant abuse of ethical guidelines if the Qatar payment is confirmed, Hillary Clinton promised the U.S. government that while she served as secretary of state the foundation would not accept new funding from foreign governments without seeking clearance from the State Department's ethics office . The agreement was designed to dispel concerns that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by donations to the foundation.

Of course, US foreign policy could be very easily swayed if Hillary accepted money and simply did not report it the receipt of such money.

sushi 1980XLS Nov 5, 2016 8:30 AM ,

She has another problem. Previous posts on ZH indicate that there exists a conflict between the Clinton Foundation and the CHAI the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

The board of CHAI is upset that the CF accepts money intended for CHAI but this money never flows through to CHAI. The CF accepts funds and encourages donations based on CHAI activity but these funds do not appear to be transferrred to the legal entity undertaking the health work.

Next question is - Where does the money go? And who benefits? ,

clooney_art sushi Nov 5, 2016 8:32 AM ,
"Pay my foundation": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GHth-bt0Qs
sushi clooney_art Nov 5, 2016 8:46 AM ,
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-02/chai-management-mutiny

CHAI is often portrayed by the Clinton Foundation (CF) as an initiative of the Foundation. . . . We (CHAI) are very concerned about cases where we meet Clinton Foundation donors who believe they have given money to support CHAI's work because they have donated to the CF, when in reality CHAI does not receive the funds.

See paragraph 4 on page 3 of the full memo which is a part of the above ZH post.

The Saint bamawatson Nov 5, 2016 10:47 AM ,
Hillay said at one of the debates that the Clinton Foundation pays out 90% to charity.

NOT SO. Latest filing - 2014 - shows that only 5.7% goes to charitable causes. The remainder goes to salaries, travel and confrences. In other words, goes to pay Hillary's and Bill's personal and political expenses.

The Clintons out Mafia the Mafia.

Cigar Smoker The Saint Nov 5, 2016 12:42 PM ,
Ten years ago I considered setting up a Non-profit Family Charitable corporation, the minimum yearly donation was 7% at that time, of course it may have changed.
The Saint Cigar Smoker Nov 5, 2016 2:16 PM ,
Here's something new from WND/Breitbart:

Citing a "well-placed source" in the New York Police Department, Blackwater USA founder and retired Navy SEAL Erik Prince.....said the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in the Weiner investigation but received "huge pushback" from the Justice Department.

"The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, 'We're going to go public with this if you don't reopen the investigation and you don't do the right thing with timely indictments,'"

http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/source-fbi-has-evidence-hillary-visited-orgy-...

[Nov 05, 2016] Clinton Deleted Classified Email To Her Daughter The Daily Caller

Nov 05, 2016 | dailycaller.com
Hillary Clinton deleted a 2009 email in which she forwarded classified information to her daughter, Chelsea.

The email was released on Friday by the State Department. It is one of thousands of documents recovered by the FBI from Clinton's private email server.

The Dec. 20, 2009 email chain , entitled "Update," started with a message from Michael Froman, who served as a deputy assistant to President Obama and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.

The email, which is redacted because it contains information classified as "Confidential," was sent to Jake Sullivan, Clinton's foreign policy adivser at the State Department, and several Obama aides. Sullivan sent it to Hillary Clinton who then forwarded it to Chelsea, who emailed under the pseudonym "Diane Reynolds."

[Nov 05, 2016] Hillary's High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Notable quotes:
"... If this is so, Hillary Clinton as security risk ranks right up there with Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, though they acted out of treasonous ideology and she out of Clintonian hubris. What do these foreign intelligence agencies know about Clinton that the voters do not? ..."
"... The second revelation from Baier is that the Clinton Foundation has been under active investigation by the white-collar crime division of the FBI for a year and is a "very high priority." ..."
"... The FBI told Baier that they anticipate indictments. ..."
"... Indeed, with the sums involved, and the intimate ties between high officials of Bill's foundation, and Hillary and her close aides at State, it strains credulity to believe that deals were not discussed and cut. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... And he knows better than any other high official the answer to a critical question that needs answering before Tuesday: has Baier been fed exaggerated or false information by FBI agents hostile to Clinton? Or has Baier been told the truth? In the latter case, we are facing a constitutional crisis if Clinton is elected. And the American people surely have a right to know that before they go to the polls on Tuesday. ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
"... and the author of the book ..."
The American Conservative

For, if true, Clinton could face charges in 2017 and impeachment and removal from office in 2018.

According to Baier, FBI agents have found new emails, believed to have originated on Clinton's server, on the computer jointly used by close aide Huma Abedin and her disgraced husband, Anthony Weiner.

Abedin's failure to turn this computer over to the State Department on leaving State appears to be a violation of U.S. law.

Moreover, the laptops of close Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, thought destroyed by the FBI, were apparently retained and are "being exploited" by the National Security division.

And here is the salient point. His FBI sources told Baier, "with 99 percent" certitude, that Clinton's Chappaqua server "had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence services."

If this is so, Hillary Clinton as security risk ranks right up there with Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, though they acted out of treasonous ideology and she out of Clintonian hubris. What do these foreign intelligence agencies know about Clinton that the voters do not?

The second revelation from Baier is that the Clinton Foundation has been under active investigation by the white-collar crime division of the FBI for a year and is a "very high priority."

Specifically, the FBI is looking into published allegations of "pay-to-play." This is the charge that the Clinton State Department traded access, influence, and policy decisions to foreign regimes and to big donors who gave hundreds of millions to the Clinton Foundation, along with 15 years of six-figure speaking fees for Bill and Hillary.

According to Baier's sources, FBI agents are "actively and aggressively" pursuing this case, have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple persons, and are now being inundated in an "avalanche of new information" from WikiLeaks documents and new emails.

The FBI told Baier that they anticipate indictments.

Indeed, with the sums involved, and the intimate ties between high officials of Bill's foundation, and Hillary and her close aides at State, it strains credulity to believe that deals were not discussed and cut.

Books have been written alleging and detailing them.

Also, not only Fox News but also the Wall Street Journal and other news sources are reporting on what appears to be a rebellion inside the FBI against strictures on their investigations imposed by higher ups in the Department of Justice of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Director Comey has come under fire from left and right-first for refusing to recommend the prosecution of Clinton, then for last week's statement about the discovery of new and "pertinent" emails on the Abedin-Weiner computer-but retains a reputation for integrity.

And he knows better than any other high official the answer to a critical question that needs answering before Tuesday: has Baier been fed exaggerated or false information by FBI agents hostile to Clinton? Or has Baier been told the truth? In the latter case, we are facing a constitutional crisis if Clinton is elected. And the American people surely have a right to know that before they go to the polls on Tuesday.

What is predictable ahead?

Attorney General Lynch, whether she stays or goes, will be hauled before Congress to explain whether she or top aides impeded the FBI investigations of the Clinton scandals. And witnesses from within her Justice department and FBI will also be called to testify.

Moreover, Senate Republicans would block confirmation of any new attorney general who did not first promise to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the email and pay-to-play scandals, and any pressure from Lynch's Justice Department on the FBI.

Even Democrats would concede that a Department of Justice staffed by Hillary Clinton appointees could not credibly be entrusted with investigating alleged high crimes and misdemeanors by former Secretary of State Clinton and confidants like Abedin and Mills.

An independent counsel, a special prosecutor, appears inevitable.

And such individuals usually mark their success or failure by how many and how high are the indictments and convictions they rack up.

... ... ...

Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.

[Nov 05, 2016] What does it take to bring Hillary Clinton to justice

Nov 03, 2016 | thesaker.is
54 Comments Guest Posts The Saker

Originally written for RT

Virtually the whole planet holds its collective breath at the prospect of Hillary Clinton possibly becoming the next President of the United States (POTUS).

How's that humanly possible, as the (daily) Bonfire of The Scandals – relentlessly fed by WikiLeaks revelations and now converging FBI investigations – can now be seen from interstellar space?

It's possible because Hillary Clinton, slouching through a paroxysm of manufactured hysteria, is supported by virtually the whole US establishment, a consensual neocon/neoliberalcon War Party/Wall Street/corporate media axis.

But History has a tendency to show us there's always a straw that breaks the camel's back.

... ... ...

As far as the Clinton machine is concerned, an interlocking influence peddling pile up is the norm. John Podesta also happens to be the founder of the Center for American Progress – a George Soros operation and prime recruiting ground for Obama administration officials, including US Treasury operatives who decided which elite Too Big To Fail (TBTF) financial giants would be spared after the 2008 crisis. DCLeaks.com , for its part, has connected Soros Open Society foundations to global funding rackets directly leading to subversion of governments and outright regime change (obviously sparing Clinton Foundation donors.)

Exceptional bananas, anyone?

The perfectly timed slow drip of WikiLeaks revelations, for the Clinton machine, feels like a sophisticated form of Chinese torture. To alleviate the pain, the relentless standard spin has been to change the subject, blame the messenger, and attribute it all to "evil" Russian hacking when the real source for the leaks might have come straight from the https://www.rt.com/news/365164-assange-interview-wikileaks-russia/ belly of the (Washington) beast.

At the Valdai discussion club last week, it took President Putin

http://valdaiclub.com/events/posts/articles/vladimir-putin-took-part-in-the-valdai-discussion-club-s-plenary-session/ only a few sentences to debunk the whole Clinton machine narrative with a bang:

"Another mythical and imaginary problem is what I can only call the hysteria the USA has whipped up over supposed Russian meddling in the American presidential election. The United States has plenty of genuinely urgent problems, it would seem, from the colossal public debt to the increase in firearms violence and cases of arbitrary action by the police. You would think that the election debates would concentrate on these and other unresolved problems, but the elite has nothing with which to reassure society, it seems, and therefore attempt to distract public attention by pointing instead to supposed Russian hackers, spies, agents of influence and so forth.

I have to ask myself and ask you too: Does anyone seriously imagine that Russia can somehow influence the American people's choice? America is not some kind of 'banana republic', after all, but is a great power. Do correct me if I am wrong."

Reality, though, continues to insist on offering multiple, overlapping banana republic instances, configuring a giant black hole of transparency.

Anthropologist Janine Wedel has been one of the few in Clinton-linked US mainstream media

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clintons-latest-email-scandal-why-it-deserves-scrutiny_us_58177d54e4b08301d33e0cdb?24hp9z9vxqa6y9zfr acknowledging how Bill Clinton, while Hillary was Secretary of State, perfected his version of "philantro-capitalism" (actually a money laundering "pay to play" racket), a practice "by no means confined to the Clintons".

And the racket prospered with inbuilt nuggets, such as Hillary being http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html perfectly aware that prime Clinton Foundation donors Qatar and Saudi Arabia were also financing ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

Huma, the Fall Princess

Now, less than a week before the election, we have come to the crucial juncture where the WikiLeaks revelations are merging with the FBI investigations – all three of them.

Exhibit A is https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150#efmABWAB8ACiACqACvADUADXAIF

this WikiLeaks bombshell; Peter Kadzik, who's now in charge of the Department of Justice (DOJ) probe into the 650,000 emails found on the laptop shared by Clinton's right-hand woman Huma Abedin and her estranged, pervert husband Anthony Wiener, is a Clinton asset.

Not only Kadzik was an attorney for Marc Rich when he was pardoned by Bill Clinton; Podesta – as also revealed by WikiLeaks – thanked Kadzik for keeping him "out of jail"; and it was Kadzik who gave Podesta a secret heads up https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150#efmABWAB8ACiACqACvADUADXAIF on the Clinton email investigation.

The Clinton machine, starring a self-described virtuous Madonna, is actually a pretty nasty business. Huma and her family's close connections to Saudi Arabia – and the Muslim Brotherhood – are legendary (that includes his brother Hassan, who works for Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi). Podesta, by the way, is a handsomely remunerated lobbyist for Saudi Arabia in Washington; that's part of the Clinton Foundation connection.

Yet now, with Huma in the spotlight – still maintaining she didn't know all those emails were in her and Wiener's laptop – it's no wonder Hillary has instantly downgraded her, publicly, to "one of my aides". She used to be Hillary's ersatz http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-adviser "daughter"; now she's being framed as The Fall Princess.

And that brings us to the intersection of those three FBI investigations; on Hillary's Subterranean Email Server (in theory closed by FBI's Comey last summer); on the Clinton Foundation; and on Wiener's sexting of minors. The FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation for over a year now. Let's try to cut a long story short.

Follow the evidence

Last July, the DOJ – under Clinton/Obama asset Loretta Lynch – decided not to prosecute anyone on Emailgate. And yet FBI director Comey – who nonetheless stressed Hillary's "extreme carelessness" – turbo-charged his no-denial mode on another investigation, as in the FBI "sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe."

Soon we had Clinton Foundation FBI investigators trying to get access to all the emails turned over in the Emailgate investigation. The East District of New York refused it. Very important point; up to 2015, guess who was the US attorney at the East District; Clinton/Obama asset Lynch.

Enter an extra layer of legalese. Less than two months ago, the Clinton Foundation FBI investigators discovered they could not have access to any Emailgate material that was connected to immunity agreements.

But then, roughly a month ago, another FBI team captured the by now famous laptop shared by Huma and Wiener – using a warrant allowing only a probe on Weiner's sexting of a 15-year-old girl. Subsequently they found Huma Abedin emails at all her accounts – from Humaabedin@yahoo.com to the crucial huma@clintonemail.com . This meant not only that Huma was forwarding State Dept. emails to her private accounts, but also that Hillary was sending emails from the "secret" clintonemail.com to Huma at yahoo.com.

No one knew for sure, but some of these emails might be duplicates of those the Clinton Foundation FBI investigators could not access because of the pesky immunity agreements.

What's established by now is that the metadata in the Huma/Wiener laptop was duly examined. Now picture both teams of FBI investigators – Clinton Foundation and pervert Wiener – comparing notes. And then they decide Huma's emails are "relevant".

Key questions apply; and the most pressing is how the emails were deemed "relevant" if the investigators could only examine the metadata. What matters is that Comey certainly was made aware of the content of the emails – a potential game-changer. That's why one of my sources https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201610311046920348-clinton-fbi-november-surprise/ insists his decision to go public came from above.

The other key question now is whether the DOJ – via Kadzik? – will once again thwart another investigation, this time on the Clinton Foundation. Senior, serious FBI agents won't take that – massive euphemism – kindly. The FBI has been on the Clinton Foundation for over a year. Now, arguably, they are loaded with evidence – and they won't quit. Winning the presidency now seems to be the least of Hillary Clinton's Bonfire of Scandals' problems.

Eric, November 4, 2016 1:08 pm

After the Nixon Watergate scandal, which avoided discussion of his war crimes and treasonous undermining of Vietnamese peace talks, and probable role in JFK's assassination. And after the Iran Contra scandal which also involved illegal arms transfers, obstruction of justice, end running around supplying arms to terrorists, drug dealing, etc., it is refreshing that after Bill's impeachment on relatively minor charges (do older guys having affairs with younger women occur, and they don't want to talk about it?), to see some Democrats, who have always portrayed themselves as the good guys against the evil Nixons and Reagans and Bushes, being caught red handed in good oldfashioned money laundering, gun running, supplying arms to terrorists and cavorting with and accepting money from good old fashioned head chopping human rights violators, in true treasonous style.

As the saying goes, "The country is run by gangsters, and the ones who win are called 'The Government'.

Vote Third Party.

[Oct 30, 2016] The FBIs email inquiry is a fitting end to this dumpster fire of an election

Neoliberal queen is waiting coronation, but ...
Notable quotes:
"... The US has one thing in common with the UK. A massive hidden disenfranchised underclass, who are often unemployed or underemployed . He will get that vote, just as brexit did, and the reason he invited Farage over was because he knows this. ..."
"... When you see all the corruption and fraud that goes on around the world by the wealthy and powerful you see that change by grass root movements doesn't stand a chance. ..."
"... Politicians with their nepotism and cronyism , CEO's, Bankers/Hedge Funnd Managers, Big Business, Big Pharma, Lobbyists, Industrialists, Multi-Nationals...all part part of a Global Cabal that doesn't care about the poor or the working class. ..."
"... it is my belief that they are already relatively certain that at least one State Department email with classified information, and perhaps many more, reside on a laptop computer owned by Anthony Weiner and used by him to exchange sexually explicit content with supposedly underage women -- and I say "supposedly" because posing as an available member of the opposite sex is a common clandestine maneuver. ..."
"... The war candidate is and always has been Hillary. Never met a war she didn't like. Trump OTOH is much more interested in money than in war. He is an isolationist. It's one reason I like his platform, I am tired of the wars. Hillary would continue them. ..."
"... The problem with Hillary (which the DNC should have thought about as they sabotaged Bernie Sander's bid in the primaries) is that there is more then enough kindling in her background to create a decent fire....and lots and lots of smoke! ..."
"... exactly - enough skeletons in her closet to fill a good sized cemetery. ..."
"... "Pseudo-scandal"? Or pseduo-journalism. Richard Wolffe's credibility as a journalist just went up in flames. If you want to read Hillary Clinton's media releases, cut out the middle man and go directly to her campaign website. ..."
"... Clinton is unpopular because, at the innermost core, she's unlikable. Sort of an evil stepmother type who's trying to look more motherly. ..."
"... Into this mess is the media, which refuses to provide serious discussion and analysis over important economic, social, environmental and foreign policy issues. Instead it turns everything into theatre with a focus on sex scandals, rumours, hair cuts and what the candidate is wearing. ..."
"... Elections are being won or lost on wafer thin margins because the choice of candidate are so poor. Policy is ignored or even mostly absent. Instead we have what is little better than a game show. ..."
"... It is like a choice between Pepsi and Coke, whatever choice you make you only get highly sugared and fizzy lolly water that won't do your health any good in the long run. ..."
"... Perhaps all politicians close to an election should be immune from the law for a period? ..."
"... No spin from the neoliberal establishment will save their queen Hillary. ..."
"... Because we're talking about the Big Circumcised Weiner, someone who self-identifies as "a perpetually horny middle-aged man", we've got the fun prospects of one or more sex crimes, along with volumes of sorta' consensual sex, being documented among the, possibly, famous and the soon to famous; and a little wealthier too. ..."
"... When the the swamp is drained the American people will be shocked and sickened by the crimes of the people behind the so-called progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin that the bankster cabal sent among the people to destroy the United States. By all means, the corrupt politicians and their masters must be investigated. So too the people who run the disgusting corporate media and scurrilous vermin behind groups like "Media Matters" "Open Societies" etc. etc. etc. ..."
"... The trouble with your argument is that the Conservative side has analogous front organisations backed by oil and other interest groups which are intent on imposing their will regardless of the popular will. The Conservatives have indeed been outgunned by the Liberal mafia this time. ..."
"... " progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin"... How are the "bankster cabal" you conjure in any way progressive and/or socialist? Do you have any clue, or are these just two of your go-to slurs? ..."
"... She doesn't mind the disgusting behaviour and carryings-on of Trump being exposed before an election and it shouldn't be any different for her either. We hear a lot about the accusations against Donald Trump in this country and we don't hear much about what Hillary has done with all her emails or what is alleged to have been written in them. ..."
"... You have got to be joking. How about the War in Yemen, 90% + casualty rates with drone strikes and targeted assassination, Saudi Arabia weapons deals, vetoing JASTA, War in Syria and Libya disaster, NSA surveillance continuing, Civil Asset forfeiture equitable sharing program, NDAA 2012 - 17 including indefinite detention and now women's draft, 2nd Amendment infringement and calls for Australian gun control , Guantanamo still open, still pursuing REAL ID, TSA groping, Biometric database and associated ID card to track movements 24/7, Militarization of the police under 1033 program, Federal government procurement of Stingrays and ALPR readers, smart meter program spying, CISA, IRS and Fast and Furious scandals, prosecution of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, pursuance of TPP, TISA and TTIP ? ..."
"... "The latest pseudo-scandal to hit Clinton is unlikely to rob her of the presidency. But it sure isn't going to impress voters already sickened by a shocking campaign." ..."
"... Even a number of actions such as the possible destruction of 31,000 emails and several mobiles after receiving a Congressional subpoena to produce them was not enough to persuade him otherwise. ..."
"... A reasonable conclusion must be the latest criminal investigation concerns not the finding of these additional emails but the actual content of the emails. This matter therefore -far from a pseudo-scandal- must take a very serious form if it causes the FBI at this acutely sensitive time for the election to reopen criminal investigations. ..."
"... Comey has not re-opened the investigation, he simply notified Congress he is looking at "newly obtained info" to determine what it is and how should something be found) it might relate to a decision to re-open the investigation. Basically he is simply covering his ass, although, he now screwed that up and has Justice on his ass also calling for him to make a full disclosure. He will have to make public the info or possibly face a Justice Department investigation of his agency. Major error on his part. ..."
"... How many "non-stories" did Hillary generate in her lifetime? 50? 100? 200? It seems to me that wherever she goes, a "non-story" or two is sure to follow. This may be a non-story that broke the camel's back. Yes, Virginia, you can politically die of one "non-story" too many. ..."
"... Are they a banana republic? They are a great power, correct me if I'm wrong. ..."
"... It's bad enough that the 47 year old Jennifer Lopez, dressed in boots and suspenders is prancing about on stage in Miami. But she brings onto the stage the almost 70 year old Hillary Clinton who, as one of the worst speakers in political history, has the crowd silenced within seconds as she rants about how "we're not going to let Donald Trump get away with it". ..."
"... Her campaign is a fucking joke and they and the MSM are trying to sell this fetid pile of shit to the whole world ..."
"... Obama, Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, and Wall Street decided eight years ago she would be president in 2017. Americans are fed up with that sort of bullshit. ..."
"... Clinton's attacks on Russia are deeply worrying. I have no doubt at all that she'll try and impose a no fly zone in Syria, which will mean direct confrontation, risking an all out war. This woman is a warmonger and she needs to be stopped. ..."
"... People, this whole thing is merely a diversion to move attention from corruption in high places, onto Huma and Anthony Weiner. Comey's had to do something to move attention from the fact that Obama lied to the people, he lied to Congress concerning not knowing about Clinton's private e-mail arrangement and even used a pseudonym to connect with her. This is public knowledge now and not speculation. ..."
"... Clinton will make sure that the NWO gains control. It is being implemented in the background as all this is going. Many people are not the least bit interested in how their children are being brainwashed, how borders have been dissolved, how Obama has been quietly taking unilateral control of government. It seems that they will sit through the pantomime that is this election enjoying every diversionary twist, then when Clinton is elected, they will be unaware that the tentacles of the enemy of the people have penetrated every compartment of government. Vote for Clinton and you are voting for a one world government. There is a war going on and it is truly a battle between good and evil! God help the world. ..."
www.theguardian.com

MichaelKenyon 29 Oct 2016 17:50

I think the reason people don't like Obama is because he has bombed 7 countries. Maybe Clinton can get to 8 if she goes after Russia.

NotKindOrGentle 29 Oct 2016 17:52

How do the Americans ever get anything done when 18 months of their electoral cycle is taken up with campaigning for the next one.

riggbeck -> NotKindOrGentle 29 Oct 2016 18:13

Then there's the lunacy of mid-term elections. Four years isn't very long for a president to deliver on major election promises, yet the constitution potentially halves that time with the threat of losing majorities in the House of Representatives or the Senate.

Checks and balances turn into gridlock.

GeeDeeSea 29 Oct 2016 17:54

It's not the FBI that made her use a private e-mail account. It's not the FBI that decided to install a private server. Get real. These were her decisions in an attempt to conceal her activities while in public office.


Preparetobeoffended 29 Oct 2016 17:58

And so it goes on.

Clinton, still heading for the White House? What planet are you on!

Will Bernie supporters vote for Clinton knowing the Democrats conspired to steal the nomination from him. Will they, really.

Will Wikileaks and Project Veritas`s most damning offerings be ignored by these sheep with hands covering ears yelling I`m not listening! Will they, really.

Trump is the less frightening of two frightening options, but at least he has going for him the fact that he has tenaciously attacked the corruption clear to all capable of an independent thought.

Trump is going to win, and going to win comfortably. Get used to it.

GeeDeeSea 29 Oct 2016 18:01

2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election

"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."

http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/


absentlyadjustable 29 Oct 2016 18:06

We don't know what the emails are, I wouldn't expect us to. If there's an investigation then you don't release confidential information. But the information that we have gleaned from Wikileaks shows that the State authorities have been involved in shutting things down, as has the Clinton campaign and we know that a large and suspicious payment was made to a close relative of an investigator.

We also know that the IRS has been used over a period in a partisan manner to the disadvantage of the Republicans and that the previous decision on the emails not to take action was met with incredulity within the FBI.

If the FBI is making this announcement now then it must have discovered something that has worried it. It made the announcement soon after the matter arose as it should have done given that this is a very important piece of information of which voters need to be aware.

The press to date has handled Clinton with kid gloves and it still wants to do so. Fortunately the revelations coming out and probably the true polls have been making them think again and so they are allowing a little doubt to enter their coverage.

Hopefully this will be the end of the Clinton campaign, but with the money, contacts and other resources available to it there will be an immense effort, from the State and campaign, to blacken the reputation of a body which previously has served Clinton so well.

absentlyadjustable 29 Oct 2016 18:16

Can I point out as well how biased the reporting of the Presidential campaign has been in the UK? Most of the media have been acting as the publicity wing of the Democrats and the only people to be interviewed, especially on the BBC, seem to have been from the liberal Clinton supporting press

AndyPandy1968 29 Oct 2016 18:29

I am sorry to say my personal feeling is that this is the last straw and Trump will win.

I don't support him but he is not stupid, and he was running too close for comfort even before this. He is not playing to the Guardian, he is playing to an American audience, many of whom have a totally different view of the world.

The US has one thing in common with the UK. A massive hidden disenfranchised underclass, who are often unemployed or underemployed . He will get that vote, just as brexit did, and the reason he invited Farage over was because he knows this.

That is why he says these clumsy things. Not because he is stupid. He says them because he is playing to that audience. It is deliberate.

Let's hope I am wrong.

DogsLivesMatter 29 Oct 2016 18:31

When you see all the corruption and fraud that goes on around the world by the wealthy and powerful you see that change by grass root movements doesn't stand a chance.

Politicians with their nepotism and cronyism , CEO's, Bankers/Hedge Funnd Managers, Big Business, Big Pharma, Lobbyists, Industrialists, Multi-Nationals...all part part of a Global Cabal that doesn't care about the poor or the working class.

Even the UN and WHO are stacked with those who have influential connections. Pay to Play has become the norm. What choice does anyone have anymore other than going with the devil you know? None!

Sappho53 29 Oct 2016 18:35

The world wants a complete investigation into the illegal Iraq War with consequences. The world is still reeling form this Republican LIE and it has cost US allies dearly in lives, finances, and terrorism. The Republicans have hidden from the biggest scandal of the past one hundred years. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice must answer and so must all of their supporters in the Republican Party.

Glenn Smith 29 Oct 2016 18:40

Contrary to your interpretation, Mr. Wolffe, I think the FBI's brave action is going to have precisely the result of denying Hillary the election, and justifiably so (and not that I think Trump is any better): it is my belief that they are already relatively certain that at least one State Department email with classified information, and perhaps many more, reside on a laptop computer owned by Anthony Weiner and used by him to exchange sexually explicit content with supposedly underage women -- and I say "supposedly" because posing as an available member of the opposite sex is a common clandestine maneuver.

providenciales -> BlueberryCompote 29 Oct 2016 19:12

Actually, people will be able to buy the insurance they can afford and that they want if we get rid of Obamacare. You wouldn't like unaffordable insurance with deductibles that mean you don't have any coverage either.

Trump has already said who he would nominate to SCOTUS so you can't scaremonger on that score. He gave a list in fact.

The war candidate is and always has been Hillary. Never met a war she didn't like. Trump OTOH is much more interested in money than in war. He is an isolationist. It's one reason I like his platform, I am tired of the wars. Hillary would continue them.

Casey13 29 Oct 2016 18:51

Once Hillary is elected the whole stinking cesspit of Clinton Inc will start crashing down around her in a hodgepodge of scandals that make Watergate look like Jay walking. She will be Impeached within a year.

JavaZee 29 Oct 2016 18:56

The problem with Hillary (which the DNC should have thought about as they sabotaged Bernie Sander's bid in the primaries) is that there is more then enough kindling in her background to create a decent fire....and lots and lots of smoke!

boxcarwillie -> JavaZee 29 Oct 2016 19:08

exactly - enough skeletons in her closet to fill a good sized cemetery.


Theleme1532 29 Oct 2016 19:03

"Pseudo-scandal"? Or pseduo-journalism. Richard Wolffe's credibility as a journalist just went up in flames. If you want to read Hillary Clinton's media releases, cut out the middle man and go directly to her campaign website.

boxcarwillie 29 Oct 2016 19:06

Clinton is unpopular because, at the innermost core, she's unlikable. Sort of an evil stepmother type who's trying to look more motherly. doesn't work. with that said, the article is right - this has been a dumpster fire campaign and i'll be glad to see it over. i doubt HRC will make good on any of her campaign promises, but i would be afraid Trump would. Hope it's better next time. Bernie would be 78, but that's not as old as it used to be.

Reality_Man 29 Oct 2016 19:14

On the web I read that the NY FBI office is in open rebellion with the DC FBI and that during the Antony Wiener investigation they found classified emails on a shared laptop PC. Who knows maybe Huma will be under arrest before November the 8th. One way or another it was done for a reason I would suggest that the FBI is still a law enforcement agency not a political organization. As the end of the Obama administration comes to pass it's only natural that the Chinese made him get out of the back of air force one to show a lack of respect and other countries and agencies may be showing what they feel. Strong Together may not work if Huma is separated from her baby. She just may sing terrified bird. Just Saying.

Arcane 29 Oct 2016 19:15

This election is a sad reflection on the current state of democracy across much of the Western World. The major political parties are so compromised with insider politics and a lack of genuine concern for the long-term benefit of the voters they purport to represent that they keep on producing candidates of the worst quality.

Into this mess is the media, which refuses to provide serious discussion and analysis over important economic, social, environmental and foreign policy issues. Instead it turns everything into theatre with a focus on sex scandals, rumours, hair cuts and what the candidate is wearing.

Our democracies - not just in the United States but around the world - are under threat from this same malaise. It starts with political parties that care more about protecting the interests of a few insiders and influential interest groups. These political movements no longer appeal to the majority of voters.

Elections are being won or lost on wafer thin margins because the choice of candidate are so poor. Policy is ignored or even mostly absent. Instead we have what is little better than a game show.

It is like a choice between Pepsi and Coke, whatever choice you make you only get highly sugared and fizzy lolly water that won't do your health any good in the long run.

BlueberryCompote -> Arcane 29 Oct 2016 19:22

You've got to admit, however, that America has the worst and most extreme version of this problem with little sign of anyway out.

bookworm7 29 Oct 2016 19:29

This raises the obvious question: what on earth was the FBI director thinking when he dropped his letter on Friday making it crystal clear that he knew nothing?

He said the investigation was being re-opened in the light of new evidence. If the investigators 'knew everything' why would they investigate? The above is a piece of sophistry conflating the knowledge of the facts with the knowledge that the facts are to be investigated.

I can see how the timing looks suspect, but consider the alternative; if he knew about the new evidence necessitating the re-opening of the investigation, and withheld telling Congress on purpose because Clinton was a politician close to an electron, would this also not look bad? Could he not be accused of withholding pertinent information for political purposes?

Perhaps all politicians close to an election should be immune from the law for a period?

PlayaGiron 29 Oct 2016 19:32

No spin from the neoliberal establishment will save their queen Hillary.

Gangoffour -> Bifocal 29 Oct 2016 20:52

Because we're talking about the Big Circumcised Weiner, someone who self-identifies as "a perpetually horny middle-aged man", we've got the fun prospects of one or more sex crimes, along with volumes of sorta' consensual sex, being documented among the, possibly, famous and the soon to famous; and a little wealthier too.

I'm sure it's a lot easier to pick up honey pots when they provide a sympathetic shoulder to snuggle into because your wife refuses to satisfy your needs since she's doing all of Hillary's work.

Who wouldn't want to be part of the Clinton matchmaking machine?

Berkeley2013 29 Oct 2016 20:22

Mr Wolffe writes:

"From the Clinton Foundation to the private email server, from Benghazi to Weiner, from Whitewater to Monica, the list is as long as it is utterly spurious. Whatever crumbs of wrongdoing there may be, they don't amount to something worthy of Watergate, or even the myriad gate-suffixed scandals since. Questionable behavior is not the same as criminal or even impeachable conduct."

How could anything involving the protocols and laws regarding national security communications be called "spurious?"

How can anything involving many separate pieces of DoS communication be called "crumbs of wrongdoing?"

gladiointurkey 29 Oct 2016 20:41

When the the swamp is drained the American people will be shocked and sickened by the crimes of the people behind the so-called progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin that the bankster cabal sent among the people to destroy the United States. By all means, the corrupt politicians and their masters must be investigated. So too the people who run the disgusting corporate media and scurrilous vermin behind groups like "Media Matters" "Open Societies" etc. etc. etc.

BlueberryCompote -> gladiointurkey 29 Oct 2016 20:45

The trouble with your argument is that the Conservative side has analogous front organisations backed by oil and other interest groups which are intent on imposing their will regardless of the popular will. The Conservatives have indeed been outgunned by the Liberal mafia this time.

nostrobo -> gladiointurkey 29 Oct 2016 20:57

" progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin"... How are the "bankster cabal" you conjure in any way progressive and/or socialist? Do you have any clue, or are these just two of your go-to slurs?

AdamEdward88 29 Oct 2016 21:10

She doesn't mind the disgusting behaviour and carryings-on of Trump being exposed before an election and it shouldn't be any different for her either. We hear a lot about the accusations against Donald Trump in this country and we don't hear much about what Hillary has done with all her emails or what is alleged to have been written in them. I'd be quite interested to find out what was in any she might have sent to Tony Blair. She hasn't got a good track record on the Middle-East and we base our opinions in this country on a different set of media reports to people in the US.

Starwars102 29 Oct 2016 21:11

The integrity of the Obama administration.

You have got to be joking. How about the War in Yemen, 90% + casualty rates with drone strikes and targeted assassination, Saudi Arabia weapons deals, vetoing JASTA, War in Syria and Libya disaster, NSA surveillance continuing, Civil Asset forfeiture equitable sharing program, NDAA 2012 - 17 including indefinite detention and now women's draft, 2nd Amendment infringement and calls for Australian gun control , Guantanamo still open, still pursuing REAL ID, TSA groping, Biometric database and associated ID card to track movements 24/7, Militarization of the police under 1033 program, Federal government procurement of Stingrays and ALPR readers, smart meter program spying, CISA, IRS and Fast and Furious scandals, prosecution of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, pursuance of TPP, TISA and TTIP ?

That list of problems was a mile long and there is probably a lot more I have not mentioned. Says a lot about Obama's time in office.

mrjonno 29 Oct 2016 21:26

And we still look to the USA for leadership in the world? Give me a break. This is a country that is responsible for destroying much of the world through the economic paradigm of neoliberalism which has seen the introduction of economy based in 'throw away and buy new' along with 'dodgy money' to create the 1% leading to resource overshoot. On current trends we are well in deficit. From World Footprint -

Moderate UN scenarios suggest that if current population and consumption trends continue, by the 2030s, we will need the equivalent of two Earths to support us. And of course, we only have one.

Neither Clinton nor Trump are suitable presidential material but when has the USA ever been about being suitable for the world? Never.

BTW Earth Overshoot Day happened on August 8 this year. Since then we are using more than the planet Earth can absorb or replenish. We are on a collision course with catastrophe.

Well done America....

unlywnted 29 Oct 2016 21:34

"The latest pseudo-scandal to hit Clinton is unlikely to rob her of the presidency. But it sure isn't going to impress voters already sickened by a shocking campaign."

Pseudo-scandal??!! Where in Gods name are you coming from to arrive at that conclusion? FBI Director Comey closed the file on further investigation a few months ago saying while Clinton's casual handling of certain State Dept classified emails was reprehensible, he was not recommending criminal action because there was an absence of any evidence she had acted with criminal intent.

Even a number of actions such as the possible destruction of 31,000 emails and several mobiles after receiving a Congressional subpoena to produce them was not enough to persuade him otherwise.

Yet now, despite clearly realising its dramatic effect on the impending presidential election Comey informs all interested parties that the file on the criminal investigation is to be re-opened because of new emails that have come to light. However, since his original ruling was that he saw no criminal intent in Clinton's careless dissemination of State emails to private servers it is difficult to understand why that ruling doesn't also cover the latest emails that presumably are from Clinton's secretary's -or spouse- computer.

A reasonable conclusion must be the latest criminal investigation concerns not the finding of these additional emails but the actual content of the emails. This matter therefore -far from a pseudo-scandal- must take a very serious form if it causes the FBI at this acutely sensitive time for the election to reopen criminal investigations.

OXIOXI20 -> unlywnted 29 Oct 2016 21:44

Comey informs all interested parties that the file on the criminal investigation is to be re-opened because of new emails that have come to light.

NOT TRUE. That's the bullshit Trump is spewing. Comey has not re-opened the investigation, he simply notified Congress he is looking at "newly obtained info" to determine what it is and how should something be found) it might relate to a decision to re-open the investigation. Basically he is simply covering his ass, although, he now screwed that up and has Justice on his ass also calling for him to make a full disclosure. He will have to make public the info or possibly face a Justice Department investigation of his agency. Major error on his part.

HerrPrincip -> sgwnmr 29 Oct 2016 22:38

How many "non-stories" did Hillary generate in her lifetime? 50? 100? 200? It seems to me that wherever she goes, a "non-story" or two is sure to follow. This may be a non-story that broke the camel's back. Yes, Virginia, you can politically die of one "non-story" too many.

pfox33 29 Oct 2016 22:13
Are they a banana republic? They are a great power, correct me if I'm wrong.
JuicyMinion 29 Oct 2016 22:15
It's bad enough that the 47 year old Jennifer Lopez, dressed in boots and suspenders is prancing about on stage in Miami. But she brings onto the stage the almost 70 year old Hillary Clinton who, as one of the worst speakers in political history, has the crowd silenced within seconds as she rants about how "we're not going to let Donald Trump get away with it".

Her campaign is a fucking joke and they and the MSM are trying to sell this fetid pile of shit to the whole world

antobojar -> JuicyMinion 29 Oct 2016 22:29

..Do you expect that declining empire, led by arrogant, corrupt and greedy "elite" can act rationally..?
Look, who they chosen as a prospective saviours.. he he..


AveAtqueCave 29 Oct 2016 23:13

Obama, Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, and Wall Street decided eight years ago she would be president in 2017. Americans are fed up with that sort of bullshit.

irishguy 30 Oct 2016 0:33

The author is baffled as to why the FBI has intervened this late in the election by opening an apparent pseudo-scandal case against Clinton? Here's my theory why:

Maybe it's all about managing the psychology of the the majority voters through the media.

Maybe this whole episode has been orchestrated by the establishment (who want Clinton in); is designed to go nowhere and allow Clinton to ultimately claim she was vindicated in the whole email affair while at the same time with the purpose of maintaining a perceived sense of tension in the minds of the US public in the run up to election day – in the sense that the election result is not perceived to be a foregone conclusion already.

However, when you take a step back, it's not realistic to think Trump has a chance of getting in at this point. He's alienated too much of the electorate already.
But the majority voters need to be made feel they're doing something positive by averting the danger of Trump through voting Clinton – not simply voting for Clinton as the establishment's chosen candidate in a foregone conclusion.

HarryFlashman 30 Oct 2016 1:26

Hillary Nixon. I mean would you buy a used car from her?

JVRTRL -> HarryFlashman 30 Oct 2016 3:19

It depends who the customer is. The Clintons have always taken very good care of their biggest money donors. For ordinary people, it would be a bad idea. For their connected donors, it's a completely different reality. The dealership and the other employees would have the problem, not the rich and connected customer.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, would pawn off the lemons on unsuspecting customers, loot the dealership purely for his own benefit, somehow get a tax credit for his trouble, and brag to the world about what a smart and ethical guy he is.

europeangrayling 30 Oct 2016 1:35

Looks to me like the FBI got done taken over by Putin. This Putin guy, he is everywhere. Pike fishing on horseback in Siberia while banging some hot Russian gold medal gymnast and overthrowing the US government and running the FBI now. Putin is on a whole new level, he is changing the game.

And a few days ago, I got a pizza with hamburger and mushroom, and I didn't like it as much, the regular mushroom one was better, and I said 'f-ing Putin man'. This guy, he did it again, made me question myself and order that hamburger, meddling in our democracy. It was still OK, I ate it, but that's 20 bucks I could have spent on a much better regular mushroom instead of that Russian hamburger crap. Or at least put some chicken on it. Putin man.


furminator 30 Oct 2016 1:53

Anyway Howard Dean, you know primal scream Dean, is saying on his twitter that Comney is on the side of Putin. Yes the Director of the FBI is really a Russian stooge, a sleeper agent. Poor Hillary, the FBI, which is controlled by the Justice Department, which is controlled by the Obama White House, is out to get her coz Russia. She's the victim of a vast right and left wing conspiracy.

Henrychan 30 Oct 2016 2:31

John Pilger's latest article:

"Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education – Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia – and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post.

These organisations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT.

And they love war.

While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life."

https://newmatilda.com/2016/10/28/inside-the-invisible-government-john-pilger-on-war-propaganda-clinton-and-trump

furminator -> Henrychan 30 Oct 2016 2:56

Clinton's attacks on Russia are deeply worrying. I have no doubt at all that she'll try and impose a no fly zone in Syria, which will mean direct confrontation, risking an all out war. This woman is a warmonger and she needs to be stopped.

Kess 30 Oct 2016 3:00
The media hasn't exactly cover itself in glory either. Throughout the nomination process Clinton was given an incredibly easy ride. If the media (including the Guardian) had highlighted her issues earlier then perhaps the DNC would'be been forced to nominate a candidate with a little more integrity, and Trump wouldn't stand a chance.

BelieveItsTrue 30 Oct 2016 3:13

People, this whole thing is merely a diversion to move attention from corruption in high places, onto Huma and Anthony Weiner. Comey's had to do something to move attention from the fact that Obama lied to the people, he lied to Congress concerning not knowing about Clinton's private e-mail arrangement and even used a pseudonym to connect with her. This is public knowledge now and not speculation.

Of course HC has said publicise everything but she does not have to wait for the FBI to do this, she could have done this to begin with, before she bleached her server, before evidence was destroyed by the Democratic campaign (13 smart-phones) and lap tops destroyed by the FBI. It is a croc and if you do not wake up to this, the world is lost.

Clinton will make sure that the NWO gains control. It is being implemented in the background as all this is going. Many people are not the least bit interested in how their children are being brainwashed, how borders have been dissolved, how Obama has been quietly taking unilateral control of government. It seems that they will sit through the pantomime that is this election enjoying every diversionary twist, then when Clinton is elected, they will be unaware that the tentacles of the enemy of the people have penetrated every compartment of government. Vote for Clinton and you are voting for a one world government. There is a war going on and it is truly a battle between good and evil! God help the world.

[Oct 28, 2016] New Clinton Emails Emerged As Part Of Probe Into Anthony Weiner's Electronic Devices NYT

Oct 28, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Oct 28, 2016 3:22 PM 0 SHARES In the latest stunning revelation in today's saga involving the FBI's second probe, moments ago the NYT reported that the new emails uncovered in the closed investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server were discovered after the F.B.I. seized electronic devices belonging to Huma Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner.

The F.B.I. is investigating illicit text messages that Mr. Weiner sent to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina . The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case - one federal official said they numbered in the thousands - potentially reigniting an issue that has weighed on the presidential campaign and offering a lifeline to Donald J. Trump less than two weeks before the election.

Until recently Anthony Weiner was married to Hillary Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, who separated from Weiner recently after news emerged that Weiner had engaged in an online affair with an underage girl .

The F.B.I. told Congress that it had uncovered new emails related to the closed investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton or her aides had mishandled classified information, potentially reigniting an issue that has weighed on the presidential campaign and offering a lifeline to Donald J. Trump less than two weeks before the election.

One clue as to what the FBI may have uncovered comes courtesy of FOIAed Judicial Watch email disclosures, revealed one month ago, according to which Hillary Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department, Cheryl Mills, had received classified national security information through one of two or three personal, unsecured email accounts she regularly used to communicate with Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

Approximately 10 percent of Abedin's emails released through Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act requests were addressed to one of Mills' various personal email addresses. As WND reported at the time , several were found to contain such highly sensitive material that the State Department redacted 100 percent of the content pages, marking many pages with a bold stamp reading "PAGE DENIED ."

Of the more than 160 emails in the latest Judicial Watch release, some 110 emails – two-thirds of the total – were forwarded by Abedin to two personal addresses she controlled . The Washington Times reported in August 2015 that the State Department had admitted to a federal judge that Abedin and Mills used personal email accounts to conduct government business in addition to Clinton's private clintonemail.com to transact State Department business.

In a curious twist, one heavily redacted email, dated May 15, 2009, was sent by the infamous Doug Band (who until today was the primary source of headaches for Hillary Clinton due to his role as head of the Clinton Foundation-linked Teneo consulting firm whose recently leaked confidential memo exposed the fund flows involving Bill Clinton), to Mills at a personal address and to Huma Abedin at her State Department address.

Band was forwarding to Mills and Abedin an email request from an associate who was seeking a State Department position in Charleston, South Carolina. Attached was a letter that the office-seeker had first sent to Bill Clinton containing the office-seeker's resume . In the email Band was making a State Department job request on behalf of a Clinton Foundation and/or Teneo-related person.

The email from Band was completely redacted, except for a salutation and first sentence. The letter the office-seeker had sent to President Clinton, as well as the office-seeker's résumé, was redacted except for a phrase that reads, "Well organized, driven professional."

A second email dated May 15, 2009, was sent by Abedin from her State Department email to her personal email, presumably humamabedin@yahoo.com . Abedin apparently was archiving in her personal email account an email Hillary Clinton sent her from Clinton's private email server at HDR22@clintonemail.com . Abedin was asked to print out attachments to an email Mills sent via a private address the previous day to Clinton involving "timetables and deliverables" for her review via Alec Ross, a technology policy expert who then held the title of senior adviser for innovation to Secretary Clinton.

The two pages of timetables and deliverables attached to the email were 100 percent redacted, with "PAGE DENIED" stamped across the first redacted page.

* * *

Ironically, it appears that Donald Trump was spot on once again, first with a recent statement on the Huma-Abedin split :

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON HILLARY CLINTON'S BAD JUDGMENT

"Huma is making a very wise decision. I know Anthony Weiner well, and she will be far better off without h im. I only worry for the country in that Hillary Clinton was careless and negligent in allowing Weiner to have such close proximity to highly classified information. Who knows what he learned and who he told? It's just another example of Hillary Clinton's bad judgment. It is possible that our country and its security have been greatly compromised by this. " - Donald J. Trump

and then, previously with this August 3, 2015 tweet:

It came out that Huma Abedin knows all about Hillary's private illegal emails. Huma's PR husband, Anthony Weiner, will tell the world.

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 3, 2015

Well, maybe not tell the world, but certainly drag Hillary into another scandal just as she appeared certain to win the election with less than 2 weeks until D-Day.

[Oct 27, 2016] Podesta wants Clintons Email Aide to be Drawn and Quartered

Notable quotes:
"... The revelations that - as Secretary of State - Clinton had committed such a huge security gaffe was quickly picked up on - and has since extensively been used by - Republican candidate Donald Trump, as an example of how Clinton is unfit for the presidency. ..."
"... "This is a change election: people (even those who support Obama) are not interested in the status quo. Therefore they want a candidate who will make change, actually fight the status quo." ..."
"... It is believed they will continue to be dripped out ahead of the presidential election on November 8. Apart from the embarrassment over the email account, the leaks show Clinton changing her position on free trade agreements. ..."
"... The question is not whether or not Donald or Hillary are fit to be US President. The question should be is the United States fit to exist in a civilized world? The answer is; not in its current form! Perhaps if the US returned to following its Constitution, but not otherwise! ..."
sputniknews.com

Whoever advised US Democratic Party presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton that she could use private emails while in office should have been "drawn and quartered," according to the latest batch of emails of the campaign chairman John Podesta, published by WikiLeaks on October 27.Clinton ran into huge trouble when it was revealed that - while Secretary of State - she had been using insecure private email accounts based on non-government servers, exposing the US administration to hacking or surveillance from foreign nations.

In the latest cache of emails, one of Clinton's advisers, Neera Tanden wrote to Podesta asking: "Do we actually know who told Hillary she could use a private email? And has that person been drawn and quartered? Like whole thing is f****** insane."

One of the 'Podesta Emails' released by Wikileaks An investigation by the FBI concluded that 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information.

The revelations that - as Secretary of State - Clinton had committed such a huge security gaffe was quickly picked up on - and has since extensively been used by - Republican candidate Donald Trump, as an example of how Clinton is unfit for the presidency.

Apology Enough?

Another chain of emails delivered Clinton's advisers' verdict on her round of interviews with the media apologizing for the email gaffe and saying: "As I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. That was a mistake. I'm sorry about that. I take responsibility."

Tanden responded: "She rocked it!" in a suggestion that the plan had been to admit culpability personally - an honest appeal for empathy to kill the political furore.

Another adviser, Jennifer Palmieri replied: "I actually cried a little bit with relief."

However, John Podesta replied that Clinton may not have gone far enough and that Trump had found her weak spot. "No good deed goes unpunished. Press takeaway was the whine of but 'she really didn't apologize to the American people' I am beginning to think Trump is on to something," Podesta wrote

Too 'Establishment'?

Meanwhile, another email - also from Tanden - show the sense of vulnerability within the Clinton camp: her need to appeal to voters who conceive of her as being part of the establishment and - in particular - part of the Obama set who promised much, but delivered little. "So if she attacks [Trump] from the right (say on taxes), she will sound establishment/centrist and that hurts her. She needs to reaffirm her liberal credentials, not just her doer credentials," Tanden wrote.

"This is a change election: people (even those who support Obama) are not interested in the status quo. Therefore they want a candidate who will make change, actually fight the status quo."

Wikileaks has gradually been releasing more than 30,000 emails hacked from the account belonging to Podesta since October 7, 2016, giving an insight into the background thinking within her team.

It is believed they will continue to be dripped out ahead of the presidential election on November 8. Apart from the embarrassment over the email account, the leaks show Clinton changing her position on free trade agreements.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/us/201610271046799130-clinton-podesta-email-apology/

William Cocker · Port Alberni, British Columbia

The question is not whether or not Donald or Hillary are fit to be US President. The question should be is the United States fit to exist in a civilized world? The answer is; not in its current form! Perhaps if the US returned to following its Constitution, but not otherwise!

[Oct 25, 2016] Ex-State Department IT Staffer Pleads the Fifth on Clinton Email Questions

Notable quotes:
"... A former [key] IT staffer at the State Department who oversaw technology for senior officials invoked his Fifth Amendment right in a sworn deposition on Monday when asked about Hillary Clinton's private email server. ..."
Oct 25, 2016 | freebeacon.com
John Bentel is one of the key future of "private email server" scandal, the manager who squashed concerns of other IOt personnel about legality of the so called "bathroom server".
October 24, 2016

A former [key] IT staffer at the State Department who oversaw technology for senior officials invoked his Fifth Amendment right in a sworn deposition on Monday when asked about Hillary Clinton's private email server.

Bentel answered over 90 questions that were submitted him to by Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group that has been leading the charge for more information from Clinton and her associates regarding her email server. Bentel was ordered by a federal judge to answer the questions similarly to how Clinton had been.

Judicial Watch says that the topics of the questions they submitted to Bentel included whether Clinton was paying Bentel's legal fees or had offered him other compensation.

"On advice from my legal counsel, I decline to answer the question and I invoke my Fifth Amendment rights," Bentel answered each question.

Bentel invoking the Fifth Amendment "highlights the disturbing implication that criminal acts took place related to the Clinton email and our Freedom of Information Act requests," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said Monday.

[Oct 13, 2016] WikiLeaks pumps out Clinton emails

Notable quotes:
"... Clinton talked of the need to have "both a public and a private position" on controversial issues. The former first lady also said her family's wealth had made her "kind of far removed" from the problems facing the middle class. ..."
"... one of the leaked Podesta emails appeared to show that the Clinton campaign had been in contact with the Justice Department during an open records court case in which it was not a party. The Trump campaign said the email "shows a level of collusion which calls into question the entire investigation into her private server." ..."
"... Trump has also seized on an email that revealed Clinton in one speech said that terrorism is "not a threat to us as a nation," clarifying, "it is not going to endanger our economy or our society, but it is a real threat." ..."
"... In "a speech made behind closed doors, crooked Hillary Clinton said that terrorism was not a threat - quote, 'not a threat to the nation,' " Trump said during a rally on Monday evening in Pennsylvania. ..."
Oct 12, 2016 | TheHill

Emails released on Friday appeared to contain excerpts from the paid speeches Clinton gave to Wall Street banks - speeches that Bernie Sanders Bernie SandersSanders, Dem senators press Obama to halt ND pipelineTop Trump aide: Fire Clinton staffers over 'anti-Catholic' remarks5 takeaways from WikiLeaks emailsMORE had demanded she release during their primary battle. In one of the speeches, Clinton talked of the need to have "both a public and a private position" on controversial issues. The former first lady also said her family's wealth had made her "kind of far removed" from the problems facing the middle class.

On Tuesday, one of the leaked Podesta emails appeared to show that the Clinton campaign had been in contact with the Justice Department during an open records court case in which it was not a party. The Trump campaign said the email "shows a level of collusion which calls into question the entire investigation into her private server."

Trump has also seized on an email that revealed Clinton in one speech said that terrorism is "not a threat to us as a nation," clarifying, "it is not going to endanger our economy or our society, but it is a real threat."

In "a speech made behind closed doors, crooked Hillary Clinton said that terrorism was not a threat - quote, 'not a threat to the nation,' " Trump said during a rally on Monday evening in Pennsylvania.

"During one of the secret speeches - amazing how nothing is secret today when you talk about the internet - Hillary admitted that ISIS could infiltrate with the refugees," he added, referring to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. "Then why is she letting so many people into our country?"

Some of the emails released have no bearing on the campaign at all.

In one message, Podesta offers advice for cooking risotto (don't add the water all at once). In others, the former guitarist for pop-punk band Blink-182, Tom DeLonge, suggests that Podesta meet with a variety of individuals, seemingly to discuss UFOs.

The release comes at a time when the intelligence community is casting doubt on WikiLeaks and its motives.

[Oct 08, 2016] WikiLeaks makes it official, Obama knew about Hilary's email, of course he knew. So a bald-faced lie from the president of the United States to millions of Americans:

Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 7, 2016 at 7:34 pm

And WikiLeaks makes it official, Obama knew about Hilary's email, of course he knew. So a bald-faced lie from the president of the United States to millions of Americans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCqAVW8CpLg

The body language is the tell, when asked directly he says "No" but his head bobs up and down "Yes".

Seems to me a candidate could win simply by saying "I will not lie to you".

[Oct 06, 2016] Hacker Releases Emails From Clinton State Department Insider

Notable quotes:
"... Marshall's central importance to the Clintons' political operations was realized earlier this year by Citizens United. The conservative watchdog group filed a federal lawsuit for Marshall's State Department emails. ..."
"... At State, Marshall served as chief of protocol from 2009 to 2013. In that role, she helped the State Department and White House manage issues related to diplomatic protocol. ..."
"... The emails, which appear to be from Marshall's Gmail account, span the period from March 2015 through June 2016. ..."
Oct 06, 2016 | dailycaller.com

... ... ...

Marshall's central importance to the Clintons' political operations was realized earlier this year by Citizens United. The conservative watchdog group filed a federal lawsuit for Marshall's State Department emails.

At State, Marshall served as chief of protocol from 2009 to 2013. In that role, she helped the State Department and White House manage issues related to diplomatic protocol.

She entered the Clinton sphere during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, working as a special assistant to Hillary Clinton. She later worked on Clinton's senatorial and presidential campaigns, helping lead fundraising efforts.

The DC Leaks emails appear to be authentic.

The emails, which appear to be from Marshall's Gmail account, span the period from March 2015 through June 2016.

[Sep 26, 2016] So Obama sent Emails to Clintons private Email address that contained classified information. Was his handle BBC ? Truly funny!

Notable quotes:
"... So Obama sent Emails to Clinton's private Email address that contained classified information. Was his handle "BBC"? Truly funny! ..."
"... I find this revelation to be particularly galling, how richly this entire crew deserves ankle bracelets at a very minimum for perjury. When the president and the SoS lie and break the law and nothing happens…um precisely where do we go from there? ..."
Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Clinton E-mail Tar Baby Huge Scandal: Obama Used Pseudonym in Secret Memos on Hillary's Private Server Sputnik News (Chuck L).

"Huge scandal" is overwrought, but this does not look good.

Tom Stone September 25, 2016 at 10:07 am

So Obama sent Emails to Clinton's private Email address that contained classified information. Was his handle "BBC"? Truly funny!

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 25, 2016 at 2:17 pm

I find this revelation to be particularly galling, how richly this entire crew deserves ankle bracelets at a very minimum for perjury. When the president and the SoS lie and break the law and nothing happens…um precisely where do we go from there?

[Sep 26, 2016] Clinton Campaign Manager Unable to Answer Questions on Hillary Coverup Operation

It was a cover up operation. No questions about that. Such instruction by a person under any investigation clearly mean tha attempt of cover up...
Notable quotes:
"... There was a document dump on Friday, that we learned from the FBI that an IT contractor managing Hillary Clinton's private email server made reference to the "Hillary coverup operation" in a work ticket. He used those words after a senior Clinton aide asked him to automatically delete emails after 60 days. This IT worker certainly sounded like he was covering something up, no? ..."
"... The FBI dumped another 189 pages of documents pertaining to Clinton's use of an unsecured private server during her time as Secretary of State online Friday, with one note about a "coverup" raising eyebrows: ..."
"... After reviewing an email dated December 11, 2014 with the subject line 'RE: 2 items for IT support,' and a December 12, 2014 work ticket referencing email retention changes and archive/email cleanup, [redacted] stated his reference in the email to '…the Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation…' was probably due to the requested change to a 60 day email retention policy and the comment was a joke. ..."
"... "The fact an IT staffer maintaining Clinton's secret server called a new retention policy designed to delete emails after 60 days a 'Hillary coverup operation' suggests there was a concerted effort to systematically destroy potentially incriminating information. It's no wonder that at least five individuals tied to the email scandal, including Clinton's top State Department aide and attorney Cheryl Mills, secured immunity deals from the Obama Justice Department to avoid prosecution," said Trump spokesman Jason Miller in a statement on Friday. ..."
"... Comey told the House Oversight Committee on July 7 that the FBI "did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that - the intent standard" while claiming that prosecuting Clinton for gross negligence would perpetuate a "double standard." ..."
Sep 26, 2016 | Breitbart
CNN anchor Jake Tapper confronted Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook Sunday over an IT worker handling her private email server joking in a 2014 email about a "Hillary coverup operation," with Mook dodging the question and blaming Republicans for "selectively leaking documents."

TAPPER: There was a document dump on Friday, that we learned from the FBI that an IT contractor managing Hillary Clinton's private email server made reference to the "Hillary coverup operation" in a work ticket. He used those words after a senior Clinton aide asked him to automatically delete emails after 60 days. This IT worker certainly sounded like he was covering something up, no?

MOOK: Look, Jake, I'm - first of all I'm glad you asked that question. A lot of this stuff is swirling around in the ether. It's important to pull back and look at the facts here. The FBI did a comprehensive and deep investigation into this. And at the conclusion of that, FBI Director Comey came out and said to the world that there was no case here, that they have no evidence of wrongdoing on Hillary's part.

TAPPER: So what's the "Hillary coverup operation" that the IT worker was referring to?

MOOK: Well, well, but this is - but this is - this is the perfect example of what's going on here. Republicans on the House side are selectively leaking documents for the purpose of making Hillary look bad. We've asked the FBI to release all information that they've shared with Republicans so they can get the full picture. But again, I would trust the career professionals at the FBI and the Justice Department who looked into this matter, concluded that was no case, than I would Republicans who are selectively leaking information.

The FBI dumped another 189 pages of documents pertaining to Clinton's use of an unsecured private server during her time as Secretary of State online Friday, with one note about a "coverup" raising eyebrows:

After reviewing an email dated December 11, 2014 with the subject line 'RE: 2 items for IT support,' and a December 12, 2014 work ticket referencing email retention changes and archive/email cleanup, [redacted] stated his reference in the email to '…the Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation…' was probably due to the requested change to a 60 day email retention policy and the comment was a joke.

The Trump campaign quickly leapt on the FBI's findings.

"The fact an IT staffer maintaining Clinton's secret server called a new retention policy designed to delete emails after 60 days a 'Hillary coverup operation' suggests there was a concerted effort to systematically destroy potentially incriminating information. It's no wonder that at least five individuals tied to the email scandal, including Clinton's top State Department aide and attorney Cheryl Mills, secured immunity deals from the Obama Justice Department to avoid prosecution," said Trump spokesman Jason Miller in a statement on Friday.

Comey told the House Oversight Committee on July 7 that the FBI "did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that - the intent standard" while claiming that prosecuting Clinton for gross negligence would perpetuate a "double standard."

[Sep 24, 2016] The Hillary Coverup Operation - How PRN Described Clinton's 60-Day Email Retention Policy Zero Hedge

Sep 24, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

last night the Federal Bureau of Immunity did it again dropping nearly 200 pages of new, redacted interview notes.

Perhaps one of the most interesting discoveries in the new notes comes from yet another "Undisclosed PRN Staff Member." Apparently, after receiving a request from Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson (both of whom we no know were granted immunity deals by the DOJ) back in December 2014 to change Hillary's email retention policy to 60 days, this "Undisclosed PRN Staff Member" wrote a work ticket that referred to the request as " the Hillary coverup operation ." Per the FBI notes:

But don't worry folks, according to the FBI's notes on the interview conducted on February 18, 2016, this "Undisclosed PRN Staff Member" assured the FBI that the comment was just "a joke." Apparently that explanation was good enough for the FBI so we should probably just take it at face value as well.

Though the Trump campaign doesn't seem to be buying the "it was just a joke" defense as Senior Communications Advisor, Jason Miller, released the following statement last night on the situation:

"The fact an IT staffer maintaining Clinton's secret server called a new retention policy designed to delete emails after 60 days a "Hillary coverup operation" suggests there was a concerted effort to systematically destroy potentially incriminating information. It's no wonder that at least five individuals tied to the email scandal, including Clinton's top State Department aide and attorney Cheryl Mills, secured immunity deals from the Obama Justice Department to avoid prosecution."

Recall that we previously wrote in detail about the events leading up to the point that Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson requested the change to Hillary's "email retention policy."

Now this brings us all the way up to December 2014 when Clinton sent the 55,000 pages to the State Department. Recall, as Politico previously reported, Hillary brought in a former campaign staffer, Heather Samuelson (34 years old), to help determine which emails were "work related" and which "yoga related."

Shortly after providing that data dump to the State Department, in "December 2014 or January 2015," both Heather Samuelson and Cheryl Mills requested that all emails be removed from their computers using "a program called BleachBit to delete the e-mail-related files so they could not be recovered."

For her part, "Clinton stated she never deleted, nor did she instruct anyone to delete, her e-mails to avoid complying with FOIA, State or FBI requests for information."

Of course not. Hillary knew it would be a little too obvious to specifically instruct her staff to permanently delete the emails but she also knew it might be "inconvenient" to have them around. So, she simply "decided she no longer needed access to any of her e-mails older than 60 days."

See? She never specifically said to delete anything she just made a simple administrative decision on document retention policies.

doctor10 •Sep 24, 2016 3:31 PM

How TF is this NOT impeachable?!!!

This is very clearly a "shadow government" operating beyond legislative and judicial oversight

"The Law" is whatever the Clinton Foundation says it is this week

For anybody paying attention on July 5th, basically the 240th anniversary of the Republic, the Clinton Foundation administered the coup de grace to the American government.

The Clinton Foundation managed to nullify 6 federal laws on behalf of their candidate, and in so doing gut Congress and the FBI-in public.

The Clinton Foundation has totally pwned Fed.gov. In every sense of the meaning.

There's a reason 30,000 emails can never be read by anybody outside the Foundation. They detail the individuals and organizations making it all happen.

Mebbe Chaffetz name isn't part of the spiderweb...mebbe it is and we're being played once again

However, ladies and gentlemen, this is where the rubber meets the road. Either we ARE a nation of laws or not.

If this proves out that we are not, God help us all because Fed.gov bonds will definitely be worthless and whats happening in Charlotte this week will prove to be merely an audition.

knukles DontGive Sep 24, 2016 3:49 PM From the Americna Thinker; "Bardack's 2015 letter mentioned the Fresnel prism glasses Hillary wore to eliminate double vision. The 2016 letter makes no mention of the Zeiss Z1 blue lenses she was wearing on September 11 th . These are used to help prevent seizures, particularly in photosensitive epilepsy, and improve motor control. They are not normally prescribed for patients with pneumonia or seasonal allergies."
Uzda Farce doctor10 Sep 24, 2016 4:02 PM One branch of the "shadow government" is the Rockefeller/CFR. Members include Bill Clinton, Lloyd Blankfein, and George Soros. The banks that paid millions in "speaking fees" to the Clintons (Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, J.P.Morgan, BlackRock, etc) are CFR corporate sponsors. See member lists at cfr dot org.

"It's good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of 'advice' from the Council, so this will mean I won't have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future."

-- Hillary Clinton speech at CFR, 2009-07-15

chunga I M DeMan Sep 24, 2016 3:54 PM BREAKING: Former US Attorney Says FBI Director Comey Should Resign http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/23/breaking-former-us-attorney-says-fbi-d...

"Not only was she given immunity, but she attended Hillary Clinton's interview. It is the first time in history that an immunized witness has attended an interview of the ultimate target of an investigation. This is one of the single most embarrassing moments in the history of the FBI," DiGenova said.

Mena Arkansas Sep 24, 2016 3:39 PM You have to wonder what the Clintons - neither of which holds elected office - have on Comey, Lynch, DoJ or the FBI. What have they threatened to expose if they don't get their way - Sex tapes? 911? Waco? OKC?

What hold do the Clintons have on the DoJ and FBI? Mroex Mena Arkansas Sep 24, 2016 4:37 PM Probably everything you mentioned plus more

We Are The Priests Mena Arkansas Sep 24, 2016 4:30 PM The Clinton's, as do the Bush's, have intimate knowledge and involvement in the operations of the Cocaine Import Agency which is legislatively supported by 80%+ of Congressional office holders and financed by JPM and GS. Any need to wonder further?
chiswickcat Mena Arkansas Sep 24, 2016 4:36 PM The Clinton's defence strategy. "If I go down, you and a whole lot of other people will go down. These other people will not let this happen and will simply snuff you before they ever let you try take me down. Got it?!" BritBob Sep 24, 2016 3:48 PM In 2010, when she was Secretary of State and in Buenos Aires, Hillary Clinton made the mistake of calling for the UK and Argentina talk about the sovereignty of the Falklands.

If she'd been a bit more clued up she wouldn't have fallen for that mythical Malvinas' baloney and realized that Argentina has never legally owned the Falklands:

https://www.academia.edu/17799157/Falklands_-_Some_Relevant_International_Law

shovelhead BritBob Sep 24, 2016 4:33 PM https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hzAAz1YD3Ig/maxresdefault.jpg


Skiprrrdog Sep 24, 2016 4:08 PM secured immunity deals from the Obama Justice Department to avoid prosecution

They might avoid prosecution, but the rope is a whole other story, yet to be written, We Are The Priests Sep 24, 2016 4:16 PM The only reason you seek immunity from prosecution is because you know a crime has been committed--by you and others--and that prosecutions are forthcoming in response to those crimes. The only reason to grant immunity from prosecution is to obtain evidentiary testimony by guilty parties that will lead to the conviction of other, more culpable parties.

Since no prosecutions in this case are being pursued, then these writs of immunity are, in fact, grants of pardon. brada1013567 Sep 24, 2016 4:36 PM Clinton has a new email fraudmail.com Belrev Sep 24, 2016 4:45 PM Meanwhile Hillary Clinton released a new campaign ad " Stronger Together " - https://youtu.be/r4gyG9FALtU

VWAndy Sep 24, 2016 4:57 PM Just the msm making a special batch of koolaid for a special bunch of tools. Thats the scary part. There are some that will believe anything that supports thier pet dogma. They do love thier dogma so. koan Sep 24, 2016 5:26 PM Just to inject a little humor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqYJRc0TJkQ

[Sep 22, 2016] The Hidden Smoking Gun the Combetta Cover-Up Clinton Email Investigation Timeline

This is a really outstanding article.
Notable quotes:
"... When Samuelson described the sorting process in her FBI interview , she said that her first step was to find all the emails to or from Clinton and the people she regularly worked with in the State Department, and put all of those emails in the "work-related" category. ..."
"... But from the Abedin emails released so far, about 200 are previously unreleased emails between her and Clinton . Anyone who looks at these can see that the vast majority, if not all, of them are work-related. ..."
"... The Abedin emails released so far are only a small percentage of all her emails that are going to be released on a monthly basis well into 2017 . It is likely that Clinton's supposed 31,000 "personal" emails contain thousands of work-related emails to and from Abedin alone. Consider that only about 15% of the 30,000 Clinton emails released so far were between her and Abedin. ..."
"... It is further worth noting that these emails were not handed over with the rest of Clinton's 30,000 work-related emails, despite clearly being work-related, but were somehow uncovered by the State Department inspector general 's office. Those very emails are good examples of the kind of material Clinton may have tried to keep secret by controlling the sorting process. ..."
"... How many more headlines like that would there be if all 31,000 deleted emails became public before the November 2016 presidential election? It's easy to imagine a political motive for Clinton wanting to keep some work-related emails secret. ..."
"... on or around December 2014 or January 2015 , Mills and Samuelson requested that [Platte River Networks (PRN) employee Paul Combetta] remove from their laptops all of the emails from the July and September 2014 exports. [Combetta] used a program called BleachBit to delete the email-related files so they could not be recovered." ..."
"... With the emails of Mills and Samuelson wiped clean, and the old version of the server wiped clean, that left just two known copies of the emails: one on the new server, and one on the back-up Datto SIRIS device connected to the new server. ..."
"... Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 . She claimed that in December 2014 , Clinton decided she no longer needed access to any of her emails older than 60 days . Note that this came not long after the State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails, on October 28, 2014 . Mills told the FBI that she instructed Combetta to modify the email retention policy on Clinton's clintonemail.com email account to reflect this change. Emails older than 60 days would then be overwritten several times, wiping them just as effectively as BleachBit. ..."
"... So although the retention policy change sounds like a mere technicality, in fact, Clinton passed the message through Mills that she wanted all her emails from when she was secretary of state to be permanently wiped. ..."
"... Think about Clinton wanting to delete all her old "personal" emails. As a politician with a wide network of contributors and supporters, the information in them could be highly valuable for her. For instance, if a major donor contacted her, she probably would want to review their past correspondence before responding. She'd preserved these emails for nearly two years, but just when investigators started to demand to see them, she decided she didn't want ANY of them, and all traces of them should be permanently wiped. And yet we're supposed to believe the timing is just a coincidence? ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... According to what Combetta later told the FBI, at some point between these two calls, he had an "Oh shit!" moment and remembered that he'd forgotten to make the requested retention policy change back in December . So, even though he told the FBI that he was aware of the emails from Mills mentioning the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails, he took action. ..."
"... the Datto backups of the server were also manually deleted during this timeframe ." ..."
"... Already, Combetta's behavior is damning. He didn't just change the data retention policy, as Mills had asked him to do, causing them to be permanently deleted 60 days later. He immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails and then wiped them for good measure, and almost certainly deleted them from the Datto back-up device too. ..."
"... To make matters worse for Combetta, on March 20, 2015 , the House Benghazi Committee sent a letter to Clinton's lawyer Kendall , asking Clinton to turn her server over to a neutral third party so it could be examined to see if any work-related emails were still on it. This was reported in the New York Times ..."
"... However, despite all these clear signs that the emails should be preserved, not only did Combetta confess in an FBI interview that "at the time he made the deletions in March 2015 , he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's email data on the [server]," he said that " he did not receive guidance from other PRN personnel, PRN's legal counsel or others regarding the meaning of the preservation request." So he confessed to obstruction of justice and other possible crimes, all to the apparent benefit of Clinton instead of himself! ..."
"... The FBI interviewed PRN's staff in September 2015. This almost certainly included Combetta and Bill Thornton, because they were the only two PRN employees actively managing Clinton's server. ..."
"... The fact that the FBI falsely claimed Combetta was only interviewed twice grows in importance given a recent New York Times ..."
"... Then, in May 2016 , he completely changed his story. He said that in fact he did make the deletions in late March 2015 after all, plus he'd wiped her emails with BleachBit, as described earlier. He also confessed to being aware of the Mills email with the preservation request. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... For the FBI to give Combetta an immunity deal and then still not learn if he had been told to delete the emails by anyone working for Clinton due to a completely legally indefensible "attorney-client privilege" excuse is beyond belief. It would make sense, however, if the FBI was actually trying to protect Clinton from prosecution instead of trying to find evidence to prosecute her. ..."
"... In one Reddit post , he asked other server managers: "I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a .pst file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out. … Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?" ..."
"... Recall how Clinton allegedly claimed she didn't want to keep any of her deleted emails. It looks like that wasn't true after all. It sounds exactly as if Mills or someone else working for Clinton told him to make it look like all the "personal" emails were permanently deleted due to the 60 day policy change, while actually keeping copies of emails they still wanted. ..."
"... First off, it's interesting that he said he did "a bunch" of "email filters and cleanup," because what has been reported by the FBI is that he only made a copy of all of Clinton's email and sent them off to be sorted in late July 2014 . That fits with his July 2014 Reddit post where he was trying to modify somebody's email address. ..."
"... For now, let us turn back to events in the fall of 2015 . In mid-August 2015 , Senator Ron Johnson (R) asked for and got a staff-level briefing from PRN about the management of Clinton's server, as part of Republican Congressional oversight of the FBI's investigation. It seems very likely that Combetta was a part of that briefing, or at least his knowledge heavily informed the briefing, because again only two PRN employees actively managed her server, and he was one of them. ..."
"... The dishonesty or ignorance of PRN in this time period can be clearly seen due to a September 12, 2015 Washington Post ..."
"... Datto expressed a willingness to cooperate. But because Datto had been subcontracted by PRN to help manage Clinton's server, they needed PRN's permission to share any information relating to that account. When PRN was first asked in early October 2015 , they gave permission. But about a week later, they changed their mind , forcing Datto to stay quiet. ..."
"... But more importantly, consider what was mentioned in an NBC News ..."
"... In an August 18, 2015 email, Combetta expressed concern that CESC, the Clinton family company, had directed PRN to reduce the length of time backups, and PRN wanted proof of this so they wouldn't be blamed. But he said in the email, "this was all phone comms [communications]." ..."
"... On September 2, 2016 , the FBI's final report of their Clinton email investigation was released (along with a summary of Clinton's FBI interview). This report revealed the late March 2015 deletions for the first time. Combetta's name was redacted, but his role, as well as his immunity deal, was revealed in the New York Times ..."
"... Chaffetz also wants an explanation from PRN how Combetta could refuse to talk to the FBI about the conference calls if the only lawyers involved in the call were Clinton's. ..."
"... PRN employees Combetta and Thornton were also given subpoenas on September 8 , ordering them to testify at a Congressional hearing on September 13, 2016 . Both of them showed up with their lawyers, but both of them pled the Fifth , leaving many questions unanswered. ..."
"... In a Senate speech on September 12, 2016 , Senator Charles Grassley (R) accused the FBI of manipulating which information about the Clinton email investigation becomes public . He said that although the FBI has taken the unusual step of releasing the FBI's final report, "its summary is misleading or inaccurate in some key details and leaves out other important facts altogether." He pointed in particular to Combetta's deletions, saying: "[T]here is key information related to that issue that is still being kept secret, even though it is unclassified. If I honor the FBI's 'instruction' not to disclose the unclassified information it provided to Congress, I cannot explain why." ..."
"... Regarding the FBI's failure to inform Congressional oversight committees of Combetta's immunity deal, Representative Trey Gowdy (R) recently commented, "If there is a reason to withhold the immunity agreement from Congress-and by extension, the people we represent-I cannot think of what it would be." ..."
"... The behavior of the FBI is even stranger. Comey was a registered Republican most of his life, and it is well known that most FBI agents are politically conservative. Be that as it may, if Comey made a decision beforehand based on some political calculation to avoid indicting Clinton no matter what the actual evidence was, that the FBI's peculiar behavior specifically relating to the Combetta deletions make much more sense. It would be an unprecedented and bold move to recommend indicting someone with Hillary Clinton's power right in the middle of her presidential election campaign. ..."
"... In this scenario, the FBI having Combetta take the fall for the deletions while making a secret immunity deal with him is a particularly clever move to prevent anyone from being indicted. Note that Combetta's confession about making the deletions came in his May 2016 FBI interview, which came after Mills' April 2016 interview in which she claimed she'd never heard of any deletions. Thus, the only way to have Combetta take the fall for the deletions without Mills getting caught clearly lying to the FBI is by dodging the issue of what was said in the March 31, 2015 conference with a nonsensical claim of "attorney-client privilege." ..."
"... I believe that criminal behavior needs to be properly investigated and prosecuted, regardless of political persuasion and regardless of the election calendar. Combetta clearly committed a crime and he even confessed to do so, given what he admitted in his last FBI interview. If he got a limited immunity deal instead of blanket immunity, which is highly likely, it still would be possible to indict and convict him based on evidence outside of his interviews. That would help explain why he recently pled the Fifth, because he's still in legal danger. ..."
"... But more importantly, who else is guilty with him? Logic and the available evidence strongly suggest that Clinton's lawyer Cheryl Mills at least knew about the deletions at the time they happened. Combetta has already confessed to criminal behavior-and yet somehow hasn't even been fired by PRN. If he didn't at least tell Mills and the others in the conference call about the deletions, there would be no logical reason to assert attorney-client privilege in the first place. Only the nonsensical assertion of this privilege is preventing the evidence coming out that should lead to Mills being charged with lying to the FBI at a minimum. And if Mills knew, can anyone seriously believe that Clinton didn't know too? ..."
Sep 22, 2016 | www.thompsontimeline.com
To understand the 2015 deletions , we have to start further back in time, in June 2013 . Clinton had ended her four-year tenure as secretary of state earlier in 2013 , and she hired the Platte River Networks (PRN) computer company to manage her private email server. This was a puzzling hire, to say the least, because PRN was based in Denver, Colorado, far from Clinton's homes in New York and Washington, DC, and the company was so small that their office was actually an apartment in an ordinary apartment building with no security alarm system. The company wasn't cleared to handle classified information, nobody in it had a security clearance, and it hadn't even handled an important out of state contract before.

PRN assigned two employees to handle the Clinton account: Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton . In late June 2013 , these two employees moved Clinton's server from her house in Chappaqua, New York, to an Equinix data center in Secaucus, New Jersey. They removed all the data from the server, moved it to a new server, and then wiped the old server clean. Both the new and old server were kept running at the data center. At the same time, PRN subcontracted Datto, Inc. , to back up the data on the new server. A Datto SIRIS S2000 was bought and connected to the server , functioning like an external hard drive to make periodic back-ups.

... ... ...

Clinton's emails get sorted

Fast forward to the middle of 2014 . The House Benghazi Committee was formed to investigate the US government's actions surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya , and soon a handful of emails were discovered relating to this attack involving Clinton's hdr22@clintonemail.com email address. At this point, nobody outside of Clinton's inner circle of associates knew she had exclusively used that private email account for all her email communications while she was secretary of state, or that she'd hosted it on her own private email server.

The Benghazi Committee began pressing the State Department for more relevant emails from Clinton. The State Department in turn began privately pressing Clinton to turn over all her work-related emails.

Cheryl Mills (left) David Kendall (center) and Heather Samuelson (Credit: public domain)

Cheryl Mills (left) David Kendall (center) and Heather Samuelson (Credit: public domain)

Instead of turning over all her emails, Clinton decided to have them sorted into work-related and personal, and then only turn over the work-related ones. She gave this task to three of her lawyers : Cheryl Mills (Clinton's former chief of staff), David Kendall (Clinton's longtime personal lawyer), and Heather Samuelson (a relatively inexperienced State Department staffer during Clinton's tenure). It seems Samuelson did most of the sorting , even though she had no experience for this task nor any security clearance .

It was decided that over 30,000 emails were work-related, and those were turned over to the State Department on December 5, 2014 . These have all since been publicly released, though with redactions. Another over 31,000 emails were deemed personal , and Clinton kept those. They were later deleted in controversial circumstances that this essay explores in detail.

It has become increasingly clear in recent months that this sorting process was highly flawed. Clinton has said any emails that were borderline cases were given to the State Department, just to be on the safe side. But in fact, the FBI later recovered about 17,500 of Clinton's "personal" emails . It is probable no government agency has yet gone through all of these to officially determine which ones were work-related and which ones were not, but FBI Director James Comey has said that " thousands " were work-related.

We can get a glimpse of just how flawed the sorting process was because hundreds of emails from Huma Abedin have been released in recent months, as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit . Abedin was Clinton's deputy chief of staff and still is one of her closest aides.

When Samuelson described the sorting process in her FBI interview , she said that her first step was to find all the emails to or from Clinton and the people she regularly worked with in the State Department, and put all of those emails in the "work-related" category.

But from the Abedin emails released so far, about 200 are previously unreleased emails between her and Clinton . Anyone who looks at these can see that the vast majority, if not all, of them are work-related. Many involve Abedin's state.gov government address, not her clintonemail.com private address, so how on Earth did Samuelson's sorting process miss those? It has even come to light recently that a small number of emails mentioning "Benghazi" have been found in the 17,500 recovered by the FBI, but Samuelson told the FBI she had specifically searched for all emails using that word.

A sample of an email between Clinton and Abedin using her state.gove address. (Credit: public domain)

A sample of an email between Clinton and Abedin using her state.gov address. (Credit: public domain)

The Abedin emails released so far are only a small percentage of all her emails that are going to be released on a monthly basis well into 2017 . It is likely that Clinton's supposed 31,000 "personal" emails contain thousands of work-related emails to and from Abedin alone. Consider that only about 15% of the 30,000 Clinton emails released so far were between her and Abedin. If the rest of her deleted emails follow the same pattern as the Abedin ones, it is highly likely that the majority, and maybe even the vast majority, of Clinton's deleted "personal" emails in fact are work-related.

... ... ...

FBI Director Comey has said he trusts that Clinton had made a sincere sorting effort, but the sheer number of work-related emails that keep getting discovered suggests otherwise. Furthermore, logic and other evidence also suggest otherwise. For instance, in home video footage from a private fundraiser in 2000 , Clinton talked about how she had deliberately avoided using email so she wouldn't leave a paper trail: "As much as I've been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I? I don't even want… Why would I ever want to do email? Can you imagine?"

Practical considerations forced her to start using email a few years later. But what if her exclusive use of a private email address on her own private server was not done out of " convenience " as she claims, but so she could retain control of them, only turning over emails to FOIA requests and later government investigators that she wanted to?

Note also that in a November 2010 email exchange between Clinton and Abedin, Abedin suggested that Clinton might want to use a State Department email account due because the department computer system kept flagging emails from her private email account as spam. Clinton replied that she was open to some kind of change, but " I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible ." It is further worth noting that these emails were not handed over with the rest of Clinton's 30,000 work-related emails, despite clearly being work-related, but were somehow uncovered by the State Department inspector general 's office. Those very emails are good examples of the kind of material Clinton may have tried to keep secret by controlling the sorting process.

Consider that out of the relatively small number of deleted emails that have been made public due to the Abedin monthly releases, a handful of them have created headlines about possible conflicts of interest between Clinton's secretary of state job and the Clinton Foundation . How many more headlines like that would there be if all 31,000 deleted emails became public before the November 2016 presidential election? It's easy to imagine a political motive for Clinton wanting to keep some work-related emails secret.

... ... ...

The deletions begin

Heather Samuelson (Credit: Getty Images)

Heather Samuelson (Credit: Getty Images)

This essay will explore this possibility more later. But if it is the case that she wanted to keep those 31,000 "personal" emails out of the public eye, she had obstacles to overcome. In 2014 , PRN had managerial control of both Clinton's new and old server. Thus, in July 2014 and again in September 2014 , PRN employee Combetta had to send copies of all the emails to the laptop of Clinton lawyer Cheryl Mills, and another copy to the laptop of Clinton lawyer Heather Samuelson, to be used for the sorting process.

With the sorting done, if Clinton didn't want the public to ever see her deleted emails, you would expect all these copies of those emails to be permanently deleted, and that's exactly what happened. According to a later FBI report, " on or around December 2014 or January 2015 , Mills and Samuelson requested that [Platte River Networks (PRN) employee Paul Combetta] remove from their laptops all of the emails from the July and September 2014 exports. [Combetta] used a program called BleachBit to delete the email-related files so they could not be recovered."

The FBI report explained, "BleachBit is open source software that allows users to 'shred' files, clear Internet history, delete system and temporary files, and wipe free space on a hard drive. Free space is the area of the hard drive that can contain data that has been deleted. BleachBit's 'shred files' function claims to securely erase files by overwriting data to make the data unrecoverable." BleachBit advertises that it can "shred" files so they can never be recovered again.

With the emails of Mills and Samuelson wiped clean, and the old version of the server wiped clean, that left just two known copies of the emails: one on the new server, and one on the back-up Datto SIRIS device connected to the new server.

Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 . She claimed that in December 2014 , Clinton decided she no longer needed access to any of her emails older than 60 days . Note that this came not long after the State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails, on October 28, 2014 . Mills told the FBI that she instructed Combetta to modify the email retention policy on Clinton's clintonemail.com email account to reflect this change. Emails older than 60 days would then be overwritten several times, wiping them just as effectively as BleachBit.

Clinton essentially said the same thing as Mills when she was interviewed by the FBI . Clinton also was interviewed by the FBI. According to the FBI summary of the interview, she claimed that after her staff sent the 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department on December 5, 2014 , "she was asked what she wanted to do with her remaining [31,000] personal emails. Clinton instructed her staff she no longer needed the emails."

So although the retention policy change sounds like a mere technicality, in fact, Clinton passed the message through Mills that she wanted all her emails from when she was secretary of state to be permanently wiped.

Think about Clinton wanting to delete all her old "personal" emails. As a politician with a wide network of contributors and supporters, the information in them could be highly valuable for her. For instance, if a major donor contacted her, she probably would want to review their past correspondence before responding. She'd preserved these emails for nearly two years, but just when investigators started to demand to see them, she decided she didn't want ANY of them, and all traces of them should be permanently wiped. And yet we're supposed to believe the timing is just a coincidence?

But there was a problem with deleting them. Combetta later claimed that he simply forgot to make this change.

More than two months passed, which meant all of Clinton's deleted emails should have been permanently wiped already. Meanwhile, the House Benghazi Committee and others were making more requests to see her emails . In January 2015 , a reporter even filed a FOIA request in court for all of her emails .

Then, on March 2, 2015 , the headline on the front page of the New York Times was a story revealing that while Clinton was secretary of state, she had exclusively used a private email address hosted on her private server, thus keeping all of her email communications secret. This became THE big story of the month, and the start of a high-profile controversy that continues until today.

On December 2, 2014 , the House Benghazi Committee had asked Clinton for all Benghazi-related emails from her personal email address. But one day after the New York Times blockbuster story, the committee sent Clinton a letter asking her to preserve ALL her emails from that address.

Then, a day after that, on March 4, 2015 , the committee issued two subpoenas to her . One subpoena ordered her to turn over all emails relating to the Benghazi attack. The committee had already received about 300 such emails from the State Department in February 2015 , but after the Times story, the committee worried that the department might not have some of her relevant emails. (That would later prove to be the case, given the small number of Benghazi emails eventually recovered by the FBI.) The second subpoena ordered her to turn over documents it requested in November 2014 but still has not received from the State Department, relating to communications between Clinton and ten senior department officials.

Cheryl Mills (Credit: Twitter)

Cheryl Mills (Credit: Twitter)

If Clinton had already deleted her emails to keep them from future investigators, these requests shouldn't have been a problem. On March 9, 2015 , Mills sent an email to PRN employees , including Combetta, to make sure they were aware of the committee's request that all of Clinton's emails be preserved. One can see this as a CYA ("cover your ass") move, since Mills would have believed all copies of Clinton's "personal" emails had been permanently deleted and wiped by this time. The Times story and the requests for copies of Clinton's emails that followed had seemingly come too late.

But that wasn't actually the case, since Combetta had forgotten to make the deletions!


Combetta deletes everything that is left

Sitting behind Combetta is co-founder of Platte River Brent Allshouse (left) and PRN attorney, Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)

Sitting behind Combetta is co-founder of Platte River Brent Allshouse (left) and PRN attorney, Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)

According to a later Combetta FBI interview, he claimed that on March 25, 2015, there was a conference call between PRN employees , including himself, and some members of Bill Clinton's staff. (Hillary Clinton's private server hosted the emails of Bill Clinton's staff too, and one unnamed staffer hired PRN back in 2013 .) There was another conference call between PRN and Clinton staffers on March 31, 2015 , with at least Combetta, Mills, and Clinton lawyer David Kendall taking part in that later call.

According to what Combetta later told the FBI, at some point between these two calls, he had an "Oh shit!" moment and remembered that he'd forgotten to make the requested retention policy change back in December . So, even though he told the FBI that he was aware of the emails from Mills mentioning the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails, he took action. Instead of simply making the retention policy change, which would have preserved the emails for another two months, he immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails from her server. Then he used BleachBit to permanently wipe them.

The Datto SIRIS S2000 was used for back-up services. (Credit: Datto, Inc.)

The Datto SIRIS S2000 was used for back-up services. (Credit: Datto, Inc.)

However, recall that there was a Datto SIRIS back-up device connected to the server and periodically making copies of all the data on the server. Apparently, Combetta didn't mention this to the FBI, but the FBI found "evidence of these [server] deletions and determined the Datto backups of the server were also manually deleted during this timeframe ." The Datto device sent a records log back to the Datto company whenever any changes were made, and according to a letter from Datto to the FBI that later became public, the deletions on the device were made around noon on March 31, 2015 , the same date as the second conference call. (Although the server and Datto device were in New Jersey and Combetta was working remotely from Rhode Island, he could make changes remotely, as he or other PRN employees did on other occasions.)

A recent Congressional committee letter mentioned that the other deletions were also made on or around March 31, 2015 . So it's probable they were all done at the same time by the same person: Combetta.

Already, Combetta's behavior is damning. He didn't just change the data retention policy, as Mills had asked him to do, causing them to be permanently deleted 60 days later. He immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails and then wiped them for good measure, and almost certainly deleted them from the Datto back-up device too.

The FBI's Clinton email investigation didn't formally begin until July 10, 2015 -more than two months after Combetta took those actions. However, State Department inspector general Steve Linick began investigating Clinton's email usage in April 2015 , and he could have given her an order to preserve all her documents-we don't know. Furthermore, CNN has reported that the FBI investigation actually began informally in late May 2015 , which is less than two months after the deletions. So Combetta could have prevented the State Department and/or the FBI from easily recovering all the emails in time.

To make matters worse for Combetta, on March 20, 2015 , the House Benghazi Committee sent a letter to Clinton's lawyer Kendall , asking Clinton to turn her server over to a neutral third party so it could be examined to see if any work-related emails were still on it. This was reported in the New York Times and other media outlets.

Then, on March 27, 2015 , Kendall replied to the committee in a letter that also was reported on by the Times and others that same day. Kendall wrote, "There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server… To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the secretary's IT [information technology] support that no emails… for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server."

David Kendall (Credit: Above the Law)

David Kendall (Credit: Above the Law)

When Kendall mentioned Clinton's IT support, that had to have been a reference to PRN. So what actually happened? Did Kendall or someone else working for Clinton ask Combetta and/or other PRN employees if there were any emails still on the server in the March 25, 2015 conference call, just two days before he sent his letter? Did Combetta lie in that call and say they were already deleted and then rush to delete them afterwards to cover up his mistake? Or did someone working for Clinton tell or hint that he should delete them now if they hadn't been deleted already? We don't know, because the FBI has revealed nothing about what was said in that conference call or the one that took place a week later.

However, despite all these clear signs that the emails should be preserved, not only did Combetta confess in an FBI interview that "at the time he made the deletions in March 2015 , he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's email data on the [server]," he said that " he did not receive guidance from other PRN personnel, PRN's legal counsel or others regarding the meaning of the preservation request." So he confessed to obstruction of justice and other possible crimes, all to the apparent benefit of Clinton instead of himself!


Investigations and cover-ups

This is perplexing enough already, but it gets stranger still, if we continue to follow the behavior of Combetta and PRN as a whole.

An inside look at the Equinix facility in Secaucus, NJ. (Credit: Chang W. Lee / New York Time)

An inside look at the Equinix facility in Secaucus, NJ. (Credit: Chang W. Lee / New York Time)

By August 2015 , the FBI's Clinton investigation was in full swing, and they began interviewing witnesses and confiscating equipment for analysis. Because the FBI never empanelled a grand jury, it didn't have subpoena power, so it had to ask Clinton for permission to seize her server. She gave that permission on August 11, 2015 , and the server was picked up from the data center in New Jersey the next day . But remember that there actually were two servers there, an old one and a new one. All the data had been wiped from the old one and moved to the new one, so the new one was the more important one to analyze. But the FBI only picked up the old one.

According to the FBI's final report, "At the time of the FBI's acquisition of the [server], Williams & Connolly [the law firm of Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall] did not advise the US government of the existence of the additional equipment associated with the [old server], or that Clinton's clintonemail.com emails had been migrated to the successor [server] remaining at [the] Equinix [data center]. The FBI's subsequent investigation identified this additional equipment and revealed the email migration." As a result, the FBI finally picked up the new server on October 3, 2015 .

It was bad enough that Clinton's lawyer wasn't forthcoming about this, especially since Clinton and her staff had switched to using new email accounts located on a different server with a different domain name in late 2014 , so the servers in question weren't urgently needed anymore. But who else could have told the FBI about the data getting transferred to the new server? PRN.

A snippet from the invoice published by Complete Colorado on October 19, 2015. (Credit: Todd Shepherd / Complete Colorado) (Used with express permission from CompleteColorado.com. Do not duplicate or republish.)

The FBI interviewed PRN's staff in September 2015. This almost certainly included Combetta and Bill Thornton, because they were the only two PRN employees actively managing Clinton's server.

It's particularly important to know if Combetta was interviewed at this time. The FBI's final report clearly stated that he was interviewed twice, in February 2016 and May 2016 , and repeatedly referred to what was said in his "first interview" and "second interview." However, we luckily know that he was interviewed in September 2015 as well, because of a PRN invoice billed to Clinton Executive Service Corp. (CESC), a Clinton family company, that was made public later in 2015 . The invoice made clear that Combetta, who was working remotely from Rhode Island, flew to Colorado on September 14, 2015, and then "federal interviews" took place on September 15 . Combetta's rental car, hotel, and return airfare costs were itemized as well. As this essay later makes clear, PRN was refusing to cooperate with anyone else in the US government but the FBI by this time, so "federal interviews" can only mean the FBI.

Bryan Pagliano (Credit: public domain)

Bryan Pagliano (Credit: public domain)

The fact that the FBI falsely claimed Combetta was only interviewed twice grows in importance given a recent New York Times report that the Justice Department gave Combetta some form of legal immunity .

One other person in the investigation, Bryan Pagliano, was given immunity as well. But his immunity deal was leaked to the media and had been widely reported on since March 2016 . By contrast, Combetta's immunity wasn't even mentioned in the FBI's final report, and members of Congress were upset to first read about it in the Times , because they had never been told about it either.

The mystery of this situation deepens when one looks at the FBI report regarding what Combetta said in his February 2016 and May 2016 interviews. In February 2016 , he claimed that he remembered in late March 2015 that he forgot to make the change to the email retention policy on Clinton's server, but that was it. He claimed he never did make any deletions. He also claimed that he was unaware of the March 9, 2015 email from Mills warning of the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails.

Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

Then, in May 2016 , he completely changed his story. He said that in fact he did make the deletions in late March 2015 after all, plus he'd wiped her emails with BleachBit, as described earlier. He also confessed to being aware of the Mills email with the preservation request.

It still hasn't been reported when Combetta's immunity deal was made. However, it seems probable that this took place between his February 2016 and May 2016 interviews, causing the drastic change in his account. Yet, it looks that he still hasn't been fully honest or forthcoming. Note that he didn't confess to the deletion of data on the Datto back-up device, even though it took place at the same time as the other deletions. The FBI learned that on their own by analyzing the device.


Attorney-client privilege?!

More crucially, we know that Combetta has not revealed what took place in the second conference call between PRN and Clinton employees. Here is all the FBI's final report has to say about that: "Investigation identified a PRN work ticket, which referenced a conference call among PRN, Kendall, and Mills on March 31, 2015. PRN's attorney advised [Combetta] not to comment on the conversation with Kendall, based upon the assertion of the attorney-client privilege ."

Paul Combetta (left) Ken Eichner (right) (Credit: CSpan)

Sitting behind Paul Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing on September 13, 2016, is Platte River Networks attorney Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)

This is extremely bizarre. What "attorney-client privilege"?! That would only apply for communications between Combetta and his lawyer or lawyers. It's clear that Combetta's lawyer isn't Mills or Kendall. The New York Times article about the immunity deal made a passing reference to his lawyer, and, when Combetta showed up for a Congressional hearing on September 12 , he was accompanied by a lawyer who photographs from the hearing make clear is Ken Eichner, who has been the legal counsel for PRN as a whole regarding Clinton's server.

Even if Combetta's lawyer Eichner was participating in the call, there is no way that should protect Combetta from having to tell what he said to Clinton employees like Mills or Kendall. If that's how the law works, criminals could simply always travel with a lawyer and then claim anything they do or say with the lawyer present is inadmissible as evidence due to attorney-client privilege. It's absurd.

For the FBI to give Combetta an immunity deal and then still not learn if he had been told to delete the emails by anyone working for Clinton due to a completely legally indefensible "attorney-client privilege" excuse is beyond belief. It would make sense, however, if the FBI was actually trying to protect Clinton from prosecution instead of trying to find evidence to prosecute her.


Combetta's Reddit posts

A side-by-side shot of Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing (left) and a captured shot of Combetta as Stonetear (right). (Credit: CSpan and public domain)

A photo comparison of Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing (left) and a captured shot of Combetta as stonetear (right). (Credit: CSpan and public domain)

Furthermore, how much can Combetta be trusted, even in an FBI interview? It has recently come to light that he made Reddit posts under the username "stonetear." There can be no doubt this was him, because the details match perfectly, including him signing a post "Paul," having another social media account for a Paul Combetta with the username "stonetear," having a combetta.com website mentioning his "stonetear" alias, and even posting a photo of "stonetear" that matches other known photos of Combetta.

In one Reddit post , he asked other server managers: "I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a .pst file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out. … Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?"

The date of the post- July 24, 2014 -is very significant, because that was just one day after Combetta sent CESE (the Clinton family company) DVDs containing some of Clinton's emails , so Clinton's lawyers could start the sorting process. Also on July 23, 2014 , an unnamed PRN employee sent Samuelson and Mills the same emails electronically directly to their laptops.

A response captured in the Reddit chat warning Combetta that what he wants to do is illegal. (Credit: Reddit)

A response captured in the Reddit chat warning stonetear aka Combetta that what he wants to do could result in major legal issues. (Credit: Reddit)

Popular software made by companies like Microsoft have tried to make it impossible for people to change email records, so people facing legal trouble can't tamper with emails after they've been sent. Thus, when Combetta posed his problem at Reddit, other Reddit users told him that what he wanted to do "could result in major legal issues." But that didn't deter him, and he kept asking for various ways to get it accomplished anyway.

It isn't clear why Clinton would have wanted her email address removed from all her emails, since her exact address had already been exposed in the media back in March 2013 by the hacker known as Guccifer. One Gawker reporter even used it to email Clinton on March 20, 2013 : "[W] ere your emails to and from the hdr22@clintonemail.com account archived according to the provisions of the President Records Act and Freedom of Information Act?" (Clinton never replied, maybe because it's clear in hindsight that an honest answer would have been "no.") But the fact that Combetta was willing to at least try to do this raises questions, especially his seeming willingness to do something illegal for his "VIP" customer Hillary Clinton.

Combetta made another important Reddit post a few months later:

"Hello- I have a client who wants to push out a 60 day email retention policy for certain users. However, they also want these users to have a 'Save Folder' in their Exchange folder list where the users can drop items that they want to hang onto longer than the 60 day window. All email in any other folder in the mailbox should purge anything older than 60 days (should not apply to calendar or contact items of course). How would I go about this? Some combination of retention and managed folder policy?"

Another sample captured of Combetta as 'stonetear' asking Reddit users for help. (Credit: Reddit)

Another question was captured of 'stonetear' aka Combetta asking Reddit users for technical help. (Credit: Reddit)

Again, the timing is telling, because this post was made on December 10, 2014 . Recall that December 2014 (or January 2015 ) was when he deleted and then wiped Clinton's emails from the laptops of Mills and Samuelson. December also was the month that Mills asked him to change the retention policy on Clinton's server to 60 days , which is precisely the issue he was asking about in his Reddit post.

A captured shot of Combetta's 'stonetear' GMail account with picture included. (Credit: public domain)

A captured shot of Combetta's 'stonetear' Gmail account with picture included. (Credit: public domain)

Recall how Clinton allegedly claimed she didn't want to keep any of her deleted emails. It looks like that wasn't true after all. It sounds exactly as if Mills or someone else working for Clinton told him to make it look like all the "personal" emails were permanently deleted due to the 60 day policy change, while actually keeping copies of emails they still wanted.

Looking at Combetta's two Reddit posts detailed above, there are only two possibilities. One is that Combetta failed to disclose crucial information to the FBI, despite his immunity deal. The second is that he did, but the FBI didn't mention it in its final report. Either way, it's already clear that the FBI has failed to present the full story of Combetta's actions to the public. And how much of what Combetta has said can be trusted, even in his most recent and supposedly most forthcoming FBI interview?

David DeCamillis (Credit: Twitter)

David DeCamillis (Credit: Twitter)

Remarkably, there is a hint that Combetta was being dishonest even before his late March 2015 deletions. On March 3, 2015 , one day after the front-page New York Times story revealing Clinton's use of a private server, PRN's vice president of sales David DeCamillis sent an email to some or all of the other PRN employees. The email has only been paraphrased in news reports so far, but he was already wondering what Clinton emails the company might be asked to turn over .

Combetta replied to the email , "I've done quite a bit already in the last few months related to this. Her [Clinton's] team had me do a bunch of exports and email filters and cleanup to provide a .pst [personal storage file] of all of HRC's [Hillary Rodham Clinton's] emails to/from any .gov addresses. … I billed probably close to 10 hours in on-call tickets with CESC related to it :)."

First off, it's interesting that he said he did "a bunch" of "email filters and cleanup," because what has been reported by the FBI is that he only made a copy of all of Clinton's email and sent them off to be sorted in late July 2014 . That fits with his July 2014 Reddit post where he was trying to modify somebody's email address.

But also, assuming that there aren't important parts to his email that haven't been mentioned by the media, consider what he didn't say. The topic was possibly turning over Clinton's emails, and yet by this time Combetta had already deleted and wiped all of Clinton's emails from the laptops of two Clinton lawyers and been asked to change the email retention policy on Clinton's server so that all her emails would be permanently deleted there too, and yet he didn't bother to mention this to anyone else at PRN. Why?

We can only speculate based on the limited amount of information made public so far. But it seems as if Combetta was covering up for Clinton and/or the people working for her even BEFORE he made his late March 2015 deletions!


Who knows about the deletions, and how?

Senator Ron Johnson (Credit: John Shinkle / Politico)

Senator Ron Johnson (Credit: John Shinkle / Politico)

For now, let us turn back to events in the fall of 2015 . In mid-August 2015 , Senator Ron Johnson (R) asked for and got a staff-level briefing from PRN about the management of Clinton's server, as part of Republican Congressional oversight of the FBI's investigation. It seems very likely that Combetta was a part of that briefing, or at least his knowledge heavily informed the briefing, because again only two PRN employees actively managed her server, and he was one of them.

Regardless of whether he was there or not, it is clear that PRN was not honest in the briefing. Almost nothing is publicly known about the briefing except that it took place. However, from questions Johnson asked PRN in later letters, one can see that he knew nothing about the March 2015 deletions by Combetta. In fact, just like the FBI, there is no indication he knew anything about the transfer of the data from the old server to the new in that time period, which would be a basic fact in any such briefing.

Andy Boian (Credit: public domain)

The dishonesty or ignorance of PRN in this time period can be clearly seen due to a September 12, 2015 Washington Post article. In it, PRN spokesperson Andy Boian said, " Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped ." He added, "All the information we have is that the server wasn't wiped." We now know that not only was this untrue, but a PRN employee did the wiping!

This leads to two possibilities. One is that Combetta lied to his PRN bosses, so in September 2015 nobody else in PRN knew about the deletions he'd made. The other is that additional people at PRN knew, but they joined in a cover-up.

At this point, it's impossible to know which of these is true, but one of them must be. PRN employees created work tickets and other documentary evidence of the work they made, so one would think the company leadership would have quickly learned about the deletions if they did any examination of their managerial actions to prepare for investigative briefings and interviews.

But either way, PRN as a whole began acting as if there was something to hide. Although the company agreed to the briefing of Congressional staffers in mid-August 2015 , when Senator Johnson wanted to follow this up with interviews of individual PRN employees in early September, PRN said no . When Congressional committees began asking PRN for documents, they also said no, and kept saying no. Recently, as we shall see later, they've even defied a Congressional subpoena for documents.

Austin McChord, founder and CEO of Datto, Inc. (Credit: Erik Traufmann / Hearst Connecticut Media)

Austin McChord, founder and CEO of Datto, Inc. (Credit: Erik Traufmann / Hearst Connecticut Media)

At the same time Congressional committees began asking PRN for documents and interviews, they made those requests to Datto as well.

Datto expressed a willingness to cooperate. But because Datto had been subcontracted by PRN to help manage Clinton's server, they needed PRN's permission to share any information relating to that account. When PRN was first asked in early October 2015 , they gave permission. But about a week later, they changed their mind , forcing Datto to stay quiet.

To make matters worse, in early November 2015 , PRN spokesperson Andy Boian gave a completely bogus public excuse about this, saying that PRN and Datto had mutually agreed it was more convenient for investigators to deal with just one company. Datto immediately complained in a letter sent to PRN and Senator Johnson that no such discussion or agreement between PRN and Datto had ever taken place.

What is PRN hiding?


The Datto cloud mystery

There is another strange twist to Datto's involvement. Back in June 2013 when Datto was first subcontracted to help with backing up the server data, the Clinton family company CESC made explicit that they didn't want any of the data to be stored remotely . But due to some snafu or miscommunication, it turns out that in addition to local back-ups being stored on the Datto device connected to the server, Datto had been making periodic copies of the server data the whole time in the "cloud!" That means back-up copies of the data were being transferred over the Internet and stored remotely, probably on other servers controlled by Datto.

Co-founders of PRN are Brent Allshouse (left) and Treve Suazo (right) (Credit: PRN)

Co-founders of PRN are Brent Allshouse (left) and Treve Suazo (right) (Credit: PRN)

PRN only discovered this in early August 2015 , around the time the roles of PRN and Datto had with the server began to be made public. PRN contacted Datto, told them to stop doing this, put all the data on a thumb drive, send it to them, and then permanently wipe their remote copies of the server data.

It is unclear what happened after that. The FBI's final report mentions a Datto back-up made on June 29, 2013 , just after all the data had been moved from the old server to the new sever with the back-up, had been useful to investigators and allowed them to find some Clinton emails dating all the way back to the first two months of her secretary of state tenure. However, it isn't clear if this is due to the local Datto SIRIS device or the accidental Datto cloud back-up. Congressional committee letters show that they don't know either and have been trying to find out.

Adding to the mystery, one would think that if Datto was making periodic back-ups either or both ways, the FBI would have been able to recover all of Clinton's over 31,000 deleted emails and not just 17,000 of them. Consider that when PRN employees sent Clinton's lawyers all of Clinton's emails to be sorted in July and September 2014 , they simply copied what was on the server at the time, which presumably was the same amount of emails from years earlier than had been there in June 2013 , and thus backed up by Datto many times.

It's likely there are more twists to the cloud back-up story that have yet to be revealed.


What did Clinton and her aides know about the deletions?

Meanwhile, let's consider what Clinton and her aides may have known and when they knew it. When Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 , according to the FBI, "Mills stated she was unaware that [Combetta] had conducted these deletions and modifications in March 2015 ." Then, when Clinton was interviewed by the FBI in July 2016 , "Clinton stated she was…unaware of the March 2015 email deletions by PRN."

This is pretty hard to believe. Mills was and still is one of Clinton's lawyers, and even attended Clinton's FBI interview. So why wouldn't she have mentioned the deletions to Clinton between April and July 2016 , after she learned about them from the FBI's questions to her? One would think Clinton would have been extremely curious to know anything about the FBI's possible recovery of her deleted emails.

Clinton making a joking wipe gesture while speaking at a town hall on August 18, 2015, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Credit: John Locher / The Associated Press)

Clinton making a joking wipe gesture while speaking at a town hall on August 18, 2015, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Credit: John Locher / The Associated Press)

But more importantly, consider what was mentioned in an NBC News report on August 19, 2015 . Clinton's campaign acknowledged "that there was an attempt to wipe [Clinton's] server before it was turned over last week to the FBI. But two sources with direct knowledge of the investigation told NBC News …that the [FBI] may be able to recover at least some data."

Is it plausible that people within Clinton's campaign knew this, and yet neither Mills nor Clinton did? How could that be? Note that just one day before the NBC News report, Clinton had been directly asked if her server had been wiped. She dodged the question by making the joke , " What-like with a cloth, or something?" Then she said she didn't "know how it works digitally at all." Despite the controversy at the time about the cloth joke, her spokesperson claimed one month later, "I don't know what 'wiped' means."

It's highly likely the issue had to have been discussed with Clinton at the time, but there was a conscious effort not to have her admit to knowing anything, due to the on-going FBI investigation.

But more crucially, how could anyone at all working for Clinton know about the deletions as far back as August 2015 ? Recall that this was within days of PRN giving a briefing to Congressional staffers and not telling them, and several weeks prior to a PRN public comment that there was no evidence the server had been wiped.

Moreover, we have no evidence that the FBI knew about the deletions yet. Datto conducted an analysis of its device that had been attached to Clinton's new server, and in an October 23, 2015 email, told the FBI for the first time that deletions had taken place on that device on March 31, 2015 . Keep in mind that even in his February 2016 FBI interview, Combetta claimed that no deletions had taken place in that time frame. Does it make sense that he would have said that if he had reason to believe that PRN had been talking to Clinton's staff about it in the months before? (None of the interviews in the FBI"s investigations were done under oath, but lying to the FBI is a felony with a maximum five-year prison sentence.)

A sample of the letter sent to the FBI by Datto attorney, Steven Cash on October 23, 2015. (Credit: House Science Committee)

A sample of the email sent to the FBI by Datto attorney, Steven Cash on October 23, 2015. (Credit: House Science Committee)

So, again, how could Clinton's campaign know about the wiping in August 2015 ? The logical answer is that it had been discussed in the conference call on March 31, 2015 , that took place within hours of the deletions.

Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

Perhaps Mills, Kendall, or someone else working for Clinton told Combetta to make the deletions, possibly during the first conference call on March 25, 2015 . If that is the case, there should be obstruction of justice charges brought against anyone involved. Or maybe Combetta did that on his own to cover his earlier mistake and then mentioned what he'd done in the second conference call. If either scenario is true, Mills should be charged with lying to the FBI for claiming in her FBI interview that she knew nothing about any of this. Clinton might be charged for the same if it could be proved what she knew and when.


"Shady shit" and "Hillary's cover-up operation"

But there's still more to this strange story. Somehow by October 5, 2015 , Senator Johnson got hold of a curious email exchange between Combetta and Thornton , and he mentioned it in a letter to PRN that got leaked to the public the next day. (Recall that Bill Thornton is the other PRN employee who actively managed Clinton's server.)

Just as the email retention policy on the Clinton server was changed on the orders of people working for Clinton, so was the retention policy on the Datto device connected to the server, in the same time period.

In an August 18, 2015 email, Combetta expressed concern that CESC, the Clinton family company, had directed PRN to reduce the length of time backups, and PRN wanted proof of this so they wouldn't be blamed. But he said in the email, "this was all phone comms [communications]."

Paul Combetta (left) Bill Thornton (right) (Credit: AP)

Paul Combetta (left) Bill Thornton (right) (Credit: The Associated Press)

The next day , there was another email, this one written by Thornton to Combetta and possibly others in PRN . The email has the subject heading "CESC Datto." Thornton wrote: "Any chance you found an old email with their directive to cut the backup back in Oct-Feb. I know they had you cut it once in Oct-Nov, then again to 30 days in Feb-ish." (Presumably this refers to October 2014 through February 2015 .)

Thornton continued: "If we had that email, then we're golden. […] Wondering how we can sneak an email in now after the fact asking them when they told us to cut the backups and have them confirm it for our records. Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shady shit. I just think if we have it in writing that they [CESC] told us to cut the backups, and we can go public with our statement saying we have had backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30 days, it would make us look a WHOLE LOT better."

Combetta replied: "I'll look again, but I'm almost positive we don't have anything about the 60 day cut. […] It's up to lawyer crap now, so just sit back and enjoy the silly headlines."

As an aside, it's curious that Combetta made some unsolicited additional comments in that same email that was supportive of Clinton's position in the email controversy: "It wasn't the law to be required to use government email servers at the State Department, believe it or not. Colin Powell used an AOL address for communicating with his staff, believe it or not."

If we take this email exchange at face value, then it appears that Clinton employees requested an email retention policy change that would result in more deletion of data on the Datto back-up device in the October to November 2014 time range. Keep in mind that the State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails , on October 28, 2014 , after informally asking starting in July 2014 . Then, around February 2015 , Clinton employees asked for another change that would have resulted in more deletions. Plus, they did this on the phone, leaving no paper trail. Is it any wonder that Thornton wrote, "Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shady shit?"

Details are lacking, but roughly around this time period, one unnamed PRN employee made a joke that they were "Hillary's cover-up operation ." That may have been much more accurate than they realized.


The FBI speaks up, only raising more questions

News about PRN went quiet for the first half of 2016 . Congressional committees kept asking PRN and Datto for more information (including another request for interviews in January 2016 ), and PRN kept saying no as well as not giving Datto permission to respond.

James Comey (Credit: Fox News)

James Comey (Credit: Fox News)

Then, on July 5, 2016 , FBI Director James Comey gave a surprise public speech in which he announced he wouldn't recommend any criminal charges against Clinton or anyone else in the investigation. In the course of his speech, he said it was "likely" that some emails may have disappeared forever because Clinton's lawyers "deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery." But he said that after interviews and technical examination, "we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort."

Trey Gowdy (Credit: Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images)

Trey Gowdy (Credit: Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images)

Two days later, on July 7, 2016 , Comey had to explain his decision in front of a Congressional committee. During that hearing, he was asked by Representative Trey Gowdy (R), "Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?"

Comey replied: "That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work-related emails in-on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when the server was changed out, something happened to them. There's no doubt that the work-related emails were removed electronically from the email system."

Consider that response. By the time Comey made those comments, the FBI's final report had already been finished, the report that detailed Combetta's confession of deliberately deleting and then wiping all of Clinton's emails from her server. Comey was explicitly asked if "anyone" had made such deletions, and yet he said he wasn't sure. Comey should be investigated for lying to Congress! Had he revealed even the rough outlines of Combetta's late March 2015 deletions in his July 5, 2016 public speech or his Congressional testimony two days later , it would have significantly changed the public perception of the results of the FBI investigation. That also would have allowed Congressional committees to start focusing on this two months earlier than they did, enabling them to uncover more in the limited time before the November presidential election.

The SECNAP Logo (Credit: SECNAP)

Despite the fact that the Combetta deletions were still unknown, Congressional committees began putting increasing pressure on PRN anyway. On July 12, 2016 , two committees jointly wrote a letter to PRN , threatening subpoenas if they still refused to cooperate. The letter listed seven PRN employees they wanted to interview, including Combetta and Thornton. Similar letters went out to Datto and SECNAP. (SECNAP was subcontracted by PRN to carry out threat monitoring of the network connected to Clinton's server.)

On August 22, 2016 , after all three companies still refused to cooperate, Representative Lamar Smith (R), chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, issued subpoenas for PRN, Datto, and SECNAP .

On September 2, 2016 , the FBI's final report of their Clinton email investigation was released (along with a summary of Clinton's FBI interview). This report revealed the late March 2015 deletions for the first time. Combetta's name was redacted, but his role, as well as his immunity deal, was revealed in the New York Times article published a few days later.


Congressional investigators fight back

160918ChanningPhillipspublic

Channing Phillips (Credit: public domain)

Since the report has been released, Congressional Republicans have stepped up their efforts to get answers about the Combetta mystery, using the powers of the committees they control. On September 6, 2016 , Representative Jason Chaffetz (R), chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote a letter to Channing Phillips , the US attorney for the District of Columbia. He asked the Justice Department to "investigate and determine whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statutes that prohibit destruction of records, obstruction of congressional inquiries, and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation." Clearly, this relates to the Combetta deletions.

House Oversight Committee Chair Representative Jason Chaffetz. (Credit: Cliff Owen / The Associated Press)

Representative Jason Chaffetz. (Credit: Cliff Owen / The Associated Press)

On the same day , Chaffetz sent a letter to PRN warning that Combetta could face federal charges for deleting and wiping Clinton's emails in late March 2015 , due to the Congressional request to preserve them earlier in the month that he admitted he was aware of. Chaffetz also wants an explanation from PRN how Combetta could refuse to talk to the FBI about the conference calls if the only lawyers involved in the call were Clinton's.

Chaffetz serves the FBI a subpoena during a House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee hearing on September 9, 2016. (Credit: ABC News)

Chaffetz serves the FBI a subpoena during a House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee hearing on September 9, 2016. (Credit: ABC News)

On September 9 , Chaffetz served the FBI a subpoena for all the unredacted interviews from the FBI's Clinton investigation, especially those of Combetta and the other PRN employees. This came after an FBI official testifying at a hearing remarkably suggested that Chaffetz should file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get the documents, just like any private citizen can.

On September 8, 2016 , Congressional committees served the subpoenas they'd threatened in August. PRN, Datto, and SECNAP were given until the end of September 12 to finally turn over the documents the committees had been requesting for year. Datto complied and turned over the documents in time. However, PRN and SECNAP did not.

Representative Lamar Smith (Credit: public domain)

Representative Lamar Smith (Credit: public domain)

The next day, September 13 , Representative Lamar Smith (R) said , "just this morning…SECNAP's [legal] counsel confirmed to my staff that the Clinton's private LLC [Clinton Executive Service Corp.] is actively engaged in directing their obstructionist responses to Congressional subpoenas."

PRN employees Combetta and Thornton were also given subpoenas on September 8 , ordering them to testify at a Congressional hearing on September 13, 2016 . Both of them showed up with their lawyers, but both of them pled the Fifth , leaving many questions unanswered.


An FBI cover-up?

In a Senate speech on September 12, 2016 , Senator Charles Grassley (R) accused the FBI of manipulating which information about the Clinton email investigation becomes public . He said that although the FBI has taken the unusual step of releasing the FBI's final report, "its summary is misleading or inaccurate in some key details and leaves out other important facts altogether." He pointed in particular to Combetta's deletions, saying: "[T]here is key information related to that issue that is still being kept secret, even though it is unclassified. If I honor the FBI's 'instruction' not to disclose the unclassified information it provided to Congress, I cannot explain why."

Senator Charles Grassley takes to the Senate floor on September 12, 2016. (Credit: CSpan))

Senator Charles Grassley takes to the Senate floor on September 12, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)

He also said there are dozens of completely unclassified witness reports, but even some of his Congressional staffers can't see them "because the FBI improperly bundled [them] with a small amount of classified information, and told the Senate to treat it all as if it were classified." The normal procedure is for documents to have the classified portions marked. Then the unclassified portions can be released. But in defiance of regulations and a clear executive order on how such material should be handled, "the FBI has 'instructed' the Senate office that handles classified information not to separate the unclassified information." As a result, Grassley claims: "Inaccuracies are spreading because of the FBI's selective release. For example, the FBI's recently released summary memo may be contradicted by other unclassified interview summaries that are being kept locked away from the public."

He said he has been fighting the FBI on this, but without success so far, as the FBI isn't even replying to his letters.

Thus, it seems that Comey failing to mention anything about the Combetta deletions in the July 7, 2016 Congressional hearing, even when directly asked about it, was no accident. Having the FBI report claim that Combetta was only interviewed twice when there is clear evidence of three interviews also fits a pattern of concealment related to the deletions.

James Comey testifies to the House Benghazi Committee on July 7, 2016. (Credit: Jack Gruber / USA Today)

James Comey testifies to the House Benghazi Committee on July 7, 2016. (Credit: Jack Gruber / USA Today)

Regarding the FBI's failure to inform Congressional oversight committees of Combetta's immunity deal, Representative Trey Gowdy (R) recently commented, "If there is a reason to withhold the immunity agreement from Congress-and by extension, the people we represent-I cannot think of what it would be."

Gowdy, who is a former federal prosecutor, also said on September 9 that there are two types of immunity Combetta could have received : use and transactional. "If the FBI and the Department of Justice gave this witness transactional immunity, it is tantamount to giving the triggerman immunity in a robbery case." He added that he is "stunned" because "It looks like they gave immunity to the very person you would most want to prosecute."

This is as much as we know so far, but surely the story won't stop there. PRN has been served a new subpoena. It is likely the requested documents will be seized from them soon if they continue to resist.


Taking the fall and running out the clock

But why does PRN resist so much? Computer companies often resist sharing information with the government so their reputation with their clients won't be harmed. But defying a subpoena when there clearly are legitimate questions to be answered goes way beyond what companies normally do and threatens PRN's reputation in a different way. Could it be that PRN-an inexplicable choice to manage Clinton's server-was chosen precisely because whatever Clinton aide hired them had reason to believe they would be loyal if a problem like this arose?

David DeCamillis (Credit: public domain)

David DeCamillis (Credit: public domain)

There is some anecdotal evidence to support this. It has been reported that PRN has ties to prominent Democrats . For instance, the company's vice president of sales David DeCamillis is said to be a prominent supporter of Democratic politicians, and once offered to let Senator Joe Biden (D) stay in his house in 2008 , not long before Biden became Obama's vice president. The company also has done work for John Hickenlooper, the Democratic governor of Colorado. And recall the email in which Combetta brought up points to defend Clinton in her email controversy, even though the email exchange was on a different topic.

The behavior of the FBI is even stranger. Comey was a registered Republican most of his life, and it is well known that most FBI agents are politically conservative. Be that as it may, if Comey made a decision beforehand based on some political calculation to avoid indicting Clinton no matter what the actual evidence was, that the FBI's peculiar behavior specifically relating to the Combetta deletions make much more sense. It would be an unprecedented and bold move to recommend indicting someone with Hillary Clinton's power right in the middle of her presidential election campaign.

It's naive to think that political factors don't play a role, on both sides. Consider that virtually every Democratic politician has been supportive of Clinton in her email controversy, or at least silent about it, while virtually every Republican has been critical of her about it or silent. Comey was appointed by Obama, and if the odds makers are right and Clinton wins in November , Comey will continue to be the FBI director under President Clinton. (Comey was appointed to a ten-year term, but Congress needs to vote to reappoint him after the election.) How could that not affect his thinking?

Comey could be trying to run out the clock, first delaying the revelations of the Combetta's deletions as much as possible, then releasing only selected facts to diminish the attention on the story.

In this scenario, the FBI having Combetta take the fall for the deletions while making a secret immunity deal with him is a particularly clever move to prevent anyone from being indicted. Note that Combetta's confession about making the deletions came in his May 2016 FBI interview, which came after Mills' April 2016 interview in which she claimed she'd never heard of any deletions. Thus, the only way to have Combetta take the fall for the deletions without Mills getting caught clearly lying to the FBI is by dodging the issue of what was said in the March 31, 2015 conference with a nonsensical claim of "attorney-client privilege."

Unfortunately, if that is Comey's plan, it looks like it's working. Since the FBI's final report came out on September 2, 2016 , the mainstream media has largely failed to grasp the significance of Combetta and his deletions, focusing on far less important matters instead, such as the destruction of a couple of Clinton's BlackBerry devices with hammers-which actually was better than not destroying them and possibly letting them fall into the wrong hands.

The House Benghazi Committee in session in 2015. (Credit: C-SPAN3)

The House Benghazi Committee in session in 2015. (Credit: C-SPAN3)

What happens next appears to largely be in the hands of Congressional Republicans, who no doubt will keep pushing to find out more, if only to politically hurt Clinton before the election. But it's also in the hands of you, the members of the general public. If enough people pay attention, then it will be impossible to sweep this controversy under the rug.

I believe that criminal behavior needs to be properly investigated and prosecuted, regardless of political persuasion and regardless of the election calendar. Combetta clearly committed a crime and he even confessed to do so, given what he admitted in his last FBI interview. If he got a limited immunity deal instead of blanket immunity, which is highly likely, it still would be possible to indict and convict him based on evidence outside of his interviews. That would help explain why he recently pled the Fifth, because he's still in legal danger.

Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton plead the Fifth on September 13, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)

Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton plead the Fifth on September 13, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)

But more importantly, who else is guilty with him? Logic and the available evidence strongly suggest that Clinton's lawyer Cheryl Mills at least knew about the deletions at the time they happened. Combetta has already confessed to criminal behavior-and yet somehow hasn't even been fired by PRN. If he didn't at least tell Mills and the others in the conference call about the deletions, there would be no logical reason to assert attorney-client privilege in the first place. Only the nonsensical assertion of this privilege is preventing the evidence coming out that should lead to Mills being charged with lying to the FBI at a minimum. And if Mills knew, can anyone seriously believe that Clinton didn't know too?

As the saying goes, "it's not the crime, it's the cover up." This is an important story, and not just election season mudslinging. The public needs to know what really happened.

Note to Readers!
If you found this essay informative, check out the Clinton email investigation timeline , as well as the Clinton Foundation timeline , written and updated daily by the same author. Stay up to date with the newest timeline entries by checking out our Recently Added Entries page , and join our Facebook group for intelligent discussions about the latest breaking news throughout the day.

[Sep 18, 2016] DNC Emails Possibly Exposed By Hillarys Private Server

Notable quotes:
"... Rooster coming home to roost! I would wager the reason the DNC email server was compromised was due to the lack of security on Clinton's "personal" (read political) email server. HRC left the IT Security door open and that exposed everyone she was in contact with – government, DNC and friends! ..."
Jul 26, 2016 | strata-sphere.com

OK, be patient why I delve into my inner geek.

Everyone is proposing those toxic DNC emails that roiled the Democrat National Convention this weekend were hacked by Russia. Which I actually do not doubt.

But please understand, to hack into a system someone needs to be sloppy and "invite" the hackers in! So how is it that HRC emails and DNC emails were both exposed to the voters during this election year?

Well, … l et's begin with Hillary's "personal" server and known incidents:

Clinton's server was configured to allow users to connect openly from the Internet and control it remotely using Microsoft's Remote Desktop Services. [64] It is known that hackers in Russia were aware of Clinton's non-public email address as early as 2011 . [71] It is also known that Secretary Clinton and her staff were aware of hacking attempts in 2011, and were worried about them. [72]

In 2012, according to server records, a hacker in Serbia scanned Clinton's Chappaqua server at least twice , in August and in December 2012. It was unclear whether the hacker knew the server belonged to Clinton, although it did identify itself as providing email services for clintonemail.com . [64] During 2014, Clinton's server was the target of repeated intrusions originating in Germany, China, and South Korea. Threat monitoring software on the server blocked at least five such attempts. The software was installed in October 2013, and for three months prior to that, no such software had been installed.

Now we know for a fact the "personal" side of Clinton's electronic communication was to pave the way for her second run at the presidential election. In fact, the server originated in 2008 to support her first run. Clinton would not want "Personal Political" emails to become public – for many reasons! (especially to hide any nexus between Bill's speaking fees and State Department Policy decisions ).

Everyone knows Politicians set up one account for "official business" and one for political business – a separation required by federal law. So if HRC was in communication with politicians and the DNC, it was through her personal server!

Then, there is the straight up admission by the FBI Director that Clinton's email server was hacked because people in communication with her were hacked as well:

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.

Rooster coming home to roost! I would wager the reason the DNC email server was compromised was due to the lack of security on Clinton's "personal" (read political) email server. HRC left the IT Security door open and that exposed everyone she was in contact with – government, DNC and friends!

Oh the irony – It Berns!!!

[Sep 09, 2016] Platte river networks: Clinton e-mail server was never in Denver

Notable quotes:
"... "There never was, at any time, data belonging to the Clintons stored in Denver. Ever," said Dovetail Solutions CEO Andy Boian, who added that Clinton's server was always in a New Jersey data center. "We do not store data in any bathrooms." ..."
"... Private e-mail servers are unusual because they carry greater risks of getting hacked, said Scott W. Burt, president and CEO of Integro, a Denver e-mail management company. ..."
"... Platte River, which submitted a bid for the e-mail job, stepped in four months after Clinton left the secretary job on Feb. 1, 2013, and three months after Sidney Blumenthal , a former Clinton White House staffer, reported that his e-mail account had been hacked, exposing messages sent to Clinton. ..."
"... "We were literally hired in June 2013," Boian said, "and because we use industry best practices, we had (Clinton's) server moved to a data center in New Jersey. It remained in that spot until last week," when the FBI picked it up Aug. 12. ..."
"... "The role of Platte River Networks was to upgrade, secure and manage the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013. Platte River Networks is not under investigation. We were never under investigation. And we will fully comply with the FBI," he said. ..."
"... Platte River Networks opened in September 2002, offering information technology services to small businesses. Services included computer maintenance, virus and malware control, and emergency technical support, according to an archive of its old website. ..."
"... Two years later, the company moved into a condo owned by company co-founder Treve Suazo at Ajax Lofts, 2955 Inca St., a few blocks from the South Platte River. ..."
"... A year later, the company began offering cloud-based services, which makes company data available online so employees can access software and services from any device. ..."
"... Platte River continues to win awards and has grown. Last week, it was named, for the fourth consecutive year, to CRN's Next-Gen 250 . The list highlights companies that are " ahead of the curve " in their IT offerings. ..."
Aug 19, 2015 | denverpost.com

And when Platte River became the latest name to emerge in the Clinton e-mail controversy, the company maintained its silence - until last week, when it hired a crisis-communications expert to defend against political innuendo, death threats and allegations that it stored her e-mail in the bathroom of a downtown Denver loft.

"There never was, at any time, data belonging to the Clintons stored in Denver. Ever," said Dovetail Solutions CEO Andy Boian, who added that Clinton's server was always in a New Jersey data center. "We do not store data in any bathrooms."

Platte River Networks had no prior relationship with Hillary Clinton, said Boian, whose online biography says he served on Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential transition team.

Hillary Clinton's decision to have an employee set up a private e-mail server in her New York home in 2008 has plagued the former secretary of state's presidential campaign.

The FBI is investigating whether any of her private e-mails contained sensitive information and should have been classified - and not stored on a computer inside her house.

Private e-mail servers are unusual because they carry greater risks of getting hacked, said Scott W. Burt, president and CEO of Integro, a Denver e-mail management company.

"There are a lot of people you could hire, and they would set up (an e-mail server) and run it. That's not hard. But there's no real reason to do that," Burt said. "The main motivator is you're nervous about what is in your e-mail. It's a control thing."

Boian said Platte River had nothing to do with Clinton's private home server.

Platte River, which submitted a bid for the e-mail job, stepped in four months after Clinton left the secretary job on Feb. 1, 2013, and three months after Sidney Blumenthal, a former Clinton White House staffer, reported that his e-mail account had been hacked, exposing messages sent to Clinton.

"We were literally hired in June 2013," Boian said, "and because we use industry best practices, we had (Clinton's) server moved to a data center in New Jersey. It remained in that spot until last week," when the FBI picked it up Aug. 12.

Platte River also is not in possession of any Clinton e-mail backups, he said.

"The role of Platte River Networks was to upgrade, secure and manage the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013. Platte River Networks is not under investigation. We were never under investigation. And we will fully comply with the FBI," he said.

Clinton did not respond to requests for comment, but she has publicly expressed regrets for using a private e-mail server for her work as secretary of state. She has handed a portion of the e-mails to the State Department but deleted others. Asked about it this week by reporters in Las Vegas, Clinton responded, "Nobody talks to me about it other than you guys," she said.

Who are they?

Platte River Networks opened in September 2002, offering information technology services to small businesses. Services included computer maintenance, virus and malware control, and emergency technical support, according to an archive of its old website.

Two years later, the company moved into a condo owned by company co-founder Treve Suazo at Ajax Lofts, 2955 Inca St., a few blocks from the South Platte River.

A year later, the company began offering cloud-based services, which makes company data available online so employees can access software and services from any device.

Today, Platte touts itself as a full-service IT management firm.

It also lists Suazo, its CEO, and Brent Allshouse, its chief financial officer, as co-founders. According to industry publication CRN, Platte River expected to grow to $6 million in sales in 2014, from $4.7 million a year earlier.

But as early as 2006, Tom Welch was listed as a partner, the same title given to Suazo and Allshouse.

Welch, who now runs Colorado Cloud Consulting, declined to comment. But he told the United Kingdom's Daily Mail that Platte River Networks had retrofitted a bathroom in the loft to be the server room.

Fast growth

Before the Clinton scandal blew up, Platte River Networks welcomed attention. David DeCamillis joined the company in 2008 and, as its director of business development, became its public face, using news releases to promote industry awards and appearing on Fox31 Denver's "Good Day Colorado" as a tech expert.

In 2012, Platte River was named Ingram Micro's Rainmaker of the Western Region, an honor that California technology distributor gives its fastest-growing business partners based on revenue, peer-to-peer leadership and use of Ingram Micro's cloud services.

That same year, the company won the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce's Small Business of the Year award. The award is vetted by the chamber and independent judges, said Abram Sloss, executive director of the chamber's small-business development center.

"We really look for companies that have a good chance for a strong uptick and have solid growth," Sloss said. While the chamber can offer advice to members who suddenly are thrown into the media spotlight - for good or bad - Sloss said he has not heard from the company.

"Gosh, if I was the company who the Clintons hired, it'd be hard not to say, 'We are a trusted provider that one of the influential families in the United States hired,' " Sloss said.

Platte River continues to win awards and has grown. Last week, it was named, for the fourth consecutive year, to CRN's Next-Gen 250 . The list highlights companies that are " ahead of the curve" in their IT offerings.

In June, it moved to a 12,000-square-foot building at 5700 Washington St. A photo on Platte River's blog shows 30 people posing in the new building.

Platte River did not make DeCamillis, now its vice president of sales and marketing, available for comment.

But DeCamillis told The Washington Post that no one at the company had expected this kind of attention, which he said included death threats that caused the company to pull employee information from its website.

If they had, he said, "we would never have taken it on."

Platte River Networks timeline

[Sep 09, 2016] Hillary Clinton Used BleachBit To Wipe Emails - Slashdot

Notable quotes:
"... Which means she broke the law. Being "cleared to see it" doesn't mean you can see it anywhere you want, any time you want. There are requirements for handling the information. And a server in her basement that did not use encrypted connections for months, and then had the default VPN keys on the VPN appliance once they started using encryption, and an Internet-connected printer on the same network is nowhere near close to meeting those requirements. ..."
"... His journalist girlfriend had a clearance. According to your gross misunderstanding of our classification system, what crime did Petraeus commit? He had a clearance, and his girlfriend had a clearance. If "had a clearance" is good enough to excuse Clinton, then why was it not good enough to excuse Patraeus? ..."
"... Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.) ..."
"... Being that Clinton didn't give a damn about securing the physical server and didn't give a damn about securing the messages sent through the server, it seems strange that she suddenly cares about security practices when deleting e-mail messages about yoga classes. ..."
"... Oh, did I mention that deleting the e-mail messages would be considered an obstruction of justice if it were done by a typical citizen? ..."
Sep 05, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:30PM ( #52777655 )
Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong, that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with legal requests to hand over data.

kenai_alpenglow ( 2709587 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @07:33PM ( #52778465 )
Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

The FBI found the "key piece(s)". Comey then said "No prosecutor would pursue this case" and dropped it. He was probably right--but only because of her last name. If I did that, I might get out after 5 years or so. Heck, one of my counterparts got in trouble for a single line in a controlled document which had the same info in the public domain. I'm sick of these "Nothing to see here" claims--just look at any security briefing and it's spelled out. We just had another one, and according to it I would be required to report her if she was in my office.

jeff4747 ( 256583 ) writes: on Saturday August 27, 2016 @02:05PM ( #52781529 )
Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 4 , Insightful)
That whole 'we little people would be in prison if we did this' meme is such bullshit.

You used the wrong tense. It's not "would be". It's "are". There are "little people" currently in prison for negligent handling of classified. Right now. Actually in prison.

She didn't do anything, beyond send and receive stuff she was cleared to see.

Which means she broke the law. Being "cleared to see it" doesn't mean you can see it anywhere you want, any time you want. There are requirements for handling the information. And a server in her basement that did not use encrypted connections for months, and then had the default VPN keys on the VPN appliance once they started using encryption, and an Internet-connected printer on the same network is nowhere near close to meeting those requirements.

Petreus is brought up endlessly. Y'know, the guy who gave classified stuff to his journalist girlfriend

His journalist girlfriend had a clearance. According to your gross misunderstanding of our classification system, what crime did Petraeus commit? He had a clearance, and his girlfriend had a clearance. If "had a clearance" is good enough to excuse Clinton, then why was it not good enough to excuse Patraeus?

but you ought to at least acknowledge that it was a tiny percentage of the traffic

Please cite where the statute states the percentage of allowable leaks.

and that stuff probably would've been sent on the unclassified DOS server had she been using that

First, government servers are regularly scanned for classified, so it would have been caught long before there were thousands of classified in her email. Second, the unclassified DoS server is far, far, far more secure than her basement server. For example, they don't have default VPN keys installed.

What we have here is a witch hunt for something - anything - about Benghazi that could paint Clinton in a politically unfavorable light.

No, this has absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi. But shouting "Benghazi!!!!" does a great job getting people like you to turn off their critical thinking and accept this week's excuse.

Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @06:31PM ( #52778125 )
Lies ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

Yes it does, read the laws. There is a Navy person who facing 20 years to life for disposing of a phone which had his picture while inside the sub. That is one of the more extreme cases, but it's literally a Web Search to prove you are wrong (shill?) Intent comes in to play _only_ for the penalty.

bongey ( 974911 ) writes: on Saturday August 27, 2016 @12:01AM ( #52779455 )
Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 4 , Informative)

Except ALL 22 MILLION Bush administrative emails were recovered from tape backups. Clinton wiped the data AFTER the FOIA request. I don't know of a single person that has decided one day to delete ALL their personal emails, except Clinton. https://www.wired.com/2009/12/... [wired.com] another source http://www.npr.org/templates/s... [npr.org] , another http://www.npr.org/templates/s... [npr.org] . Yep you're idiot.

RoccamOccam ( 953524 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @10:16PM ( #52779171 )
Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 5 , Interesting)
Comey spent hours in front of Congress explaining, very patiently, over and over, that the reason he could not recommend prosecution against Clinton is because all of the suspected crimes required proof of intent, which the FBI did not have.

Transcript of Gowdy questioning Comey. Lots of context, but note the bolded section :

Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?

Comey : There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy : Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey : She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.

Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey : No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey : That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in - on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey : No.

Gowdy : Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements are used for what?

Comey : Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy : Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey : That is right?

Gowdy : Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve. You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also - intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.' It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.

Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:50PM ( #52777831 )
Powell is not the prototype ! ( Score: 5 , Informative)

Powell used an aol account. He did NOT put a private server in his house!

Same for Rice. Powell used it for non-state NON-classified business.

Hillary has lied so many times about this server, is is clear to any hones observer that she was hiding activities of corruption with the Clinton foundation and did not want FOIA to discover her activities.

Hillary was supposed to have government archivists sort through the mails, not her personal attorneys. That was a violation of the federal records act.

She had classified information on the server, despite assertions that she did not- caught in another lie. She said all work related mails were turned over. Another lie- the FBI found thousands of work related mails not turned over, including classified.

cahuenga ( 3493791 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:51PM ( #52777843 )
Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
Sure, Clinton sucks, but the big knock against her and her email server was that she wasn't secure enough with it.

My quibble was the blatant arrogance of the act. That private server was clearly a move to preserve final editing rights of her tenure at the State Department and evade any future FOIA requests that may crop up during her next run for the presidency; and was there ever any doubt that she would run again? The fact that she thought she could get away with it after experiencing the fallout from the exact same move by members of the Bush administration while she was a sitting Senator in Washington reinforces the feeling that her arrogance knows no bounds. She took a page out of the neocon playbook and figured she would show them how it's done.

Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @08:13PM ( #52778643 )
You're being willfully ignorant ( Score: 5 , Informative)

1. She put classified info on a private unsecured server where it was vulnerable, contrary to the law which she was fully advised of upon taking office.
2. She did all her work through that server, hiding it from all 3 government branches (congressional oversight, executive oversight, and the courts) and public FOIA requests.
3. When the material was sought by the courts and congress, she and the state department people lied under oath claiming the material did not exist (perhaps Nixon cronies should have all lied about tapes existing).
4. After her people knew the material was being sought, the server's files were transferred (by private IT people w/o clearances) to her lawyers (no clearances).
5. She and her lawyers deleted over 30000 e-mails, claiming they were only about yoga and her daughter's wedding dress (Nixon cut a few minutes of tape).
6. They then wiped the files with bit bleach (a step not needed for yoga or wedding dress e-mails). (Nixon did not degauss all his tapes)
7. They handed the wiped server to the FBI, and hillary publicly played ignorant with her "with a CLOTH?" comment (absolute iin-you-face arrogance against the rule of law) (Nixon did not hand tape recorders with erased tapes to the FBI)
Prove you are sincere, and not a total unprincipled partisan hack:
Are you a Nixon supporter?
Would you accept this behavior from Donald Trump or Dick Cheney?

Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @08:24PM ( #52778703 )
Backup appliance and server have all emails ( Score: 4 , Interesting)

Hillary Clinton's IT guy purchased an MS Exchange hosting contract from Platte River. The standard package came with a periodic backup to a Datto appliance, which takes snapshots of the Windows disk image several times a day. The appliance copies the snapshot to Datto's data center in real time. You can erase or even destroy the Windows machine drives and still use the snapshots to restore the disks to the snapshot of the time and date of your chosing.

The FBI confiscated the appliance from Platte River and seized the server from Datto. They have all the emails she sent and received since the start of her State Department tenure.

zerofoo ( 262795 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:39PM ( #52777719 )
Not responsible - it's a crime. ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Hillary Clinton co-mingled personal and official government communications on her private email server. All of those communications are subject to the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

Her personal emails ceased to be personal when she co-mingled them with official government communications. HRC and her lawyers were not authorized to decide what is relevant to FRA and FOIA and what is not.

HRC and her lawyers deleted 30,000 or so emails that are not recoverable - therefore she is in violation of both the FRA and FOIA.

HRC should be, at the very least, in front of a jury to answer for her actions.

AthanasiusKircher ( 1333179 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @11:44PM ( #52779421 )
Re:More political redirection ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
I guess the people that are making accusations over that are either ignorant, or disingenuous.

Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.) and then effectively "burned" the server, including (by her lawyer's own admission) tens of thousands of messages.

FBI investigations have now come up with thousands of emails which were NOT turned over in that paper dump. How many could have been part of those that were deleted and then lost when the server was wiped? We'll never know. Many of them were likely deleted in error, with her lawyers not realizing which ones should have been retained as they were going through tens of thousands of documents. But were ALL of these official state department emails recovered by the FBI (now 15,000+) deleted "in error"?

That's what's troubling about all of this. We have no way of knowing whether there may have been significant spoliation of evidence here (that's the legal term for intentionally, recklessly, or negligently destroying evidence). If this were a corporation who had been issued a subpoena and they acted in this manner, and it was later proven that they "lost" over ten thousand relevant documents in the process of their destruction of "irrelevant" documents, they would likely face significant legal sanctions, perhaps even criminal charges.

Legally, the safe course in this instance would have been to put the server in a secure location with legal supervision by Clinton's counsel until the matter could be resolved. Clinton's use of BleachBit is not surprising here -- not because it's proper protocol to delete secure information, but because it's the only reasonable way to delete potentially incriminating evidence of spoliation (even if most of it was accidental or whatever). If they hadn't used a very secure deletion protocol, then Clinton's attorneys would have been doing a VERY poor job at protecting her legally.

Personally, I'm not sure it's likely there was any "evil memo" buried among the State Department correspondence that could prove anything. (And if there were, I'm not convinced Clinton realized it.) On the other hand, I'm sure she had a bunch of private email dealings that she wouldn't want to get out -- if for nothing else then for bad public relations. Hence the destruction of everything on the server -- it's in line with the privacy paranoia that likely caused her to set up the server in the first place. But could there have been worse stuff there too? Maybe. Doesn't seem like we'll ever know, though, does it?

mysidia ( 191772 ) writes: on Saturday August 27, 2016 @09:28AM ( #52780637 )
Re:More political redirection ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.)

In other words, she willingly destroyed information she was required to hand over.

The full Headers and all Metadata are part of the Record and part of the E-mail; If you are requested to hand over the e-mails: you have no right to exclude or remove headers, even if your standard e-mail software does not normally display the headers when you are reading the message.

Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @09:10PM ( #52778941 )
Re:More political redirection ( Score: 4 , Insightful)
A: "But anyone could hack in and see her emails, it's totally unsecure!"
B: "She used BleachBit."
A: "That proves she had something to hide!"

Being that Clinton didn't give a damn about securing the physical server and didn't give a damn about securing the messages sent through the server, it seems strange that she suddenly cares about security practices when deleting e-mail messages about yoga classes.

Oh, did I mention that deleting the e-mail messages would be considered an obstruction of justice if it were done by a typical citizen?

[Sep 09, 2016] Hillary Clintons email system was insecure for two months

Notable quotes:
"... Guciffer found top secret E-mail on Blumenthal's (I think that is the guy) account according to the agents who studied Guciffer's computer. ..."
"... The legality of her choice has yet to be determined and will likely hinge on the degree to which classified government documents were exposed or disseminated. It was - and still is - against the rules published by the State Department. ..."
"... It is also an amazingly arrogant act by a politician who often attacked previous administrations for their use of "private emails" and overall lack of transparency. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has been insecure for years and for many reasons. ..."
"... A person is insecure, a network is unsecured. No? ..."
"... I saw a video where Alabama State troopers are talking about how Hillary and Bill used to swap women. She also apparently has a big affinity for cocaine..though I guess in all fairness that's most of Hollywood and liberal Washington. ..."
Mar 11, 2015 | computerworld.com

JoeDoll4

Guciffer found top secret E-mail on Blumenthal's (I think that is the guy) account according to the agents who studied Guciffer's computer. You can always tell when a politician lies; their lips are moving.

DLivesInTexas

"The arrangement, while it appears unusual, was and is acceptable and legal, according to the State Department."

The legality of her choice has yet to be determined and will likely hinge on the degree to which classified government documents were exposed or disseminated. It was - and still is - against the rules published by the State Department.

It is also an amazingly arrogant act by a politician who often attacked previous administrations for their use of "private emails" and overall lack of transparency.

Genny G

Hillary Clinton has been insecure for years and for many reasons.

StrongHarm

A person is insecure, a network is unsecured. No? Author should correct title.

I saw a video where Alabama State troopers are talking about how Hillary and Bill used to swap women. She also apparently has a big affinity for cocaine..though I guess in all fairness that's most of Hollywood and liberal Washington. As a conservative myself, what I detest about the woman most is not how she affects republicans, but how she affects her own supporters. She claims to be 'looking out for the little guy' and minorities so she can get votes, but when the cameras aren't rolling, she's doing business with corrupt corporations and trying to live like a queen. A lot of politicians are dishonest, but she really takes the cake.

[Sep 05, 2016] Hillary Clinton email investigation: FBI notes reveal laptop and thumb drive missing

Everything, absolutely everything demonstrates really terrifying level of incompetence: the transfer of emails to Apple laptop, to Gmail account, then transfer back to window system, handing of USB drive. Amazing level of incompetence. This is really devastating level of incompetence for the organization that took over a lot of CIA functions. Essentially Hillary kept the position which is close to the role of the director of CIA. What a tragedy for the country...
Notable quotes:
"... It is painfully clear that she traded access and favors for money and reciprocal favors. It is painfully clear that she made little distinction between working for the State Department, the Clinton foundation and her family and tried to keep the records of what was going on inaccessible. The more honest defense would be, all politicians do it, and you have to suck it up because Trump is worse. Which is true. But trying to downplay this and explain it away is offensive, not all of the public are complete idiots. ..."
"... Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he has still succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and in addition, at the not-so-tin-hat conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support. ..."
"... All this in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and unbridled corruption, oozing from every orifice of a maverick administration. ..."
"... Clinton is the one waging war in the middle east. She is the one being bullish and provocative with Russia. Trump has only been conciliatory with these issues, he has been against the war on Iraq ..."
"... HRC is still likely to be the next President, but this scandal does have legs. She put herself in a corner by claiming lack of recall due to a medical condition (i.e., the concussion). This leaves two possibilities, neither of which is helpful to her cause, to wit: either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired. ..."
"... Reagan was certainly not someone I admired but at least he tried to reduce the chance of nuclear war. Clinton is an out and out Hawke with the blood of many innocent people on her hands in both Syria and Libya. She is hiding her communications because she does not want to be exposed for the role she played in The destruction of Libya and the gun running of weapons to terrorists in Syria. That is to Al Qaeda and ISIS. World War 3 is more likely under Clinton than any other world leader. Even Trump. ..."
"... Not forgetting that she was key in making sure the US didn't side with Assad. Had the US done at the beginning, instead of being at the behest of the Saudis and the petrodollar, then the whole thing would have been over in 6 months and IS would never have got more than a dusty district of northern Iraq. ..."
"... So the applicant to the US presidency does not know what (c) stands for in her emails, archives high security data on a laptop and then losses it for years, uploads same emails on Google's gmail account and then losses devices again. She does not recall many things, not even the training she received on handling the confidential and secure communication. She couldn't recall the procces of drone strikes. (Will she be killing people at a whim, without an accountable protocol?) She is either demented or dangerously reckless or lying. All of these conditions disbar her form her candidacy. ..."
"... If she could only manage a couple of hours a day because of concussion and a blood clot she should have temporarily stood down until she recovered fully, and had a senior official take over her duties until she was well. You can't have a brain-damaged person in charge of the US's affairs - even though there is a long history of nutters the State Dept. ( ie the Military Industrial Complex HQ). ..."
"... the clinton foundation does not pay taxes..and dont forget that slick willie has been on the paedophile plane more times than the pilot ..."
"... She failed to keep up with recordkeeping she agreed to, then when asked to turn over records, somebody destroyed them, but Clinton did not order destruction, or does not remember having done so. Turned over all records-oops I thought WE did! She either lied or has alzheimers ..."
"... Political baggage is a bitch. If this election cycle has demonstrated anything it is that the leadership of both parties is totally out of touch with the voters and really has no interest except supporting the Neoliberal tenet of fiscal nonintervention. This laissez-faire attitude toward corporate interests is paralysing the American government. ..."
"... I cannot believe Clinton has got this far in the election, I believe Obama wants her in to hide many of his embarrassing warmongering mistakes. ..."
"... Today of all days Hillary Clinton puts out a tweet with the following: 'America needs leadership in the White House, not a liability' ! As we have to assume she's not referring to herself it confirms people's suspicion that the person who writes Hillary's tweets is a hostile to her campaign. The tweets are often completely off the mark. ..."
"... Either Comey is on their payroll, or they have threatened his family. Either way it is business as usual. The NWO decided a long time ago that Hillary was their next puppet PONTUS. ..."
"... I was a low-level officer at US Embassies and Consulates in various foreign countries. Clinton's claim that she didn't know what (C) was, or that she "she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential" and "could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information." Are beyond ridiculous. Any fool knows enough to be aware of different levels of classified info, and the obvious fact that you don't get sloppy with classified info. ..."
"... to paraphrase Leona Helmsley's comment about paying taxes, "security is for little people." So in that respect Hillary is no different from the rest of them. ..."
"... You'd better hope she's lying, because if the incompetence is genuine she shouldn't be allowed near any confidential information ever again. I hate to admit it but Trump is right on this one. Jesus wept. ..."
"... The fact that the Sec State could have an email server built at her home and operate with such laughable gross negligence when it comes to national security is surreal and appalling. ..."
"... If the FBI were not themselves co-conspirators and hopelessly corrupt, they would indict some of the lower level actors and offer them immunity. They could start with the imbecile who put that laptop in the mail and couldn't remember if it was UPS or USPS. ..."
"... Caddell has voiced an interesting concern that others are beginning to share: that the news media has crawled so far in bed with Hillary Clinton they won't be able to get back out. That the news media in America has lost its soul. Even Jake Tapper started asking this question several weeks ago in the middle of his own show. ..."
"... The pyramid scheme of created debt has destroyed capitalism and democracy within 40 years of full operation. Captured Govt has bailed out incompetence and failure at every turn, and in so doing, inverted the yield curve and destroyed the future. It is for this reason alone I cannot respect these financial paedophiles or support anything they do. In this contest for the White House, Clinton is the manifestation of the establishment. ..."
"... "The documents provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's private server, including what appeared to be a frantic effort by a computer specialist to delete an archive of her emails even after a congressional committee had requested they be preserved." -NY Times ..."
"... Hillary's treatment of top-secret US documents was willful and uncorrected. If she had done the same thing with medical records, the individuals whose medical records had been mishandled could have filed charges and Hillary would have been personally liable for up to $50,000 fine per incident. ..."
"... Clinton is an absolute liability. Apart from this scandal she's a status quo candidate for a status quo that no longer exists. She stands for neo-liberalism, US hegemony and capitalist globalization all of which are deader than the dodo. That makes her very dangerous in terms of world peace and of course she will do absolutely nothing for the millions of Americans facing joblessness, hunger, bankruptcy and homelessness except make things worse ..."
"... The entire corrupt establishment want Clinton at all cost, so that they can continue fleecing the future and enslaving the entire world in created debt. All right minded individuals should this as a flashing red light to turn round and vote the other way. ..."
www.theguardian.com

A Clinton Foundation laptop and a thumb drive used to archive Hillary Clinton's emails from her time as secretary of state are missing, according to FBI notes released on Friday.

The phrase "Clinton could not recall" litters the summary of the FBI's investigation, which concluded in July that she should not face charges. Amid fierce Republican criticism of the Democratic presidential candidate, the party's nominee, Donald Trump released a statement which said "Hillary Clinton's answers to the FBI about her private email server defy belief" and added that he did not "understand how she was able to get away from prosecution".

he FBI documents describe how Monica Hanley, a former Clinton aide, received assistance in spring 2013 from Justin Cooper, a former aide to Bill Clinton, in creating an archive of Hillary Clinton's emails. Cooper provided Hanley with an Apple MacBook laptop from the Clinton Foundation – the family organisation currently embroiled in controversy – and talked her through the process of transferring emails from Clinton's private server to the laptop and a thumb drive.

"Hanley completed this task from her personal residence," the notes record. The devices were intended to be stored at Clinton's homes in New York and Washington. However, Hanley "forgot" to provide the archive laptop and thumb drive to Clinton's staff.

In early 2014, Hanley located the laptop at her home and tried to transfer the email archive to an IT company, apparently without success. It appears the emails were then transferred to an unnamed person's personal Gmail account and there were problems around Apple software not being compatible with that of Microsoft.

The unnamed person "told the FBI that, after the transfer was complete, he deleted the emails from the archive laptop but did not wipe the laptop. The laptop was then put in the mail, only to go missing. [Redacted] told the FBI that she never received the laptop from [redacted]; however, she advised that Clinton's staff was moving offices at the time, and it would have been easy for the package to get lost during the transition period.

"Neither Hanley nor [redacted] could identify the current whereabouts of the archive laptop or thumb drive containing the archive, and the FBI does not have either item in its possession."

... ... ...

The FBI identified a total of 13 mobile devices associated with Clinton's two known phone numbers that potentially were used to send emails using clintonemail.com addresses.

The 58 pages of notes released on Friday, several of which were redacted, also related that Hanley often purchased replacement BlackBerry devices for Clinton during Clinton's time at the state department. Hanley recalled buying most of them at AT&T stores in the Washington area. Cooper was usually responsible for setting them up and synching them to the server.

Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and Hanley "indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device", the documents state. "Cooper did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton's old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."

The notes also contain a string of admissions by Clinton about points she did not know or could not recall: "When asked about the email chain containing '(C)' portion markings that state determined to currently contain CONFIDENTIAL information, Clinton stated that she did not know what the '(C)' meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order."

Clinton said she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential but "took all classified information seriously". She did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not have been on an unclassified system. She also stated she received no particular guidance as to how she should use the president's email address.

In addition, the notes say: "Clinton could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with her to state via reciprocity from her time in the Senate. Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information."

Clinton was aware she was an original classification authority at the state department, but again "could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by state. Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined."

... ... ...

The House speaker, Paul Ryan, said: "These documents demonstrate Hillary Clinton's reckless and downright dangerous handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. They also cast further doubt on the justice department's decision to avoid prosecuting what is a clear violation of the law. This is exactly why I have called for her to be denied access to classified information."

Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee, said: "The FBI's summary of their interview with Hillary Clinton is a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency. Clinton's answers either show she is completely incompetent or blatantly lied to the FBI or the public.

"Either way it's clear that, through her own actions, she has disqualified herself from the presidency."

The Clinton campaign insisted that it was pleased the notes had been made public. Spokesman Brian Fallon said: "While her use of a single email account was clearly a mistake and she has taken responsibility for it, these materials make clear why the justice department believed there was no basis to move forward with this case."

Terrence James 3h ago

This is the equivalent of the dog ate my homework. This woman could not utter an honest sentence if her life depended on it. She is a corrupt and evil person, I cannot stand Trump but I think I hate her more. Trump is just crazy and cannot help himself but she is calculatingly evil. We are doomed either way, but he would be more darkly entertaining.


Smallworld5 3h ago

Has any of Clinton's state department employees purposely built their own server in their basement on which to conduct official government business, in gross violation of department policy, protocols, and regulations, they would have been summarily fired at a minimum and, yes, quite possibly prosecuted. That's a fact.

The issue at hand is why Clinton sycophants are so agreeable to the Clinton Double Standard.

The presumptive next president of the U.S. being held to a lower standard than the average U.S. civil servant. Sickening.


Laurence Johnson 8h ago

Hillary's use of gender has no place in politics. When it comes to the top job, the people need the best person for the job, not someone who is given a GO because they represent a group that are encouraged to feel discriminated against.


foggy2 9h ago

For the FBI's (or Comey's) this is also a devastating indictment of their or his judgment, honesty and basic competency.

YANKSOPINION 10h ago

Perhaps she has early onset of Alzheimers and should not be considered for the job of POTUS. Or maybe she is just a liar.


AlexLeo 10h ago

It is painfully clear that she traded access and favors for money and reciprocal favors. It is painfully clear that she made little distinction between working for the State Department, the Clinton foundation and her family and tried to keep the records of what was going on inaccessible. The more honest defense would be, all politicians do it, and you have to suck it up because Trump is worse. Which is true. But trying to downplay this and explain it away is offensive, not all of the public are complete idiots.

KaleidoscopeWars

Actually, after you get over all of the baffooning around Trump has done, he actually would make an ideal president. He loves his country, he delegates jobs well to people who show the best results, he's good at building stuff and he wants to do a good job. I'm sure after he purges the terribly corrupted system that he'll be given, he'll have the very best advisors around him to make good decisions for the American people. I'm sure Theresa May and her cabinet will be quick to welcome him and re-solidify the relationship that has affected British politics so much in the past decade. Boris Johnson is perfect for our relations with America under a Trump administration. Shame on you Barack and Hillary. Hopefully Trump will say ''I came, I saw, they died!''

Ullu001 12h ago

Ah, The Clintons. They have done it all: destruction of evidence, witness tampering, fraud, lying under oath, murder, witness disappearance. Did I leave anything? Yet, they go unpunished. Too clever, I guess too clever for their own good!

samwoods77 12h ago

Hillary wants to be the most powerful person on earth yet claims she doesn't understand the classification system that even the most most junior secretary can....deeply troubling.

Mistaron 13h ago

The 'masters' in the shadows are about to throw the harridan under the bus. Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he has still succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and in addition, at the not-so-tin-hat conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support.

All this in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and unbridled corruption, oozing from every orifice of a maverick administration.

The seeds have been planted for a defense of diminished responsibility. Don't fall for it! Hillary, (and her illustrious spouse), deserve not a smidgen of pity.

''We came, we saw, he died'', she enthusiastically and unempathically cackled.

Just about sums her up.


wtfbollos 14h ago

hiliary clinton beheaded libya and created a hell on earth. here is the proof:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/?page=all#pagebreak

jean2121 -> ken711 13h ago

Again, total misunderstanding about what is going on. Clinton is the one waging war in the middle east. She is the one being bullish and provocative with Russia. Trump has only been conciliatory with these issues, he has been against the war on Iraq. So far all evidences point to the fact that the Clintons want another big war and all evidence points to the fact that Trump wants co operation. This has totally escape your analysis. It is a choice between the Plague and the Cholera, I agree, but FGS try to be a little less biased.


ungruntled 15h ago

The best case for HC looks pretty grim.
She has no recollection of......??
Laptops and Thumb drives laying about unattended
Total lack of understanding about even the most basic of Data Securit arrangements

All of these things giver her the benefit of the doubt....That she wasnt a liar and a corrupted politician manipulating events and people to suit her own ends.
So, with the benefit of the doubt given, ask yourself if this level of incompetance and unreliabilty makes a suitable candidate for office?
In both cases, with and without BOTD, she shouldnt be allowed anywhere near the corridors of power, let alone the White House.

IAtheist 17h ago

Mrs Clinton is deeply divisive. Bought out since her husbands presidency by vested interests in Wall Street and the HMO's (private healthcare insurance management businesses) and having shown lamentable judgement, Benghazi, private Email server used for classified documents and material.

She has failed to motivate the Democrats white and blue collar working voters male and female. These are the voting demographic who have turned to Trump is significant numbers as he does address their concerns, iniquitous tax rules meaning multi millionaires pay less tax on capital gains and share dividends than employees do on their basic wages, immigration and high levels of drug and gun crime in working class communities Black, White and Hispanic, funding illegal immigrants and failed American youth living on a black economy in the absence of affordable healthcare or a basic welfare system.

Trump may very well win and is likely to be better for the US than Hilary Clinton.

digamey 18h ago

I sympathize with the American electorate - they have to choose between the Devil and the deep blue sea. Given their situation, however, I would definitely choose the Devil I know over the Devil I don't! And that Devil is - - - ?

MoneyCircus -> digamey 10h ago

That willful ignorance is your choice! A public businessman can be examined more closely than most.

Besides, there is a long history of "placemen" presidents whose performance is determined by those they appoint to do the work. Just look in the White House right now.

As for the Clinton record (they come, incontrovertibly, as a package) from Mena, Arkansas, to her husband's deregulation of the banks which heralded the financial crash that devastated millions of lives... the same banks that are currently HRC's most enthusiastic funders... is something that any genuine Democrat should not be able to stomach...

ID9761679 19h ago

My feeling is that she had more to worry about than the location of a thumb drive (I can't recall how many of those I've lost) or even a laptop. When a Secretary of State moves around, I doubt that look after their own appliances. Has anyone asked her where the fan is?

Karega ID9761679 18h ago

Problem is she handled top secret and classified information which would endanger her country's security and strategic interests. She was then US Secretary of State. That is why how she handled her thumb drive, laptop nd desktops matter. And there lies the difference between your numerous lost thumb drives and hers. I thought this was obvious?

EightEyedSpy 23h ago

HRC is still likely to be the next President, but this scandal does have legs. She put herself in a corner by claiming lack of recall due to a medical condition (i.e., the concussion). This leaves two possibilities, neither of which is helpful to her cause, to wit: either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired.

1iJack -> EightEyedSpy 22h ago

either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired.

Its entirely possible its both.

Dick York 24h ago

California survived Arnold Schwarzenegger, the U.S. survived Ronald Reagan, Minnesota survived Jesse "The Body" Ventura and I believe that we will survive Donald Trump. He's only one more celebrity on the road.

providenciales -> Dick York 23h ago

You forgot Al Franken.

antipodes -> Dick York 21h ago

Reagan was certainly not someone I admired but at least he tried to reduce the chance of nuclear war. Clinton is an out and out Hawke with the blood of many innocent people on her hands in both Syria and Libya. She is hiding her communications because she does not want to be exposed for the role she played in The destruction of Libya and the gun running of weapons to terrorists in Syria. That is to Al Qaeda and ISIS. World War 3 is more likely under Clinton than any other world leader. Even Trump. The Democrats must disendorse her because the details of her criminality are now becoming available and unless she can stop it Trump will win. Get rid of her Democrats and bring back Bernie Sanders.

Sam3456 1d ago

We cannot afford a lying, neo-liberal who is more than willing to make her role in government a for profit endeavor.

Four years of anyone else is preferable to someone who is more than willing for the right contribution to her foundation, sell out the American worker and middle class.

MakeBeerNotWar 1d ago

I'm more interested $250k a pop speeches HRC gave to the unindicted Wall St bankster felon scum who nearly took down their country and the global economy yet received a taxpayer bailout and their bonuses paid for being greedy incompetent crooks. How soon we forget....

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/

sorrentina -> MakeBeerNotWar 22h ago

even worse is her support for the military coup in Honduras- and her blatant lies in defense of that coup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS-tDVwSHlA

trow 1d ago

Its seems there is just one scandal after another with this women but she seems to be bullet proof mainly because the msm media will not go after her for reasons best known to themselves this is causing them to lose credibility and readers who are deserting them for alternative media .

bashh1 1d ago

Finally today in an article in The NY Times we learn where Clinton has been for a good part of the summer. In the Hamptons and elsewhere at receptions for celebrities and her biggest donors like Calvin Klein and Harvey Weinstein, raking in the millions for her campaign. Trump on the other hand has appeared in towns in Pennsylvania like Scranton, Erie and Altoona where job are disappearing and times can be tough. Coronations cost money I guess.

chiefwiley -> bashh1 1d ago

She is doing what she does best --- raise money.

ksenak 1d ago

Not forgetting that she was key in making sure the US didn't side with Assad. Had the US done at the beginning, instead of being at the behest of the Saudis and the petrodollar, then the whole thing would have been over in 6 months and IS would never have got more than a dusty district of northern Iraq.

ksenak 1d ago

Hillary is humiliated woman. Humiliated to the core by her cheating hubby she would rather kill than let him go. She is paying her evil revenge to the whole world. As a president of USA Hillary Clinton would destabilise the world and lead it to conflicts that threaten to be very heavy.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was part of the "Arab Spring" (also part of the "Jasmine Revolution), which overthrew leaders such as Gaddafi to Mubarak. Before Gaddafi was overthrown he told the US that without him IS will take over Libya. They did.
-Benghazi Scandal which ended up killing a US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans.
The Arab Spring destabilized the Middle East, contributed to the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS and the exodus of Middle Eastern Muslims.

Sam3456 OXIOXI20 1d ago

Meh. Obama characterized ISIS as the "JV Team" and refused to acknowledge the threat. I assume he was acting on information provided by his Secretary of State, Clinton.

Michael109 1d ago

It's quite possible that Clinton, because she had a fall in 2012 and bonked her head, believes she is telling the truth when she is lying, except that it is not lying when you believe you are telling the truth even though you are lying.

She said she did not recall 30 times in her interviews with the FBI. She could be suffering from some sort of early degeneration disease. Either way, between her health and the lying and corruption she should be withdrawn as the Dem frontrunner.

1iJack -> LakumbaDaGreat 1d ago

She's going to blow it.

I think she already did. Its like all the shit in her life is coming back on her at once.

Early on, when it was announced she would run again, I remember one Democrat pundit in particular that didn't think she could survive the existence of the Internet in the general election (I can't remember who it was, though). But it has turned out to be a pretty astute prediction.

When asked what he meant by that remark, he went on to say "the staying power of the Internet will overwhelm Clinton with her dirty laundry once she gets to the general election. The Clintons were made for the 24 hour news cycles of the past and not the permanent unmanaged exposure of the digital world. Everything is new again on the internet. Its Groundhog Day forever on the Internet."

That's my best paraphrase of his thoughts. He felt Clinton was the last of the "old school" politicians bringing too much baggage to an election. That with digital "bread crumbs" of some kind or another (email, microphones and cameras in phones, etc) the new generation of politicians will be a cleaner lot, not through virtue, but out of necessity.

I've often thought back to his remarks while watching Hillary head into the general.

ImperialAhmed 1d ago

So the applicant to the US presidency does not know what (c) stands for in her emails, archives high security data on a laptop and then losses it for years, uploads same emails on Google's gmail account and then losses devices again.
She does not recall many things, not even the training she received on handling the confidential and secure communication.
She couldn't recall the procces of drone strikes. (Will she be killing people at a whim, without an accountable protocol?)
She is either demented or dangerously reckless or lying. All of these conditions disbar her form her candidacy.


AudieTer
1d ago

If she could only manage a couple of hours a day because of concussion and a blood clot she should have temporarily stood down until she recovered fully, and had a senior official take over her duties until she was well. You can't have a brain-damaged person in charge of the US's affairs - even though there is a long history of nutters the State Dept. ( ie the Military Industrial Complex HQ). And in the White House for that matter ...Nurse ! nurse ! Dubya needs his meds!

thedingo8 -> Lenthelurker 1d ago

the clinton foundation does not pay taxes..and dont forget that slick willie has been on the paedophile plane more times than the pilot

Littlefella 1d ago

She destroyed devices and emails after they were told that all evidence had to be preserved. There are then two issues and the FBI and DOJ have not taken any action on either.

It's no longer just about the emails, it's the corruption.

DaveG123 1d ago

Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and Hanley "indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device"
-------------
Probably in the hands of a foreign government. Pretty careless behaviour. Incompetent. Part of a pattern of incompetance that includes bad foreign policy decisions (Libya) and disrespect for rules surrounding conflict of interest (Clinton Foundation).

YANKSOPINION -> HansB09 1d ago

She failed to keep up with recordkeeping she agreed to, then when asked to turn over records, somebody destroyed them, but Clinton did not order destruction, or does not remember having done so. Turned over all records-oops I thought WE did! She either lied or has alzheimers

Andy White 1d ago

In addition, the notes say:

"Clinton could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with her to state via reciprocity from her time in the Senate. Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information."

Clinton was aware she was an original classification authority at the state department, but again "could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by state. Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined." ...................secretary of state and could not recall basic security protocols???

....and people complain about trump....this basic security was mentioned in the bloody west wing series for god's sake.....in comparison even trump is a f'ing genius.......love him or hate him trump has to win over clinton,there is something very,very wrong with her....she should NEVER be in charge of a till at asda......and she is a clinton so we all know a very practised liar but this beggers belief,i can see why trump is angry if that was him he would have been publicly burnt at the stake.....this clinton crap just stink's of the political elite....a total joke cover up and a terrible obvious one to....clinton is just a liar and mentally i think she is very unstable....makes the DON look like hawking lol.....

namora 1d ago

Political baggage is a bitch. If this election cycle has demonstrated anything it is that the leadership of both parties is totally out of touch with the voters and really has no interest except supporting the Neoliberal tenet of fiscal nonintervention. This laissez-faire attitude toward corporate interests is paralysing the American government.

duncandunnit 1d ago

I cannot believe Clinton has got this far in the election, I believe Obama wants her in to hide many of his embarrassing warmongering mistakes.

fedback 1d ago

Today of all days Hillary Clinton puts out a tweet with the following: 'America needs leadership in the White House, not a liability' ! As we have to assume she's not referring to herself it confirms people's suspicion that the person who writes Hillary's tweets is a hostile to her campaign. The tweets are often completely off the mark.

Hercolubus 1d ago

Either Comey is on their payroll, or they have threatened his family. Either way it is business as usual. The NWO decided a long time ago that Hillary was their next puppet PONTUS.

BG Davis 2d ago

Clinton has always been a devious weasel, but this reveals a new low. I was a low-level officer at US Embassies and Consulates in various foreign countries. Clinton's claim that she didn't know what (C) was, or that she "she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential" and "could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information." Are beyond ridiculous. Any fool knows enough to be aware of different levels of classified info, and the obvious fact that you don't get sloppy with classified info.

That said, over the past few years the entire handling of classified info has become beyond sloppy - laptops left in taxis, General Petraeus was sharing classified info with his mistress, etc. I guess nowadays, to paraphrase Leona Helmsley's comment about paying taxes, "security is for little people." So in that respect Hillary is no different from the rest of them.

Scaff1 2d ago

You'd better hope she's lying, because if the incompetence is genuine she shouldn't be allowed near any confidential information ever again. I hate to admit it but Trump is right on this one. Jesus wept. I said it before: Clinton is the only candidate who could possibly make a tyrant like Trump electable.


charlieblue -> gizadog 2d ago

Where are you getting "looses 13 devices"? (Try loses, nobody is accusing Sec.Clinton of making things loose) I actually read the article, so my information might not be as exciting as yours, but this article states that from the 13 devices that had access to the Clinton server, two (a laptop and a thumb drive) used by one of her aids, are missing. This article doesn't specify whether any "classified" information was on either of them. The FBI doesn't know, because, well... they are missing.

What the fuck is it with you people and your loose relationship with actual facts? Do you realize that just making shit up undermines whatever point you imagine you are trying to make?

gizadog 2d ago

Also: Clinton told FBI she thought classified markings were alphabetical paragraphs

"When asked what the parenthetical 'C' meant before a paragraph ... Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the FBI wrote in notes from its interview with her."

Wow...and there are people that want her to be president.

Casey13 2d ago

In my job as a government contractor we are extremely vigilant about not connecting removable devices to work computers, no work email access outside of work, software algorithms that scan our work mails for any sensitive information, and regular required training on information security. The fact that the Sec State could have an email server built at her home and operate with such laughable gross negligence when it comes to national security is surreal and appalling. I could never vote for her and neither could I vote for Trump.

MonotonousLanguor 2d ago

>>> A Clinton Foundation laptop and a thumb drive used to archive Hillary Clinton's emails from her time as secretary of state are missing, according to FBI notes released on Friday.<<<

Oh golly gee, what a surprise. Should we offer a reward??? Maybe Amelia Earhart has the laptop and thumb drive. Were these missing items taken by the Great Right Wing Conspiracy???

Dani Jenkins 2d ago

Wtf, from the sublime to the ridiculous, springs to mind..

Time to get a grip of the gravity involved, here at the Guardian.. This is a total whitewash of the absurd kind.. That leaves people laughing in pure unadultered astonishment..

SHE lost not just a MacBook & thumb drive with such BS..

So Trump it is then , like many of us have stated ALL ALONG. Sanders was the only serious contender.. A complete mockery of democracy & the so called Democrats have made the way for Trump to cruise all the way to the Whitewash House..

Well done Debbie , did the Don pay you?

chiefwiley -> Lenthelurker 2d ago

Because the revelations are essentially contradicting all of Hillary's defenses regarding her handling of highly classified information. None of the requirements of the State Department mattered to her or her personal staff. It won't go away --- it will get worse as information trickles out.

Casey13 2d ago

Being President of the USA used to be about communicating a vision and inspiring Americans to get behind that dream . Think Lincoln abolishing slavery or JFK setting a goal to put man on the moon. Hillary is boring,has no charisma,and no vision for her Presidency beyond using corruption and intimidation to secure greater power for her and her cronies . Nobody wants to listen to her speeches because she is boring, uninspiring, and has no wit beyond tired cliches. Trump has a vision but that vision is a nightmare for many Americans.

imperfetto 2d ago

Clinton is a dangerous warmonger. She is a danger to us Europeans, as she might drag us into a conflict with Russia. We must get rid of her, politically, and re-educate the Americas to respect other nations, and give up exporting their corrupting values.

Tom Voloshen 2d ago

Liar liar liar....give her a chance, and another and another and another and another...
.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/cnn-stunned-fact-checkers-confirm-clinton-phones-destroyed-hammers/

JCDavis 2d ago

"After reading these documents, I really don't understand how she was able to get away from prosecution."

If the FBI were not themselves co-conspirators and hopelessly corrupt, they would indict some of the lower level actors and offer them immunity. They could start with the imbecile who put that laptop in the mail and couldn't remember if it was UPS or USPS. Or did he actually send it to the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK by accident?

1iJack 2d ago

"The job of the media historically, in terms of the First Amendment – what I call the unspoken compact in the First Amendment – is that the free press, without restraint, without checks and balances, is there in order to protect the people from power. Its job is to be a check on government, and those who rule the country, and not to be their lapdogs, and their support system. That's what we're seeing in this election.

There is an argument to make that the major news media in this country, the mainstream media, is essentially serving against the people's interest. They have made themselves an open ally of protecting a political order that the American people are rejecting, by three quarters or more of the American people. That makes them a legitimate issue, in a sense they never have been before, if Trump takes advantage of it."

Pat Caddell, 2 Sept 2016

Caddell has voiced an interesting concern that others are beginning to share: that the news media has crawled so far in bed with Hillary Clinton they won't be able to get back out. That the news media in America has lost its soul. Even Jake Tapper started asking this question several weeks ago in the middle of his own show.

Will the American press ever have credibility with Americans again? Even Democrats see it and will remember this the next time the press turns against them. There was a new and overt power grab in this election that is still being processed by the American people: the American press "saving" America from Donald Trump. They may never recover from this.

It even scares my Democrat friends.

ConBrio 2d ago

"An unknown individual using the encrypted privacy tool Tor to hide their tracks accessed an email account on a Clinton family server, the FBI revealed Friday.

"The incident appears to be the first confirmed intrusion into a piece of hardware associated with Hillary Clinton's private email system, which originated with a server established for her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

The FBI disclosed the event in its newly released report on the former secretary of state's handling of classified information.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/clinton-email-server-tor-227697

fanUS 2d ago

Clinton is a very dodgy character and cannot be trusted.

Boris Johnson, UK Foreign Secretary on Clinton: "She's got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital"

CleanPool330 2d ago

The collective mind of the establishment is mentally ill and spinning out of control. In all rites they should be removed but their arrogance, corruption and self-entitlement mean they are incapable of admitting guilt. They have corrupted the weak minds of the majority and will take everybody down with them.

The pyramid scheme of created debt has destroyed capitalism and democracy within 40 years of full operation. Captured Govt has bailed out incompetence and failure at every turn, and in so doing, inverted the yield curve and destroyed the future. It is for this reason alone I cannot respect these financial paedophiles or support anything they do. In this contest for the White House, Clinton is the manifestation of the establishment.

unusedusername 2d ago

If I understand this correctly a laptop and a flashdrive full of classified emails was put in a jiffy bag and stuck in the post and now they're missing and this is, apparently, just one of those things? Amazing!

Blair Hess 2d ago

I'm in the military. Not a high rank mind you. It defies all common logic that HRC has never had a briefing, training, or just side conversation about classified information handling when i have about 50 trainings a year on it and i barely handle it. Sheeple wake up and stop drinking the kool aid…

Ullu001 2d ago

The Clintons have always operated on the edge of the law: extremely clever and dangerous lawyers they are.

USADanny -> Ullu001

Hillary may be criminally clever but legally: not so much. You do know that she failed the Washington DC bar exam and all of her legal "success" after that was a result of being very spouse of a powerful politician.

calderonparalapaz 2d ago

"The documents provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's private server, including what appeared to be a frantic effort by a computer specialist to delete an archive of her emails even after a congressional committee had requested they be preserved." -NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi.html?_r=0

USADanny -> Lee Knutsen 2d ago

Virtually every American healthcare worker has to take annual HIPAA training, pass a multiple-choice test and signed a document attesting that they have taken the training and are fully aware of the serious consequences of inadvertent and willful violations of HIPAA. Oh the irony – HIPAA is a Clinton era law.

Hillary's treatment of top-secret US documents was willful and uncorrected. If she had done the same thing with medical records, the individuals whose medical records had been mishandled could have filed charges and Hillary would have been personally liable for up to $50,000 fine per incident.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/hipaahealth-insurance-portability-accountability-act/hipaa-violations-enforcement.page?

Other than Hillary negligently handling top-secret documents, having a head injury that by her own admission has impaired her memory and using her relationship with the Clinton foundation when she was Secretary of State to extort hundreds of millions of dollars, she is an excellent candidate for the president.

oeparty 2d ago

Clinton is an absolute liability. Apart from this scandal she's a status quo candidate for a status quo that no longer exists. She stands for neo-liberalism, US hegemony and capitalist globalization all of which are deader than the dodo. That makes her very dangerous in terms of world peace and of course she will do absolutely nothing for the millions of Americans facing joblessness, hunger, bankruptcy and homelessness except make things worse.

And yet, and yet, we must vote Clinton simply to Stop Trump. He is a proto-fascist determined to smash resistance to the 1% in America and abroad via military means. He is a realist who realises capitalism is over and only the purest and most overwhelming violence can save the super rich and the elites now. Certainly their economy gives them nothing any more. The American Dream is toast. The Green Stein will simply draw a few votes from Clinton and give Trump the victory and it is not like she is a genuinely progressive candidate herself being something of a Putin fan just like Trump. No, vote Clinton to Stop Trump but only so that we can use the next four years to build the revolutionary socialist alternative. To build the future.

dongerdo 2d ago

The Americans are screwed anyways because both easily are the most despicable and awful front runners I can think of in any election of a western democracy in decades (and that is quite an achievement in itself to be honest), the only thing left to hope for is a winner not outright horrible for the rest of the world on which front Clinton loses big time: electing her equals pouring gasoline over half the world, she is up for finishing the disastrous job in the Middle East and North Africa started by her as Secretary of State. Her stance on relations with Russia and China are utterly horrific, listening to her makes even the die-hard GOP neo-cons faction sound like peace corps ambassadors.
If the choice is between that and some isolationist dimwit busy with making America great again I truly hope for the latter.

Who would have thought that one day world peace would depend on the vote of the American redneck.....

Michael109 2d ago

Clinton's "dog ate my server", I can't (30 times) remember, didn't know what C meant on top of emails - why it means Coventry City, M'amm - excuses are the Dems trying to stagger over the line, everyone holding their noses. But even if she is elected, which is doubtful, this is not going away and she could be arrested as USA President.

The FBI will rue the day they did not recommend charges against her when they had the chance. She's make Tony Soprano look like the Dalia Lama.

CleanPool330 2d ago

The entire corrupt establishment want Clinton at all cost, so that they can continue fleecing the future and enslaving the entire world in created debt. All right minded individuals should this as a flashing red light to turn round and vote the other way.

[Sep 03, 2016] Sounds like Hillary used burner phones like a drug dealer

Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

dcblogger , September 3, 2016 at 11:46 am

A note sent to all State Department employees on Clinton's behalf warned them against the risks of using personal email addresses for official business.
none , September 3, 2016 at 11:56 am

13 mobile devices? Destroying them with a hammer?

I gotta think there were a lot more than 13. Sounds like she used burner phones like a drug dealer.

Jess , September 3, 2016 at 3:19 pm

Yeah. the first image I got when I read that headline was the scene in Breaking Bad when a phone rings, Walter opens a drawer and has to look through about a dozen phones to find the one that is ringing.

[Sep 03, 2016] Hillary Clintons Team Lost a Laptop Full of Her Emails in the Actual Mail

Notable quotes:
"... lost-in-the-mail ..."
Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

JSM , September 3, 2016 at 9:10 am

This story 'Hillary Clinton's Team Lost a Laptop Full of Her Emails in the Actual Mail' ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/02/hillary-clinton-s-team-lost-a-laptop-full-of-her-emails-in-the-actual-mail.html ) is an absolutely preposterous concoction. What purpose it's supposed to serve is at the moment unclear. Likely it will become clear when it becomes necessary to hide the truth from Americans, a project that is increasingly, though not always, stillborn.

The most significant thing we learn is that "The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail content to a personal Google e-mail (Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail address, he downloaded the emails into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server."

Americans must be (or are at least expected to be) the most schizophrenic of all people on the earth. They are not only supposed to believe that the FBI/NSA (the former Marcy Wheeler, I believe, thinks is also spying on Americans' emails) cannot locate a copy of the deleted emails, but that the FBI can't get a warrant to get the 'deleted' emails from Google. Who on earth, on any other day, or in reference to anything else, actually believes that an email deleted from a Gmail account is simultaneously deleted from Google's servers & archives?

Tom , September 3, 2016 at 10:07 am

Even the Hardy Boys would have conducted a harder hitting investigation. What ever happened to the vaunted tough-as-nails FBI? Talk about pulling your punches. Yeesh!

Ivy , September 3, 2016 at 10:58 am

The lost-in-the-mail excuse earned a place in the Lies pantheon.
Another favorite may be "I'm Hillary Clinton and I'm here to help you".

Arizona Slim , September 3, 2016 at 12:39 pm

Wait a minute. I am to believe that this crew sent a laptop through the mail?

And that their boss deserves to be President of the United States?

pretzelattack , September 3, 2016 at 12:43 pm

it was in a big padded envelope, and it was clearly marked "fragile" and "top secret".

[Sep 03, 2016] Clinton emails wiped clean after NYT story

Notable quotes:
"... The deletion took place between March 25 and March 31, the FBI learned in a May 3 interview. The name of the person who deleted the emails was redacted from the FBI's notes. ..."
"... The Times story was published on March 2. ..."
"... I am unsympathetic to any person involved in such a discussion that circumvents state secrets protocol because they don't have access to a secure computer. That is an excuse not acceptable. That is saying "I didn't know any better" to folks who are sitting at the highest levels of state secrets! That is plain B.S. in my opinion. ..."
"... A urinating contest between State and CIA operatives who really didn't need State permission to pull the trigger on drone strikes is not an excuse for Hillary to have 22-SAP running loose on her email un-secure un-authorized servers/storage units. I remain unsympathetic to Hillary or anyone else who compromises state secrets at that level because it is inconvenient to find a secure means to communicate. ..."
Sep 02, 2016 | TheHill

The deletion took place between March 25 and March 31, the FBI learned in a May 3 interview. The name of the person who deleted the emails was redacted from the FBI's notes.

"In a follow-up FBI interview on May 3, 2016, ------ Indicated he believed he had an 'oh s--t' moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton;s e-mails," the FBI notes released on Friday stated.

Chris CillizzaVerified account @TheFix 22h22 hours ago

This is crazy. 3 weeks after NYT publish Clinton email server story, there was a big wipe of her emails conducted

BleachBit is a special computer software that is designed to "prevent recovery" of files so that, as House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said last week, "even God can't read them."

After the conclusion of the investigation in July, the FBI Director James Comey recommended no charges against Clinton but added that the Democratic presidential nominee was "extremely careless" in handling classified material.

The Times story was published on March 2.

Fred_Shrinka Winfield 21 hours ago
"Completely asinine to think a normal rational person would believe that junk."
NEVER FEAR ! We are talking about HiLIARy voters here!

Bill Fred_Shrinka 20 hours ago
The fact that the FBI had this info but excluded it from their deliberations on whether or not to indict, then did a Labor Day weekend dump when most Americans won't be paying attention, is pretty conclusive evidence that the FBI under Comey & Lynch is actively working to shield Clinton.
Paul Bill 20 hours ago
Quick, corporate media, find something Donald Trump said and make it a 5 day story so you don't have to report on HiLlARy's crimes!
Garbage Tears Paul 20 hours ago
The press is a total joke. It is painful to watch,
Teddi Garbage Tears 20 hours ago
They have been exposed by the Trump movement, and yes, its painful to realize...
pablosodahead Teddi 20 hours ago
..painfull to realize we have all be played for years by the democrats and yes republicans and large corporate businesses. Time to take back our control of ourselves and choices, real choices, and not sell our votes for a freaking free cell phone or promises of free this, free that.....
Rick20112 pablosodahead 16 hours ago
Or 13 separate Blackberry cell phones ...
Poor62 Rick20112 29 minutes ago
To go with her THREE servers.
  • Ed pablosodahead 7 hours ago
    Let's stay focused. The DNC and DemocRATs are the ones with the dirty email issues and obvious party wide corruption.

    Sure there are Republicans who have done bad things but it's not the core of the party, like it is with the DNC.

    usaok59 Ed 4 hours ago
    Actually if you dig deeper you will find that both parties are VERY corrupt. The only way to get things done is to make deals and cover for each other. Our political system has totally gone amuck.
    Ed usaok59 3 hours ago
    Again... it's the DNC. The RNC isn't renown for voter fraud and corruption. Because the core of the party doesn't partake. The DNC does...

    http://americanlookout.com/dem...

    Ed usaok59 3 hours ago
    Actually, I have... and the RNC is fairly clean. The party learned a lesson with Nixon. Sure people may not have liked the Bush's, but at least they were fairly honest. And Reagan was an awesome President.

    Also, Trump can't be bought and is a political outsider.

    The DNC and DemocRATs, haven't learned their lesson yet... Slick Willy was almost fully impeached (House not Senate impeached)... but DemocRATs played party politics and let him go. We ALL know he was guilty and repeatedly lied under oath (perjury and obstruction)... something you or I would go to prison for.

    ThatsWhatRosieSays usaok59 3 hours ago
    Well said. And it fact, as someone commented above, this entire political process & "election" is little more than a charade. (A bad one at that.)
    ...Don't be too surprised if/when, sometime in the few weeks, some sort of (manufactured/contrived) 'national emergency' develops, necessitating the 'temporary suspension' of: a) the election process; b) the Bill of Rights; or c) the entire US Constitution -- and imposition of martial law -- 'Just until Order can be Restored.' (Or some such bunch of gibberish.)

    Given what we've seen over the last 7+ years, it's darn near predictable: Americans should anticipate an "October Surprise" the likes of which the world has never seen.

    Even so, come Lord Jesus!

    Ed ThatsWhatRosieSays 3 hours ago
    That's why Trump is perfect right now. He can't be bought and is an outsider. It's actually just what our country needs right now.
    lisamanv . Paul Kersey 18 hours ago
    Lauer is not a moderator.
    nancync lisamanv . 15 hours ago
    Yes, first debate. How nice for Hillary since he was listed as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative at one time. No bias there LOL
    lisamanv . nancync 24 minutes ago
    No, Lester Holt is the first moderator.
    Paul Kersey lisamanv . 17 hours ago
    http://debates.org/index.php?m...
    sickpuppy70454 Thrill22cl 11 hours ago
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I, personally, am in a RAGE over the Lame Stream Media.
    iRon Madden Paul 20 hours ago
    IMPORTANT: when writing "HiLlARy" be sure to use a lowercase L (l), not an uppercase i (I), so it appears as "hillary" to internet search engines and won't be censored. All corporate media, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter are filtering the unique word "hiliary." You must spell "hillary" correctly, so that means using a lowercase L in place of the uppercase i in HiLlARy.
    MuddShark alpha 19 hours ago
    I wonder about who "PRN" is?

    The twitter screen cap clearly shows, "PRN held a conference call with President Clinton's staff"??

    Then, the person who's name is redacted, who was evidently interviewed by the FBI, "deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server...

    ... and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's e-mails"

    Kind of unclear, since the conference call was with PRESIDENT Clinton's staff, is this PRESIDENT Clinton's archive mailbox, on the PRN server containing PRESIDENT Clinton's emails???

    Tellthewholetruth MuddShark 19 hours ago
    Colorado-based Platte River Networks (PRN), which had managed her primary server since June 2013.
    MuddShark Tellthewholetruth 18 hours ago
    Thanks, so in Dec of 2014, Cheryl Mills told 'him' to make changes to email retention setting for Clinton's emails, and after the PRN conference call, 3/25/15, 'he' realized that 'he' didn't do what Cheryl told 'him' to do in Dec of 2014, so 'he' did what Cheryl told 'him' to do, 3+ months late, and wiped 'his' butt with BleachBit on some exported .PST files 'he' created??

    Somehow it doesn't look very much like the headline of this story makes it out to be??

    Tellthewholetruth MuddShark 16 hours ago
    Oh and there is the small minor point that on Nov. 26, 2014 President Obama signs into law an updated Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government address. Then comes the Cheryl Mills directive to change retention settings. THEN he/she remembers didn't follow orders ("the Oh S***" moment) so deletes all pst files plus back ups. NOTHING TO SEE HERE!!!! /sarcasm
    Clark Kent Tellthewholetruth 16 hours ago
    But Hillary and Cheryl ended their public term in Feb of '13, right? So Obama's signing, Nov of '14, didn't really affect them, did it?
    Paul R. Jones MuddShark 17 hours ago
    A reminder, the data this firm had in its possession had state secrets including 22-Top Secret-Special Access Programs. None of these firms had clearance for such. Wonder if everyone whose fingerprints were on these files got vetted by the FBI and or Intel to determine if they read what they had in their hands if for no other reason than curiosity?
    Clark Kent Paul R. Jones 16 hours ago
    We are assuming that the server in PRN's management had 'all' Hillary's emails on it, but has there been proof shown to the public that the server in New Jersey had 'all' Hillary's emails?

    The 7 email chains, with 22 TS/SAP information containing emails seem to be from 2011 and 2012, with the 2012 very likely being the New Years Holliday.

    Back in June, WSJ reported that the majority seemed to be discussions about a planned CIA drone strike in Pakistan, that did not end up happening, and it started because the CIA let the US diplomat in Islamabad know, a day or so before Christmas, so State could weigh in.

    Paul R. Jones Clark Kent 16 hours ago
    Well said. We, the People, may very well never know the details on this batch of state secrets...nothing new about the Intel folks being tight-lipped. Nothing I've read on-line has given any info on what the SAP email contained...but, T.S./SAP is the most rigidly controlled/guarded state secret and I doubt any will become public knowledge. Any way this Hillary state secrets compromise is sliced, it is a violation of state secrets protocol in my opinion. From the gist of the FBI notes provided so far, there was little or no effort by the FBI personnel to 'dig' into 'intent,' thus glossing over a specific state secret statutes. Nor did the FBI team devote much time to 'chasing' the means by which these 22-T.S./SAP jumped the gap from State's closed-loop secure email system to Hillary's rogue system...why not?

    Lastly, I wonder if anyone from the Intel folks sat-in and or participated in Hillary's 'walk-in-the-park soft-ball' not under oath chat with the FBI...the Intel folks got 'hurt' badly with Hillary's compromise of the 22 SAP in my opinion.

    MuddShark Paul R. Jones 15 hours ago
    Many of today's cable news talking heads are mentioning the planned Pakistan drone strike discussions as if it is now a forgone conclusion. Those of us who don't pay WSJ can read the story from other sources...

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

    "Some of those emails were then sent by Clinton's aides to her personal email account, officials told the Journal.

    The vaguely worded messages didn't mention the "CIA," "drones" or details about the targets, the Journal reported.

    The emails were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, officials told the newspaper. The still-secret emails are still a part of the ongoing FBI investigation.

    One exchange reported by the Journal came before Christmas in 2011 when the U.S. ambassador sent a note about a planned strike that sparked an email chain between Clinton's senior advisers. Officials said the exchange was clear those involved in the email were having discussions because they were away from their offices and didn't have access to a classified computer."

    Paul R. Jones MuddShark 15 hours ago
    I am unsympathetic to any person involved in such a discussion that circumvents state secrets protocol because they don't have access to a secure computer. That is an excuse not acceptable. That is saying "I didn't know any better" to folks who are sitting at the highest levels of state secrets! That is plain B.S. in my opinion.

    And, yet, Hillary's fawning faithful followers are buying the ruse. Such rationalization of compromising state secrets infuriates men and women in the field who can die (Amb. Stevens and the men who rushed to their own deaths to help protect Stevens) because of such bureaucratic idiocy in my opinion beginning with Hillary and her immediate minions merits the wrath of We, the People not admiration...some of whom questioned Hillary's email mess early-on such as Amadin who believed Hillary's email stuff was 'outrageous!"

    "Outrageous" is an understatement on steroids in my opinion that would get anyone else prison time.

    Paul R. Jones megajess 4 hours ago
    Thanks
    Clark Kent Paul R. Jones 14 hours ago
    Our Amb. to Pakistan initiated these 'chains', because CIA 'requested input'; those requests seems to have been off the secure system. The drone operators were not in danger.

    If the CIA had pulled the trigger, it would have before State gave the input CIA asked for, if they traveled to secure lines.

    This is one of the reasons the CIA is dropping out of drone strikes; moving forwards the Defense Dept. will pull the trigger.

    The argument between State and CIA over these discussions does not seem to have started because of Hillary, and it doesn't seem to have ended because of Hillary. It is only because of the FOIA disclosures that we know they seem to have agreed to disagree on this subject.

    Paul R. Jones Clark Kent 13 hours ago
    A urinating contest between State and CIA operatives who really didn't need State permission to pull the trigger on drone strikes is not an excuse for Hillary to have 22-SAP running loose on her email un-secure un-authorized servers/storage units. I remain unsympathetic to Hillary or anyone else who compromises state secrets at that level because it is inconvenient to find a secure means to communicate.
    Clark Kent Paul R. Jones 11 hours ago
    Did you read the ViceNews article about the Vaughn Index they received on the 7 'chains' that contain the 22 emails? You do realize that in at least one chain, a news agency article link, and possible quote, is being forwarded, and the article is likely the source of the TS/SAP information, don't you? Even after it is leaked to someone like the NYT or Guardian, a TS/SAP document is still considered TS/SAP by the NSA, right? Even after everyone on the planet who is interested has read the information, discussing it on the non-secure system is considered against procedures, right?

    https://news.vice.com/article/...

    "A large number of emails at the center of the Clinton FBI probe appear to have been between U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and the State Department in Washington D.C. discussing planned drone strikes." http://www.inquisitr.com/31881... ... "The emails were sent in 2011 and 2012 through a private server and contained information that allowed the State Department input into a potential drone strike, where they had the opportunity to voice either opposition or support for the planned strike."

    Based on the The Inquisitor article, and the ViceNews article, 8 emails seem to be regarding the CIA drone strike, and one of the remaining 3 chains was about the news article.

    Paul R. Jones Clark Kent 3 hours ago
    I still remain unsympathetic to anyone caught-up in this compromise of state secrets. Too many lessor mortals have been severely punished for a lot less and the powerful escape any consequences for Hillary's mess. The RULE OF LAW is being 'shaded' if not outright lost in this mess!

    William Card > iRon Madden

    Hillary is a walking psyop. NOTHING about her is real.

    Chez Kiva > Chez Kiva • 20 hours ago

    A memory lapse? I don't think so. Careless? Yes, careless to a fault. People died. Agents were outed.

    And, the entire thing is a ruse to keep we the Americans from discussing the real infraction, which is that these CIA players were involved in destroying Libya and simultaneously causing the Syrian civil war. It wasn't an 'embassy' it was a safe house for all the lettered covert operatives and arms dealers. That's why she believes here role as 'guardian of State secrets' is safe.

    Mark this "Classified:" We are deliberately involved in destroying 7 countries mid-east in a row. Iran (read nuclear) comes next!- General Wesley Clark.

    CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkey > Fred_Shrinka

    "Accidently" used BLEACHBIT "guaranteed unrecoverable" Secure Data Erase program?

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahah.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Were headers of Hillary emails from her private server manipulated to hide her address?

    Hillary lied again claiming that the existence of her bathroom mail server was a common knoleadge. Some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were unaware of the server
    Notable quotes:
    "... some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address ..."
    "... The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge." ..."
    nytimes.com

    From: 6 Things We Learned in the F.B.I. Clinton Email Investigation

    Mrs. Clinton said in her interview it was "common knowledge" that she had a private email address because it was "displayed to anyone with whom she exchanged emails." But the F.B.I. said in a summary of its findings that "some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address."

    The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge."

    From: Links-9-3-2016 naked capitalism
    temporal

    re: 6 Things We Learned

    “some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton only contained the letter ‘H’ in the sender field and did not display her email address.” I have no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to field. How does their spam filter work if it doesn’t reveal who sent it? Why do they read stuff when they don’t have any idea who sent it? Did the F.B.I. really simply accept these statements as facts? Maybe they all just use cell phones and could care less who else is in the loop.

    “Three weeks later, a Platte River employee realized he had not deleted the emails as instructed. The employee said he then used a special program called BleachBit to delete the files.” He was told to delete files that any nitwit knows shouldn’t be deleted and delete only means delete if they can’t be found again but now it turns out he was supposed to shred them after removing the staples.

    The clear signal is that if you are going to break laws, hide information from future legal discovery and generally stonewall investigators with easily disproven statements be very certain that it at the behest of your liege lord. Laws are for the peasants. Justice is blind for the elite because no one dares look.

    fresno dan

    Now we find out a laptop was “lost” in the mail.
    Damn, this is gonna be really bad….for the post office.
    Of course, it will be hard to spin when it turns out it was addressed to Putin in Hillary’s handwriting…

    Bunk McNulty, September 3, 2016 at 9:57 am
    “The sh!t has hit the fan.”
    Higgs Boson

    What sh!t? What fan? Remember, the FBI gave HRC a pass. Nothing to see. It was all a big “nothingburger”. The only people that keep harping on this are right-wing rubes who get their marching orders from Putin’s army of hackers. It’s been assimilated into the Clinton Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy mythos.

    Now go vote for Her, because “love [of what, they don’t specify] Trumps hate.”

    That is all.

    winstonsmith

    Here are the FBI summary file and interview notes in a single searchable PDF and some highlights from a reddit thread:

    Handling of Confidential Information

    “During [Sysadmin’s] December 22, 2015 FBI interview, Pagliano recalled a conversation with [Redacted] at the beginning of Clinton’s tenure, in which [Redacted] advised he would not be surprised if classified information was being transmitted to Clinton’s personal server.” (Page 28)

    Clinton could not give an example of how the classification of a document was determined; rather she stated there was a process in place at State before her tenure, and she relied on career foreign service professionals to appropriately mark and handle classified information. Clinton believed information should be classified when it relates to [Redacted] the use of sensitive sources, or sensitive deliberations.” (Page 26)

    She relied on State officials to use their judgment when e-mailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her e-mail address. The FBI provided Clinton with copies of her classified e-mails ranging from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SAP and Clinton said she did not believe the e-mails contained classified information.” (Page 26)

    “State employees interviewed by the FBI explained that emails from Clinton only contained the letter “H” in the sender field and did not display their e-mail address. The majority of the State employees interviewed by the FBI who were in e-mail contact with Clinton indicated they had no knowledge of the private server in her Chappaqua residence. Clinton’s immediate aides, to include Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan, and [Redacted] told the FBI they were unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton’s tenure at the State or when it became public knowledge.

    Possible Censorship

    There were no e-mails provided by Williams & Connolly to State or the FBI dated from January 21, 2009 to March 18, 2009. FBI investigation identified an additional 18 days where Clinton did not provide State any responsive e-mail. FBI investigation determined 14 of the 18 days where Clinton did not provide State any responsive e-mail correspond with e-mail outages affecting Clinton’s personal server systems as a result of both Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Sandy. FBI investigation indicated other explanations for gaps in Clinton’s e-mail production could include user deletion prior to PRN’s transfer of Clinton’s e-mails for review…” (Page 27)

    Security Threats

    “Forensic analysis noted that on January 5, 2013, three IP addresses matching known Tor exit nodes were observed accessing a user e-mail account on the Pagliano Server believe to belong to President Clinton staffer [Redacted] FBI investigation indicated the Tor user logged in to [Redacted] email account and browsed e-mail folders and attachments. When asked during her interview, [Redacted] stated to the FBI she is not familiar with nor has she ever used Tor Software” (Page 29)

    “The FBI does not have in its possession any of Clinton’s 13 mobile devices which potentially were used to send e-mails using Clinton’s clintonemail.com e-mail addresses. As a result, the FBI could not make a determination as to whether any of the devices were subject to compromise. Similarly, the FBI does not have in its possession two of the five iPad devices which potentially were used by Clinton to send and receive e-mails during her tenure… (Page 30)

    “Investigation identified multiple occurrences of phishing and/or spear-phishing e-mails sent to Clinton’s account during her tenure as Secretary of State. [Paragraph Redacted]…

    Clinton received another phishing e-mail, purportedly sent from the personal e-mail account of State official [Redacted]. The email contained a potentially malicious link. Clinton replied to the email [Redacted] stating, “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” … Open source information indicated, if opened the targeted user’s device may have been infected, and information would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in Russia.” (page 31)

    Pages 33 – 47 are redacted. About one third of the entire review is redacted.

    Lambert Strether

    Thanks very much for this handy compendium!

    Roger Smith

    However email tag data works, her name appears as “H” because she isn’t using her typical address. The address I have seen H appear in is HDR22@clintononemail.com. Something about the contact data shows her as H.

    There is an exchange between her and mega donor Ms. Rothschild that I saw this in. In the email Clinton apologizes for inconveniencing her and literally says, “Let me know what penance I owe you.”

    https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/771569083695239168

    hunkerdown, September 3, 2016 at 1:54 pm
    I have no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to field.
    “Friendly” ones, like, say, Outlook. Some people just don’t care for all that gobbledygook, and Microsoft aims to please. Of course, the sender can put whatever they want in the comment field.
    From: “H”
    is a perfectly valid email From: line.
    >

    [Sep 03, 2016] In December 2014, while Hillary was under investigation, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton told the company that housed her server to delete an archive of emails from her account

    If this is not obstruction of justice then what is: " ...Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah and the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that the deletion of the emails violated an order his committee issued to Mrs. Clinton in 2012 and a subpoena issued by the Benghazi committee in 2015."
    Notable quotes:
    "... These were not Hillary Clinton's emails - they were government records, and this was potentially one of the largest security breaches at the State Department because they had all these years of security records that just went out the door, ..."
    "... Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the F.B.I. documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."\ ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 |

    From: 6 Things We Learned in the F.B.I. Clinton Email Investigation - The New York Times

    According to the F.B.I., in December 2014 a top aide to Mrs. Clinton told the company that housed her server to delete an archive of emails from her account. The company, Platte River Networks, apparently never followed those instructions. On March 2, 2015, The New York Times reported that Mrs. Clinton had exclusively used a personal email account when she was secretary of state. Two days later, the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, and Mrs. Clinton's response to them, told the technology firms associated with the email account that they had to retain "all relevant documents" related to its inquiry.

    Three weeks later, a Platte River employee realized he had not deleted the emails as instructed. The employee said he then used a special program called BleachBit to delete the files. The F.B.I. said Mrs. Clinton was unaware of the deletions.

    The F.B.I. said it was later able to find some of the emails, but did not say how many emails were deleted, or whether they were included in the 60,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton said she sent and received while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

    From: F.B.I. Papers Offer Closer Look at Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry - The New York Times

    But Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah and the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that the deletion of the emails violated an order his committee issued to Mrs. Clinton in 2012 and a subpoena issued by the Benghazi committee in 2015.

    He said he planned to seek answers from Mrs. Clinton about the deletions. "These were not Hillary Clinton's emails - they were government records, and this was potentially one of the largest security breaches at the State Department because they had all these years of security records that just went out the door," Mr. Chaffetz said. "It's a very black-and-white order. There's no wiggle room."

    Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the F.B.I. documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."\

    The F.B.I. released only small portions of its thick files on the Clinton investigation, and Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who leads the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused the F.B.I. of withholding key documents - including many unclassified ones - from public view.

    The selective release, he said, produced "an incomplete and possibly misleading picture of the facts without the other unclassified information that is still locked away from the public and even most congressional staff."

    [Sep 02, 2016] Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who was not Department of State employee, managed Hillary Blackberries, synching them to the server

    That means that Justin Cooper has full access to all Hillary email information, which is illegal.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped set up the private email account that Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state, was the person "usually responsible" for setting up her new devices and syncing them to the server. ..."
    "... another person whose name is redacted, also helped Clinton set up her BlackBerry. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | www.politico.com
    3. Breaking and smashing

    Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped set up the private email account that Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state, was the person "usually responsible" for setting up her new devices and syncing them to the server. Top aides Huma Abedin and Monica Hanley, as well as another person whose name is redacted, also helped Clinton set up her BlackBerry.

    According to Abedin and Hanley, Clinton's old devices would often disappear to parts "unknown once she transitioned to a new device."

    Cooper, according to the report, "did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton's old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."

    [Sep 02, 2016] Looks like Pagiano was an amateur: low quality or no spam filter on "bathroom" server

    www.politico.com
    The suspicious porn email

    The FBI said it uncovered multiple instances of phishing or spear-phishing emails sent to Clinton's account, including one that appeared to be sent from another State official's account. Clinton responded to the email by trying to confirm that the person actually sent it, adding, "I was worried about opening it!"

    But in another incident, the FBI noted that Abedin emailed someone (whose name is redacted) conveying Clinton's concern that "someone [was] hacking into her email" after receiving an email from a "known [redacted] associate containing a link to a website with pornographic material."

    "There is no additional information as to why Clinton was concerned about someone hacking into her e-mail account, or if the specific link referenced by Abedin was used as a vector to infect Clinton's device," the FBI's report states, and after roughly two lines of redacted text goes on to note that "open source information indicated, if opened, the targeted user's device may have been infected, and information would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in Russia."

    [Sep 02, 2016] Bathroom email server was actually a series of three servers but the main Windows server administered by Pagiano was in use from 2009 till 2013

    Notable quotes:
    "... That server was replaced in 2009 with a server installed by a former IT specialist for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign ..."
    www.politico.com

    The former secretary of state's email server was in fact a series of three servers used over a period of time from approximately 2007 to 2015, beginning with an Apple server installed by a former aide to her husband.

    That server was replaced in 2009 with a server installed by a former IT specialist for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, which was then supplanted in 2013 by a server installed by a vendor, Denver-based Platte River Networks.

    That server, housed in a data center in New Jersey, was voluntarily handed over to the FBI in 2015.

    [Sep 02, 2016] 13 Blackberries and 5 iPads

    www.politico.com
    The report said there was "no additional information" about the email or more about why Clinton was concerned about the hack, or whether the link Abedin referred to in her email was "used as a vector to infect Clinton's device."

    Following roughly two lines of redacted text, the report states, "Open source information indicated, if opened, the targeted user's device may have been infected, and information would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in Russia."

    In its investigation, the FBI turned up 13 total mobile devices connected to two different phone numbers that had potentially been used to send emails from Clinton's personal account, including eight email-capable BlackBerrys that she used during her tenure as secretary of state. Lawyers for Clinton said in late February of 2016 that they were unable to find any of the 13 devices identified by the bureau.

    The FBI also identified five iPads "associated with Clinton" that were potentially used to send emails from Clinton's private system. The bureau managed to obtain three of those iPads, none of which contained any potentially classified information.

    As she transitioned between mobile devices, two people interviewed by the FBI said the whereabouts of Clinton's previous devices would "frequently become unknown." One aide to former President Bill Clinton who also helped the family set up the initial personal email server in their Chappaqua, New York, home said that on two occasions he "destroyed Clinton's old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."

    [Sep 02, 2016] The art of bleaching the bathroom email server to delete traces of potencially compromizing Hillary Clinton emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... The unnamed staffer deleted the files after remembering an earlier request from longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that changed "email retention policies" for Clinton's server. ..."
    www.politico.com

    But weeks after the Times published its story, the FBI's investigation found that an individual, whose name was redacted, used an online program called BleachBit to delete a file on the server containing Clinton's emails.

    The unnamed staffer deleted the files after remembering an earlier request from longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that changed "email retention policies" for Clinton's server.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Emails destruction and bleaching the server were a deliberate act of sabotage of FOIA

    Using BleachBit clearly shows the criminal intent, which FBI did not found in the whole Clinton emailgate saga...
    Notable quotes:
    "... used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's e-mails." ..."
    www.politico.com

    Speaking to the FBI on May 3, 2016, "[redacted] indicated he believed he had an 'oh shit' moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's e-mails."

    [Sep 02, 2016] FBI Hillary Clinton Lost Cell Phones with Classified Emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton lost several mobile telephones carrying e-mails from her private server during her time in office ..."
    "... "[Huma] Abedin and [former Clinton aide Monica] Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's [mobile] devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device," one report indicates. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost several mobile telephones carrying e-mails from her private server during her time in office, according to newly-released FBI documents on the investigation into her mishandling of classified information.

    "[Huma] Abedin and [former Clinton aide Monica] Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's [mobile] devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device," one report indicates.

    On other occasions, a staffer would destroy Clinton's old mobile phones "by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer," the FBI documents reveal.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Clinton allowed handling of her classified emails by a loyalist without any security clearance

    www.politico.com
    When reviewing an email from October of 2012, for example, Clinton said that while she did not recall the message specifically, she described an individual involved with the communication as "someone who was well acquainted with handling classified information" and "described him as someone she held in high regard."

    She said she "relied on" the individual, whose name is redacted in the FBI notes, and she had "no concern over his judgement and ability to handle classified information."

    [Sep 02, 2016] Pathological liar Hillary Clinton pretended to be ignorant with FBI investigators; that was a silly defense strategy, but it worked probably beacuse of Obama meddling in the investigation

    Any reasonable investigator would instantly understand that she is trying to sell him the Brooklyn bridge. In no way with her career she can be unaware of such things.
    www.politico.com
    The meaning of (C)

    Clinton told the FBI that she did not know what the "(C)" portion markings on an email chain signified, explaining that she thought it meant the paragraphs were marked in alphabetical order.

    As far as her knowledge of the various classification levels of U.S. government information, Clinton responded that she took all classified material seriously regardless of the "level," be it "TOP SECRET," "SECRET" or "CONFIDENTIAL."

    [Sep 02, 2016] Clinton was not part of the decision to move from the Apple server managed by Cooper to a [windows] server built by Bryan Pagliano

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton "had no knowledge of the reasons for selecting it to install it in the basement" of her Chappaqua, New York, home. ..."
    "... Clinton also denied using the server to avoid the Federal Records Act, and did not have any conversations about using the server to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, according to the FBI's investigation notes. ..."
    www.politico.com

    Clinton was not part of the decision to move from the Apple server managed by Cooper to a [windows] server built by Bryan Pagliano, according to the report, which stated that Clinton "had no knowledge of the reasons for selecting it to install it in the basement" of her Chappaqua, New York, home.

    Clinton also denied using the server to avoid the Federal Records Act, and did not have any conversations about using the server to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, according to the FBI's investigation notes.

    [Sep 02, 2016] F.B.I. Papers Offer Closer Look at Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry

    NYT comments are just overflowing from neoliberal supported of this neocon warmonger Hillary. Amazing !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... The fact that Hillary or any senior elected official can operate outside of a secure system without automated detection/correction is the real issue here. I expect many more govt' officials are doing the same, but in a less politically charged atmosphere. No investigations in their cases as there is no trophy at the end. ..."
    "... So who is minding the computer farm? Government computer systems/policies need to be reviewed, training reinforced, and automatic incident tracking of activity to and from undocumented server IP addresses. Automated systems should prevent government officials through their lack of knowledge from using systems that do not comply. ..."
    "... There is something fishy about her desire to maintain a private email server at her home at the same time she is working as a public official in the role of secretary of state. There is also the perceived conflict of interest between this role as the nation's top diplomat and her connection with the Clinton foundation. ..."
    "... If she exchanged favors for contributions to the foundation, which many suspect she did, the smoking guns have probably been deleted by now. She was given plenty of time to sort through her emails to cover her tracks before turning them over to investigators. ..."
    "... Her evasiveness and attempt to avoid FOIA requests have certainly earned her the nickname crooked Hillary. ..."
    "... The fact that so many people support Clinton, in the face of her egregious and arguably criminal behavior, speaks to the fact that a large number of people vote strictly party line. ..."
    "... The bottom line is that we are a very partisan nation whose voters support their candidate no matter how flawed is that person. ..."
    "... IF HRC played by the rules like everyone must, and simply used the State Department email, all of this could have been avoided. Yet she refused to use her State email even though it was offered to her. ..."
    "... ultimately, this shows the incompetence of the IT people in the government agencies handling her communications. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton is ultimately responsible for making sure her classified communications are secure, and she should have been asking people questions to make sure this was the case. I am a Democrat but I have grave misgivings regarding her judgement and handling of this matter. ..."
    "... The most important finding is that the federal government is woefully incompetent in designing, implementing, and maintaining large information systems. ..."
    "... These are plainly false statements to the FBI, and so crimes. She did not do it "out of convenience" but to avoid public records act, and to get more privacy. Huma admitted that much, as have others. She got repeated warnings. We've heard that from those who warned her, who were told not to say it again. "I don't recall" any of them is just not credible. She is supposed to recall being warned. ..."
    "... She did not think those things were classified? She's Sec of State. She knows which subjects are classified, and many of those were. She knew that. She got the most classified stuff there is, because she was Sec of State. ..."
    "... The biggest concern of all is that she did this in deliberate defiance of the requirements of law, the public records requirements, for the express purpose of violating that law. The FBI just decided that it was not investigating THAT law, and so ignored it. Yet those are felonies, not just little things. ..."
    "... I am not concerned by Hillary's emails. I am very upset by the refusal of the media and politicians to address the real issues of our classification system. We have known since at least the Pentagon Papers, and probably earlier, that the purpose of classifying information is to keep it from the American people more than from our adversaries. ..."
    "... "But Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, which has used the email issue as one of its main weapons against Mrs. Clinton, called the documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency." ..."
    "... Clinton apparently didn't know an email server from a jar of mayonnaise. I can understand that -- not sure I would either. ..."
    "... But if I were starting out on a 4-year stint as US Secretary of State, it would occur to me that I'd probably send or receive a sensitive email or two somewhere along the way, and I'd wonder whether sending and receiving those emails over a private server located in my home might be a good idea. ..."
    "... Lame very lame Hillary excuses . But the problem comes from both sides Democrat or Republican and there lame excuses . From the deficit from the Trickle down economy , deregulation to Trade-deal and the lost of jobs . Tax cut to tax inversion .. If we want change , Then why are voter still voting in Incumbents . The ones that made the problems we have . Shame us who do.. Vote the incumbents out of office .. ..."
    "... With over 75% of the country stating Hillary cannot be trusted, it's important to also consider the severe lack of accountability and level of arrogance displayed. If she's willing to take the lowest road possible, voting her into office will be a huge mistake. ..."
    "... You gotta be kidding me. All we get each day, all day is more breathless Trump 'News'. On the front page no less. Each smirk and foible is covered ad nauseum as if it were actually new worthy. You rarely hear about the other candidate. No policy comparisons for pete's sake. Until today. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | The New York Times

    Among the other key findings in the F.B.I. documents:

    ■ Mrs. Clinton regarded emails containing classified discussions about planned drone strikes as "routine."

    ■ She said she was either unaware of or misunderstood some classification procedures.

    ■ Colin L. Powell, a former secretary of state, had advised her to "be very careful" in how she used email.

    Scot, Seattle 7 hours ago

    Until I hear crowds chanting "lock him up" in relation to George Bush or Dick Cheney and the Iraq war, I'm going to have a hard time taking this gross witch hunt seriously. The contrast between Clinton's email administration screw-up and the unbroken daisy-chain of once-in-a-century global catastrophes committed by the Bush administration is so huge as to be hard to grasp.

    Paul, Canada 6 hours ago

    Sorry folks, but time to point out what has been missed by everyone as they attempt to make this a political election issue.

    There is no way Hillary or any elected official should be given the opportunity to use a private email server. Any technology org worth its salt will have its systems and computer usage policies locked down tight.

    Any action by a user that falls outside these policies must be automatically detected and investigated by the systems teams. Wrongs identified, computer users advised on proper usage, and corrective action taken to prevent reoccurrence.

    The fact that Hillary or any senior elected official can operate outside of a secure system without automated detection/correction is the real issue here. I expect many more govt' officials are doing the same, but in a less politically charged atmosphere. No investigations in their cases as there is no trophy at the end.

    So who is minding the computer farm? Government computer systems/policies need to be reviewed, training reinforced, and automatic incident tracking of activity to and from undocumented server IP addresses. Automated systems should prevent government officials through their lack of knowledge from using systems that do not comply.

    Hillary nor other officials are computer experts. They should not be expected to be responsible for this. I would say there is a greater risk in how these systems are being currently managed.

    Peter, New York 6 hours ago

    Sadly this supports the Donald's charge about Hillary's questionable judgment. There is something fishy about her desire to maintain a private email server at her home at the same time she is working as a public official in the role of secretary of state. There is also the perceived conflict of interest between this role as the nation's top diplomat and her connection with the Clinton foundation.

    If she exchanged favors for contributions to the foundation, which many suspect she did, the smoking guns have probably been deleted by now. She was given plenty of time to sort through her emails to cover her tracks before turning them over to investigators.

    Her evasiveness and attempt to avoid FOIA requests have certainly earned her the nickname crooked Hillary. Even if you don't like Trump, it is very difficult to make the case that Clinton is a better alternative.

    Lois Brenneman, New Milford, PA 3 hours ago

    The fact that so many people support Clinton, in the face of her egregious and arguably criminal behavior, speaks to the fact that a large number of people vote strictly party line. In their view, no matter what Clinton has done, she is still better than having a Republican in the White House and, most esp, better than Donald Trump. I am hardly one who can complain, however, as I basically do the same thing. I'd probably vote for my dog before I would a Democrat even if it means voting for a flawed candidate. I find Clinton to be the very pits of all possible candidates, much like the Dems view of Trump.

    The bottom line is that we are a very partisan nation whose voters support their candidate no matter how flawed is that person. If anyone else was heading the Dem ticket, I suspect that person would win by a landslide in 2016. With Clinton heading up the party, Trump just may win. Choosing her as the candidate was arguably the stupidest thing the Dems could have possibly done

    Wally Wolf, Texas 6 hours ago

    ENOUGH!! Compared to what G.W. Bush did (the facts are known to all) while president and what Donald Trump did as a business man (Trump University, numerous bankruptcies, tax evasion and/or avoidance, questionable modeling agency practices, and on and on), Hillary Clinton's emails are small potatoes. If people allow this ridiculous email situation to cripple Hillary and allow Trump to become president then they will have to live with the fallout and, believe me, it will be disastrous.

    Joseph, NYC 4 hours ago

    IF HRC played by the rules like everyone must, and simply used the State Department email, all of this could have been avoided. Yet she refused to use her State email even though it was offered to her.

    If she did not do this to cover up her activities then she really bad judgement, and if she did it to cover up her activities, why did she do so? Either way, she is not a person to be entrusted with the Presidency. This is what is causing the nightmare Trump to still be competitive and to be catching up with her in the polls. If he wins HRC and the DNC have noone to blame but themselves.

    gary, Washington state 6 hours ago

    Congress asked Bush-Cheney in 2007 for emails surrounding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. AG Gonzales could not produce the email because it was sent on a non-government email server, gwb43.com, which was run by the RNC. No smoking gun--sorry about that.

    Over time it was revealed that 22 White House officials including Karl Rove used private RNC email accounts for government business. In April 2007, Dana Perino admitted that approximately 5 million messages may have been deleted from that server. In 2009, watchdog groups announced that technicians had recovered 22 million emails that were deleted somehow from gwb43.com. Many of these messages were recovered from other government email servers.

    Clearly gwb43.com was under the legal obligations of the Presidential Records Act, which each of these 22 million deletions violated. Republican leaders (like Chris Christie, Karl Rove, etc.) who are now enraged by Hillary Clinton's email server were then uncritical of the Bush administration and its behavior.

    Is this American exceptionalism--hypocrisy, political pretense, and selective enforcement of laws?

    Sam Crow, SF Bay Area 3 hours ago

    ultimately, this shows the incompetence of the IT people in the government agencies handling her communications. As the Secretary of State, how can they not have procedures in place which would prevent this from happening? Hillary Clinton is ultimately responsible for making sure her classified communications are secure, and she should have been asking people questions to make sure this was the case. I am a Democrat but I have grave misgivings regarding her judgement and handling of this matter.

    Thomas MacLachlan, Highland Moors, Scotland 5 hours ago

    Having read through these 58 pages, it's clear that all they say is that Hillary is not a savvy technologist. She made her decision to use a private email system without understanding the implications of it regarding security, access control, data integrity, or retention. Also, none of her staff was competent in the technology involved, either. At a low level, perhaps. But not at a high level, where the architecture defines how all these pieces of the system work together. It was that area that fell apart and has caused her the myriad of political problems she now faces with this.

    The most important finding is that the federal government is woefully incompetent in designing, implementing, and maintaining large information systems. At State back then, the system was full of holes and was very hackable. By comparison, Hillary's system was more secure, though unauthorized. But you can't have a parade of different administrators or consultants go stomping through the implementation and expect it to hold together, either.

    The government needs to get their act together to provide systems which are actually secure and globally available. This isn't just a technology statement. The workflows involved and usage processes need to be well defined, and users need to be trained on them. And the technical staff needs to show some leadership so that they can help guide senior staff to the right solutions.

    The buck stops with Hillary, but she is certainly not the guilty party in this.

    Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 8 hours ago

    These are plainly false statements to the FBI, and so crimes. She did not do it "out of convenience" but to avoid public records act, and to get more privacy. Huma admitted that much, as have others. She got repeated warnings. We've heard that from those who warned her, who were told not to say it again. "I don't recall" any of them is just not credible. She is supposed to recall being warned.

    She did not think those things were classified? She's Sec of State. She knows which subjects are classified, and many of those were. She knew that. She got the most classified stuff there is, because she was Sec of State.

    The biggest concern of all is that she did this in deliberate defiance of the requirements of law, the public records requirements, for the express purpose of violating that law. The FBI just decided that it was not investigating THAT law, and so ignored it. Yet those are felonies, not just little things.

    This is an outrage. It has grown far beyond just a few emails.

    EdBx, Bronx, NY 7 hours ago

    I am not concerned by Hillary's emails. I am very upset by the refusal of the media and politicians to address the real issues of our classification system. We have known since at least the Pentagon Papers, and probably earlier, that the purpose of classifying information is to keep it from the American people more than from our adversaries.

    There is no conclusive evidence that our nation has been harmed by the classified information released by Daniel Ellsburg, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden. On the other hand it is certainly known that great harm was done by the misuse and abuse of classified information by duly authorized government officials in getting us into the war in Iraq. The lesson is that it is more important who we choose as president than how they maintained their email accounts several years ago.

    Also, while we may not have known it in 2008, we should know now that government officials should operate under the assumption that anything on a computer is subject to hacking, no matter how secure we think the system is.

    chichimax, albany, ny 7 hours ago

    It is amazing how much scrutiny this and the Clinton Foundation have gotten and how little George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and the "torture memos" got. Not to mention the whole sum of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo episodes. Scrutiny of Hillary Clinton, thy name is petty. Lack of scrutiny of the entire Bush Administration's misdeeds, thy name is HUGE.

    DCC, NYC 4 hours ago

    "But Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, which has used the email issue as one of its main weapons against Mrs. Clinton, called the documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."

    Wow, the head of the RNC finds that Hillary has a lack of judgment and honesty and is incompetent. And we value his assessment because he..........helped.............nominate......... Trump. Yep, his opinion really matters!

    MyThreeCents, San Francisco 4 hours ago

    Clinton apparently didn't know an email server from a jar of mayonnaise. I can understand that -- not sure I would either.

    But if I were starting out on a 4-year stint as US Secretary of State, it would occur to me that I'd probably send or receive a sensitive email or two somewhere along the way, and I'd wonder whether sending and receiving those emails over a private server located in my home might be a good idea.

    I'd probably conclude that it was advisable to get myself a State Department email address, and use it every now and then. True, US enemies reportedly hacked the State Department server, along with the personal emails of several top Clinton aides, which may make one think it's pointless even to try to keep one's emails secure. But it's much easier to hack a private server located in someone's home than it is to hack a State Department email server.

    A bored 14-year old kid probably could have hacked Clinton's private server in 15 minutes.

    Kathryn Horvat, Salt Lake City 57 minutes ago

    More and more I find myself upset with the poor judgment of the leaders of the Democratic Party, who allowed and encouraged her to run for president. She already was encumbered by a lot of baggage, not to mention her loss to Obama in 2008. I also wonder about the judgment of the New York Times , which engaged in the most openly biased reporting and opinion pieces I have ever seen.

    How could so many seasoned politicians have been so blind?

    David Howell, 33541 57 minutes ago

    Lame very lame Hillary excuses . But the problem comes from both sides Democrat or Republican and there lame excuses . From the deficit from the Trickle down economy , deregulation to Trade-deal and the lost of jobs . Tax cut to tax inversion .. If we want change , Then why are voter still voting in Incumbents . The ones that made the problems we have . Shame us who do.. Vote the incumbents out of office ..

    fmofcali, orange county 1 hour ago

    With over 75% of the country stating Hillary cannot be trusted, it's important to also consider the severe lack of accountability and level of arrogance displayed. If she's willing to take the lowest road possible, voting her into office will be a huge mistake. How can you have a commander in chief that refuses to simply take accountability and always blames her staff for the issues she clearly creates?!

    moviebuff, Los Angeles 1 hour ago

    If this were Nixon - a man I detested, mind you - we'd have empowered Senate and House committees to look into disqualifying him as a candidate. Did those who still support Hillary Milhous Clinton even read the article on which they're commenting? Sending the emails privately, the order to delete, the use of Bleach bit after she was ordered to preserve the emails, throwing her aides under the bus… her behavior makes RMN look like Abe Lincoln.

    J.D., USA 1 hour ago

    I've worked as a tech consultant for years and I've seen this same ignorance from so many people, that it's not surprising. E-mail is something most people use, but it's not something most people understand, so they don't really get how unsecured it is. Was it a potentially dangerous mistake to make? Yes. Was it surprising? Absolutely not. But, more because most people don't understand e-mail, than because of any lapse in reasoning or malicious intent on her part.

    ... ... ..

    Malebranchem, Ontario, NY 1 hour ago

    You gotta be kidding me. All we get each day, all day is more breathless Trump 'News'. On the front page no less. Each smirk and foible is covered ad nauseum as if it were actually new worthy. You rarely hear about the other candidate. No policy comparisons for pete's sake. Until today.

    "The newly disclosed documents, while largely reinforcing what had already been known about the F.B.I. investigation, provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email system, which has shadowed her presidential campaign for more than a year."

    As another commenter said, "There's no there there." It is the NYT that is casting a shadow over Secretary Clinton's campaign. Wake me when you actually start covering this Presidential race.

    [Sep 02, 2016] FBI Releases Documents Related To Its Clinton Email Investigation

    Notable quotes:
    "... The FBI that conducted a criminal investigation into Clinton's email server is serving under a Democratic administration. The director, appointed by Barack Obama, said Clinton was "Extremely careless" in handling classified material. The State Dept's Inspector General found that Clinton lied when she said she had permission to use a private server. ..."
    "... she definitely had poor email practice. but so did 3 of her four immediate predecessors at state, who used private email; at least 2 of their inboxes also contained material later classified. so did Karl Rove, who used private servers while running two wars as presidential chief of staff. 3 million of the last administration's emails are missing, rather tnan 30,000. so yes, she continued past poor email practices, but nothing that was illegal or even unusual. So why is only her email under investigation. ..."
    "... Anybody remember Valerie Plame? You want to talk about compromising national security? How about the Bush Administration revealing the secret identity of a covert CIA operative working on Iran's Nuclear Program capabilities?? ..."
    "... After she gets elected they will start the impeachment process along with a complete cold shoulder to all her attempts at getting anything accomplished. We could have had Bernie. ..."
    "... So, she's in great health for opening pickle jars, but not so great when it comes to her memory. And on top of her failing memory, Colin Powell essentially went public to say her camp is lying and using him as a defense for using a private server. ..."
    "... She didn't recall "all the briefings she received on handling gov documents"? Well maybe she wasn't fit for the job of handling gov documents then. ..."
    "... It's called mishandling classified documents, and it is a crime. She's not facing consequences because of who she is and the influence she has. Had it been random Jane Doe however, there'd be serious repercussions. ..."
    "... I am stunned by reading the responses to this article. It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues ..."
    "... Hillary could drive through a soccer field in a drunken stupor, killing dozens of kids and you sheep would blame the car or the booze! ..."
    "... The fact that not a single person who originated any of these emails, nor anyone else who were on the email distribution lists, have ever received so much as an administrative rebuke about any of these, and Comey testified that there were no plans at all to investigate ANYONE who were responsible for actually writing and sending these emails. ..."
    "... James Constantino What do you not comprehend about "classified at the time" you just proved Tom Johnson correct when he stated " It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues" ..."
    "... She set up a private server in her house, used that server to exchange classified materials and then claims a loss of memory of briefings to safeguard those materials after her term was over at State to explain the erasure of thousands of emails. I'm no Trump fan but this is just as bad as Nixon's white house tapes. This is why I voted for Bernie. ..."
    "... So Hillary couldn't remember security briefings she received in 2009 because of a concussion she received in 2012? This doesn't pass the laugh test. Nothing is every her responsibility and she has never ever done anything wrong. Is the concussion still impacting her memory? ..."
    "... If the globalist media wasn't bought, they would have such information in a few days from deciding to find such information which should be available. I have worked for government departments before not only are policies and procedures issued to you and/or read out to you, you are also required to sign on the dotted line that you have understood them. Whats happening around HRC is just a shameful cover-up and surely the people know it by now? ..."
    "... Yes, this is someone we want to be President. Someone who can't rememeber security breifings. "The extraordinary disclosure was made as the FBI published details of its agents' interview with the former secretary of state which was conducted days before the agency's director ruled out any charges against her. ..."
    "... Queue health rumors again(Re: concussion). Also, I like how the I don't recall defense worked just fine for regean and Iran contra, but republicans don't apply the same standard when concerning Clinton ..."
    "... Awww. I see.. She's in perfect health but when it is convenient she will use her illnesses to her advantage. Got it. ..."
    "... Our records show that Clinton sent & received thousands of cables with "(C)" paragraph classification markings. The FBI report, although not fatal for Democratic loyalists but I think it is devastating to average Americans. ..."
    "... So, what about the bit where she claimed she turned over ALL work-related e-mails, yet we keep finding ones that weren't turned over, and even more that were deleted with specialty wiping software? ..."
    "... Wow! this is so damaging! cant' remember anything , lost so many phones and didn't know how to read a classified documents! She is unfit to run a lemonde stand! With all her handlers and executive assistance and Huma for 24/7, you would think she will know more! ..."
    "... You can all sleep good tonight. Once all your children die in the wars she wants to continue she will say, "in hindsight, I regretted using bombs on all those innocent kids while president." Kudos DNC. ..."
    "... Hillary's new defense: If you've had a FALL you can't RECALL ..."
    "... Holy crap, - Clinton was also asked about the (C) markings within several documents that FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress represented classified information. Clinton told the FBI she was unaware of what the marking meant. "Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the interview notes stated. Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not recall all of the briefings she received due to a concussion she suffered in 2012. This woman is unfit period. http://www.cnn.com/.../hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/ ..."
    "... Kat Hathaway - Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she lacked recollection of key events. She said she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the FBI's notes of their July 2 interview with Clinton. The notes revealed that Clinton relied heavily on her staff and aides determining what was classified information and how it should be handled. ..."
    "... So bringing up her health issues us an "unfounded attack" but then she uses those very same health issues to cover her ass? ..."
    "... We invaded Iraq in 2003 GWB was reelected in 2004, this peanuts compared to that. ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com
    Clinton told investigators she could not recall getting any briefings on how to handle classified information or comply with laws governing the preservation of federal records, the summary of her interview shows.

    "However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot," the FBI's summary said. "Based on her doctor's advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received."

    A Clinton campaign aide said Clinton only referenced her concussion to explain she was not at work but for a few hours a day at that time, not that she did not remember things from that period.

    The concussion was widely reported then, and Republicans have since used it to attack the 68-year-old candidate's health in a way her staff have said is unfounded.

    The FBI report, which does not quote Clinton directly, is ambiguous about whether it was her concussion that affected her ability to recall briefings.

    - SEPTEMBER 02 2016 -

    DONALD J. TRUMP
    STATEMENT ON FBI
    RELEASING CLINTON
    INTERVIEW NOTES

    ★ ★ ★

    "Hillary Clinton's answers to the FBI about
    her private email server defy belief. I was
    absolutely shocked to see that her answers
    to the FBI stood in direct contradiction to
    what she told the American people. After
    reading these documents, I really don't
    understand how she was able to get away
    from prosecution." - Donald J. Trump

    Anthony Zenkus, TED talker at TED
    The FBI that conducted a criminal investigation into Clinton's email server is serving under a Democratic administration. The director, appointed by Barack Obama, said Clinton was "Extremely careless" in handling classified material. The State Dept's Inspector General found that Clinton lied when she said she had permission to use a private server.

    These are departments in a Democratic administration, not a vast right wing conspiracy. The fact that Republicans try to make hay out of the facts in this case do not change the fact that Clinton, according to a Democrat's STate Dept and FBI, acted carelessly and was less than truthful.

    Ron Prichard, Seattle, Washington

    Anthony Zenkus she definitely had poor email practice. but so did 3 of her four immediate predecessors at state, who used private email; at least 2 of their inboxes also contained material later classified. so did Karl Rove, who used private servers while running two wars as presidential chief of staff. 3 million of the last administration's emails are missing, rather tnan 30,000. so yes, she continued past poor email practices, but nothing that was illegal or even unusual. So why is only her email under investigation.

    Bruce Hunter, Capitola, California

    Anybody remember Valerie Plame? You want to talk about compromising national security? How about the Bush Administration revealing the secret identity of a covert CIA operative working on Iran's Nuclear Program capabilities??

    How about Bush commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby who obstructed and derailed the investigation??

    How about the way Republicans attacked Plame who was a loyal employee of the CIA for over 20 years??

    Republicans are the true threats to our national security,not Hillary Clinton.

    Chris Caldwell, Owner at Master Vision

    The attacks on Hillary will only get worse over the next month, then they break out the big one, the October surprise. Everyone that chose her over Bernie should have seen this. After she gets elected they will start the impeachment process along with a complete cold shoulder to all her attempts at getting anything accomplished. We could have had Bernie.
    Michelle Becker, Newfield High School
    He lost by 3,000,000 + votes. There was no choice.

    James Simon, Emerson College

    Michelle Becker Wrong. The Stamford Study shows without question that the states without paper trails had her way outperforming the exit polls where it wasn't statistically possible without some kind of tampering. Add to that the placebo ballots in California, the voter purge in AZ, IL, NY, and it would have been a much different result. Could she have won legitimately? We'll never know thanks to the DNC leaks of collusion with the HRC camp, the media, and others. But hey, enjoy the status quo, your fracking, your endless wars, your corporate influence in Congress. This is what you wanted. Knock yourself out. USA. USA.
    JL Torres, DeWitt Clinton High School
    So, she's in great health for opening pickle jars, but not so great when it comes to her memory. And on top of her failing memory, Colin Powell essentially went public to say her camp is lying and using him as a defense for using a private server. I simply don't know how establishment Dems keep trying to cover this obviously nagging problem they have with their candidate. What a horrible choice between these two awful major party nominees.

    Anthony Zenkus, TED talker at TED

    She didn't recall "all the briefings she received on handling gov documents"? Well maybe she wasn't fit for the job of handling gov documents then.

    Edward Schillenger

    It's called mishandling classified documents, and it is a crime. She's not facing consequences because of who she is and the influence she has. Had it been random Jane Doe however, there'd be serious repercussions.
    Gary Stern, University of Baltimore
    Here is a question for all the angry white male Trump supporters.

    Republicans control the Senate and the House. Republicans control 31 states as governors including the rust belt states. So if republicans are in control why haven't they created high wage jobs that you whine about? Why has the economy slowed with republicans running government? Why haven't they fixed the immigration problem? The republican congress can pass a bill tomorrow to build Trump's wall and hire a deportation force. The republican congress can pass a balanced budget anytime the want? Taxes too high? Republicans can cut the tax rate to zero if they want. My point is why do republicans want to blame the president and Hillary for every problem known to man while their republican leaders sit on their butts doing nothing to solve a single problem. Maybe you need to tell congress to stop investigating and pass a Jobs Bill.

    Tom Johnson, Executive Chef at Breezy Point Resort

    I am stunned by reading the responses to this article. It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues. The article clearly states:

    The FBI has concluded Clinton was wrong: At least 81 email threads contained information that was classified at the time, although the final number may be more than 2,000, the report says. Some of the emails appear to include discussion of planned future attacks by unmanned US Military drones, the FBI report says.

    Hillary could drive through a soccer field in a drunken stupor, killing dozens of kids and you sheep would blame the car or the booze!

    James Constantino, Plasma Etch Engineer at Northrup Grumman

    Here's the thing... all 81 email chains that the FBI claims were "classified" didn't originate with Clinton. All were sent to her... none were marked as classified... and no one who actually composed and sent these emails thought that they should have been classified at the time.

    The fact that not a single person who originated any of these emails, nor anyone else who were on the email distribution lists, have ever received so much as an administrative rebuke about any of these, and Comey testified that there were no plans at all to investigate ANYONE who were responsible for actually writing and sending these emails.

    If you really expect me to take this seriously as anything other than a republican fever dream, please show me ANY wrongdoing on Clinton's part that involves more than being copied on someone else's email chain... because as evil master plans go, that's kind of reaching.

    Chuck Drake, University of Toledo

    James Constantino What do you not comprehend about "classified at the time" you just proved Tom Johnson correct when he stated " It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues"

    Meesta Naturale, Resident Mystic Guru at Tranquille Sanatorium

    She set up a private server in her house, used that server to exchange classified materials and then claims a loss of memory of briefings to safeguard those materials after her term was over at State to explain the erasure of thousands of emails. I'm no Trump fan but this is just as bad as Nixon's white house tapes. This is why I voted for Bernie.

    Karin Eckvall, UC Davis

    So Hillary couldn't remember security briefings she received in 2009 because of a concussion she received in 2012? This doesn't pass the laugh test. Nothing is every her responsibility and she has never ever done anything wrong. Is the concussion still impacting her memory?

    Time for Democrats to write in Joe Biden.

    Zelda Rosenberg

    Since I'm sure you won't believe me from over in your fact free world, here is the exact quote from the Reuter's article: "Clinton said she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation or production of records from (the) State (Department) during the transition out of her role as Secretary of State in 2013.

    "However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot (in her head). Based on her doctor's advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received," the report said.

    Karin Eckvall, UC Davis

    Zelda Rosenberg Coming or going, it still doesn't pass the laugh test.

    Jess Manuel

    Okay. Obviously the media is painting these two candidates as deeply flawed. Here's a solution. Obama, 4 more years !!!!! :)

    Living Wild Photography

    That's about as much a solution as Titanic backing up and them ramming the iceberg again would be a solution to its problem from the first impact.

    John McCormack, Cairo University

    Whether she intended to use a private server and/or was briefed about the Department's policies and procedures is one thing. Surely the State Department has records of whether HRC was briefed or not and the main question is whether she then decided not to comply.

    If the globalist media wasn't bought, they would have such information in a few days from deciding to find such information which should be available. I have worked for government departments before not only are policies and procedures issued to you and/or read out to you, you are also required to sign on the dotted line that you have understood them. Whats happening around HRC is just a shameful cover-up and surely the people know it by now?

    Chuck Drake, University of Toledo

    Actually she should have been briefed when she was the FIrst Lady..and then again when she was a senator..and then again when she was secretary of state.
    Sam Thornton, Fort Worth, Texas
    Yes, this is someone we want to be President. Someone who can't rememeber security breifings. "The extraordinary disclosure was made as the FBI published details of its agents' interview with the former secretary of state which was conducted days before the agency's director ruled out any charges against her.

    Agents noted that Clinton could not recall being trained to handle classified materials as secretary of state, and had no memory of anyone raising concerns about the sensitive information she received at her private address.

    The Democratic presidential nominee also 'did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system,' the FBI's report declared.

    She did not recall all of the briefings she received on handling sensitive information as she made the transition from her post as secretary of state, due to a concussion she suffered in 2012."

    Nodens Caedmon

    "Couldn't recall all briefings on preserving documents."

    Who needs to remember security briefings definitely not someone running for president.

    David Hennessey, University of Minnesota Duluth

    Why even mention the concussion? She can't remember more than 10% of her briefings even if she is far above average, she would have to review the notes to jog her memory for even partial recall as everyone must do when asked to testify about events like this.

    With the number of briefings and variety of subjects, her memory is the least useful way to recreate those meetings, with or without a concussion, if ten people at the meetings recounted their memories, it would sound like ten different meetings, the notes and minutes are the only reliable sources.

    For some important decisions, she might remember quite a bit but there are natural limits to memory that are quite severe unless you have unique innate skills.

    Alan Davidson, IT Technician at Geeks on Site
    Queue health rumors again(Re: concussion). Also, I like how the I don't recall defense worked just fine for regean and Iran contra, but republicans don't apply the same standard when concerning Clinton

    Nancy Gilbert

    Awww. I see.. She's in perfect health but when it is convenient she will use her illnesses to her advantage. Got it.

    Obviously the powers that be want Hillary. That's why we've got a choice between her and trump. As bad as she is, she looks like a saint next that madman. Ha! For now on I will be sitting next to the overweight peeps. That way I will look slim.

    Charlotte Scot, Victoria College of Art - University Canada West

    From Wikileaks: Note on Clinton FBI report: Our records show that Clinton sent & received thousands of cables with "(C)" paragraph classification markings.
    The FBI report, although not fatal for Democratic loyalists but I think it is devastating to average Americans.

    Living Wild Photography

    So, what about the bit where she claimed she turned over ALL work-related e-mails, yet we keep finding ones that weren't turned over, and even more that were deleted with specialty wiping software?

    Mani Rand

    Wow! this is so damaging! cant' remember anything , lost so many phones and didn't know how to read a classified documents! She is unfit to run a lemonde stand! With all her handlers and executive assistance and Huma for 24/7, you would think she will know more!
    Wenai Prantamporn, Las Vegas, Nevada
    Below is the list of things Clinton could not recall in the FBI interview:
    1. When she received security clearance
    2. Being briefed on how to handle classified material
    3. How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
    4. Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material
    5. How to select a target for a drone strike
    6. How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
    7. The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
    8. Why she didn't get a secure Blackberry
    9. Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
    10. Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
    11. Getting guidance from state on email policy
    12. Who had access to her Blackberry account
    13. The process for deleting her emails
    14. Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
    15. Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
    16. Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
    17. Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
    18. Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
    19. Using an iPad mini
    20. An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
    21. Jacob Sullivan using personal email
    22. State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
    23. Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
    24. Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
    25. Being read out of her clearance
    26. Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRCoffice.com account
    Kevin Potts
    Now let's watch all the Libs quantify all of this LOL. She could run naked through Times Square and the Huffpos would somehow justify her actions as bold and showing off her leadership capabilities
    Dean Smith, Inventory Consultant at Paramount Coffee Company
    You can all sleep good tonight. Once all your children die in the wars she wants to continue she will say, "in hindsight, I regretted using bombs on all those innocent kids while president." Kudos DNC.

    Jessica Mantoani, School of Bob Dylan

    Hillary's new defense: If you've had a FALL you can't RECALL. Where is Johnny Cohran when you need him? LOL-
    Jan Kaczmarczyk, University of Maryland
    Holy crap, - Clinton was also asked about the (C) markings within several documents that FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress represented classified information. Clinton told the FBI she was unaware of what the marking meant. "Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the interview notes stated. Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not recall all of the briefings she received due to a concussion she suffered in 2012. This woman is unfit period. http://www.cnn.com/.../hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/
    Jan Kaczmarczyk, University of Maryland
    Kat Hathaway - Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she lacked recollection of key events. She said she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the FBI's notes of their July 2 interview with Clinton. The notes revealed that Clinton relied heavily on her staff and aides determining what was classified information and how it should be handled.

    http://www.cnn.com/.../hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/

    What was your question?

    Robert Thompson

    So bringing up her health issues us an "unfounded attack" but then she uses those very same health issues to cover her ass?

    Felix Diaz, The City College of New York

    We invaded Iraq in 2003 GWB was reelected in 2004, this peanuts compared to that.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Clinton Email Hairball

    Notable quotes:
    "... National Review ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "We are also reminded that Clinton repeatedly vowed she'd surrendered every single government business-related email upon the State Department's request" [ New York Post ].

    This was an extraordinary lie: She hoarded and attempted to destroy thousands of emails which, like the one The Post describes, involved government business - some of it highly sensitive and significant (such as the 30 emails related to the Benghazi massacre that the FBI recovered but the State Department has yet to disclose). Converting government records to one's own use and destroying them are serious crimes, even if no classified information is involved.

    I rarely find myself agreeing with a National Review columnist writing in the New York Post, but "converting government records to one's own use and destroying them": Yes, exactly .

    [Sep 02, 2016] Someone using Tor breached email account on Clinton server

    Notable quotes:
    "... According to the bureau's review of server logs, someone accessed an email account on Jan. 5, 2013, using three IP addresses known to serve as Tor "exit nodes" - jumping-off points from the anonymity network to the public internet. ..."
    www.politico.com
    An unknown individual using the encrypted privacy tool Tor to hide their tracks accessed an email account on a Clinton family server, the FBI revealed Friday.

    The incident appears to be the first confirmed intrusion into a piece of hardware associated with Hillary Clinton's private email system, which originated with a server established for her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

    The FBI disclosed the event in its newly released report on the former secretary of state's handling of classified information.

    According to the bureau's review of server logs, someone accessed an email account on Jan. 5, 2013, using three IP addresses known to serve as Tor "exit nodes" - jumping-off points from the anonymity network to the public internet.

    The owner of the account, whose name is redacted in the report, said she was "not familiar with nor [had] she ever used Tor software."

    [Aug 30, 2016] Mark Cuban Its Not Hillarys Fault Her Email Server Wasnt Set Up Right

    Notable quotes:
    "... the person who set up her email should have set up "filters and alerts that said any email that came with a classified header." ..."
    "... You know, create an alert that says this shouldn't be on this system and deal with it so that you don't, you know, consume it in this way. But the administrator didn't do it and she didn't know to do it because the whole time she had a very specific process in place. If it is classified, print it out and let me deal with it in hard copy, which is why she had complete confidence to say, 'I never dealt with anything marked classified.'" ..."
    Breitbart

    Monday night on "CNN Tonight," supporter of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, billionaire Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, said Clinton did nothing wrong because the person who set up her email should have set up "filters and alerts that said any email that came with a classified header."

    ...

    And so you go - look, I was in this business. My first career, my first company, all I did was install local area networks and messaging and email systems and I had my own personal server in my office until about 2010, and so I've been through this whole process. And so she talks to the admin who is responsible, she doesn't know any better, and takes his or her advice."

    "I think it was a he," he continued. "And it just so happens that he was given immunity by the Justice Department so we haven't had a chance to hear any of this. But for that personal server, if that admin had done his job like I had done my job doing the same thing, I would have set up filters and alerts that said any email that came with a classified header or any of the determined classified markings like the little 'c' Director Comey mentioned, pop it out, right?

    You know, create an alert that says this shouldn't be on this system and deal with it so that you don't, you know, consume it in this way. But the administrator didn't do it and she didn't know to do it because the whole time she had a very specific process in place. If it is classified, print it out and let me deal with it in hard copy, which is why she had complete confidence to say, 'I never dealt with anything marked classified.'"

    [Aug 29, 2016] Is Huma still under the gun for emailgate scandal?

    Notable quotes:
    "... With Huma becoming a lightening rod of the whole access issue, the cynical part of me figures this is not an ill timed, but well timed family tragedy with a sympathetic hard working mistreated wife… ..."
    "... It isn't that it happened. It is the timing. ..."
    "... Oh for heaven's sake! Clearly the man is compulsive, he will never stop. And he is willing to risk job, career and family for his addiction. Kudos to Huma for putting the well-being of her child first and leaving him sort out his addiction by himself .! ..."
    "... "I think it's a little – it's often a little more challenging when you're in politics because your private life, and I think everybody craves their own privacy, and so I think your private life is displayed to the world in a way that you otherwise wouldn't have to deal with if one spouse is a private person and the other person's in politics as was the case certainly in my marriage," Abedin said. ..."
    "... "But I think it works if you fully support each other." During the podcast, she mentioned she is on out on the campaign trail a lot of the time and her husband helps to care for her son. " I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have the support of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly can so I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said. ..."
    "... "I miss my son but I don't worry about him because I know between this little village we've created between Anthony and my in-laws and my mom and our families and this wonderful woman who we have helping us I can go out and be the best professional woman that I can be because I have that support." ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Pat , August 29, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    With Huma becoming a lightening rod of the whole access issue, the cynical part of me figures this is not an ill timed, but well timed family tragedy with a sympathetic hard working mistreated wife…

    I mean if the mayoral campaign blowup of his career comeback for the same issues… (done on camera no less).

    Pat , August 29, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    No, it isn't beyond credulity. I never said he didn't do it. But apparently this has been going on since last year with a woman he has never met. And unless I missed something, she leaked this. Why out this now? Other times he goofed and it was public, OR was done to upset his comeback weak though it might have been. But why now? At some point in the next few days some advantage for the woman may change my mind, but otherwise it is very convenient.

    It isn't that it happened. It is the timing.

    JTMcPhee , August 29, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Read the comments on the little Abedin story, and one has to conclude that our species is mostly Fokked. I particularly like this one:

    Oh for heaven's sake! Clearly the man is compulsive, he will never stop. And he is willing to risk job, career and family for his addiction. Kudos to Huma for putting the well-being of her child first and leaving him sort out his addiction by himself .!

    Which follows this text from the article:

    "I think it's a little – it's often a little more challenging when you're in politics because your private life, and I think everybody craves their own privacy, and so I think your private life is displayed to the world in a way that you otherwise wouldn't have to deal with if one spouse is a private person and the other person's in politics as was the case certainly in my marriage," Abedin said.

    "But I think it works if you fully support each other."

    During the podcast, she mentioned she is on out on the campaign trail a lot of the time and her husband helps to care for her son.

    " I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have the support of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly can so I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said.

    "I miss my son but I don't worry about him because I know between this little village we've created between Anthony and my in-laws and my mom and our families and this wonderful woman who we have helping us I can go out and be the best professional woman that I can be because I have that support."

    Big Jim Thompson, former US Attorney in Chicago and former Governor of Illinois, got married to a former assistant US attorney and a child was somehow produced. Little Samantha was, like the marriage from the gossip I heard and pontificating in the papers, just popped out to scotch rumors about Thompson's polarity.

    The salient part of the tale is that while Thompson was out campaigning with his spouse, with Baby Samantha in tow, neither parent noticed that the kid was, like, seriously sick, fever as I recall of over 104 degrees, and some brave campaign worker had to do the parenting thing and see the kid got medical attention.

    Reported that Thompson et ux were irked that this threw the campaign schedule off. Did not keep him from getting elected… This guy was also on the "9/11 Commission," and has lots of other notable corruption connection credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Thompson

    One claim to fame was obtaining conviction of former Governor Otto Kerner for public corruption, taking race track stock for helping the track owners get more racing dates. Chief witness was Marge Everett, attorney for the racetrack corporation. She got disbarred in IL, so Thompson flew her personally to CA and testified on her behalf before the "fitness committee" of the CA bar, that she was an upright moral person fit to be admitted to the CA bar. Shortly after, as I recall, ol' Marge got in trouble for peddling stock and other valuables to the CA officials who oversaw the doling out of racing dates (ka-ching!) to her new client, a CA racetrack corporation…

    It never ends. Impossible to even try to keep up…

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 29, 2016 at 5:14 pm

    "I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have the support of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly can so I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said.

    With Basic Income, maybe she can stay home as well…

    [Aug 27, 2016] Hillary Clinton Had Private Server To Hide Clinton Foundation Dealings

    Notable quotes:
    "... The issue we've always asked ourselves here is, why was she hiding this in the first place? Why did she have a private server? Obviously it was concealing, what was she concealing? And the most obvious possible answer was the [Clinton] Foundation. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.westernjournalism.com

    CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, we've been speculating for a year about what the email scandal was all about and I think we were diverted for a year about the classification. It's a real issue, serious issue, but that was never the issue.

    The issue we've always asked ourselves here is, why was she hiding this in the first place? Why did she have a private server? Obviously it was concealing, what was she concealing? And the most obvious possible answer was the [Clinton] Foundation.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Gowdy: Clintons Method Of Deletion Proves Nature Of Her Emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... The clearest evidence that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had something to hide in her emails is the way she made sure their contents stayed hidden, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. said Thursday. ..."
    "... Clinton famously laughed off a question about whether she had wiped her private email server. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.westernjournalism.com

    The clearest evidence that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had something to hide in her emails is the way she made sure their contents stayed hidden, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. said Thursday.

    Clinton famously laughed off a question about whether she had wiped her private email server.

    "What? Like with a cloth or something?" she asked. "I don't know how it works digitally at all."

    [Aug 25, 2016] FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To Prevent Recovery And Hide Traces Of Deleted Emails Zero Hedge

    Aug 25, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Pomkiwi GreatUncle Aug 25, 2016 7:02 PM As a matter of habit I run CC Cleaner after I close my browser. Imagine my surprise when I get a message 'Firefox is still running - needs to be closed to continue cleaning'. I click ok close it then get a message ' not closing would you like to force it to close?' That works - perhaps I should disconnect my router to be sure lol.
    GreatUncle css1971 Aug 25, 2016 6:21 PM Got to admit I use CC cleaner and leave it to always destructively clean. Then by the time more data is overewritten hundreds of times you exceed the 20 layer or so limit of being able to peal bakc the layer.

    Microsoft is lazy or more to the point it intentionally leaves you exposed for failing to do this as standard.

    Makes the spooks job alot harder.

    Dre4dwolf Aug 25, 2016 5:53 PM All the emails are out there on the internet, the server had no encryption, out there somewhere is some nerd with all of Hillary Clintons Emails hanging on his wall as a testament to his great conquest over " the server ".

    Hillary Clintons emails are like pokemon, they are all over the place, you just gota "catch um all " by finding people willing to "trade".

    Also, there are always two copies on an email chain

    1 copy on Hillary Clintons Server

    and

    1 copy on the recipient/sending server, you need two servers to have a " back and forth" conversation on the internet between two different email domains.

    So one way to get all the emails would be:

    1) Compile a list of known email contacts from the pool of emails you already have

    2) Get a judge to sign a warrant to force the domains / hosting companies of those email contacts to turn over their data

    3) ? Profit as 90% of the missing emails are recovered?

    There is a very small chance that the 30,000 emails missing were each from 30,000 unique people.

    Most likeley its less than 1000 contacts and most of them will have benign emails associated with them that were not deleted (so they are in the contact list pool).

    The NSA has all this data, everyone knows the NSA has all this data, thus far most of the leaked emails PROBABLY COME FROM NSA AGENTS who are concerned about the future of the country.

    asierguti Aug 25, 2016 5:48 PM I worked for a big data recovery company, and there is more effective and easier way to destoy de data. Just take out the hard drive, open it and scratch every platter. That's it, the data is now gone forever, unless you (insert the NSA here) have a copy.

    I rembeber we had a law enforcement agency coming with a hard drive from a guy they wanted to prosecute. That bastard opened the hard drive, scratched every platter, even bent them, and smashed every single chip.

    Rubicon727 Aug 25, 2016 5:57 PM Here's what one website questioning WHO can call for and "Independent Counsels, Special Prosecutors, Special Counsels, and the Role of Congress
    | By Jack Maskell | Legislative Attorney | June 20, 2013 |

    .. Congress may also have a legislative role in designing a statutory mechanism for the appointment of "independent counsels" or "special prosecutors," as it did in title VI of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Under the provisions of that law relating to the appointment of "independent counsels" (called "special prosecutors" until 1983), the Attorney General was directed to petition a special three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals to name an independent counsel upon the receipt of credible allegations of criminal misconduct by certain high-level personnel in the executive branch of the federal government whose prosecution by the Administration might give rise to an appearance of a conflict of interest. In 1999, Congress allowed the "independent counsel" provisions of law to expire. Upon the expiration of the law in June of 1999, no new "independent counsels" or "special prosecutors" may be appointed by a three-judge panel upon the application of the Attorney General.

    The Attorney General retains the general authority to designate or name individuals as "special counsels" to conduct investigations or prosecutions of particular matters or individuals on behalf of the United States. Under regulations issued by the Attorney General in 1999, the Attorney General may appoint a "special counsel" from outside of the Department of Justice who acts as a special employee of the Department of Justice under the direction of the Attorney General.

    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43112.pdf"

    Kirk2NCC1701 Aug 25, 2016 6:02 PM I see what should be at least one obvious case of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

    If Comey has any brains, balls or ethics left.

    And this is from a guy who had Religious Studies at college.

    Or do we need to wait for another tarmac encounter between Bill and Lowrenta? Dre4dwolf Aug 25, 2016 6:03 PM https://media.makeameme.org/created/i-cant-see-ftp6fy.jpg Neochrome Aug 25, 2016 6:06 PM no "intent" to hide or obfuscate any of the deleted emails

    To be honest, her intent was to "suicide" that server, not just obfuscate the E-mails...

    DuneCreature Aug 25, 2016 6:11 PM

    The NSA has all of Killary's Emails in triplicate. .. If they were encrypted in transit they can have them cracked and broken in about 10 minutes apiece.

    They can search them and have them and all metadata that goes with them in a few clicks of a mouse. .. They know what routers the Emails went through on their way to China and Soros.

    Hackers, my ass, that's what the NSA does and it has a budget of billions and billions. ... What do people not understand about spying on the web?

    Live Hard, If The FBI Wants Emails They Dial NSA-2001 And Ask For Alex, Die Free

    ~ DC v2.0

    smacker Aug 25, 2016 6:20 PM I've had BleachBit running on my system for a fair while and never been that impressed with it, although all of these programs delete some stuff.

    A far better one that actually works well to clean stuff up is:

    " Nirsoft Clean After Me " 100% free, portable/non-install and small.

    (Nirsoft have a huge range of small free progs for doing all sorts of things)

    Still, if the Clintonista had BleachBit running, she had intent .

    LN Aug 25, 2016 6:22 PM " FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery" "

    How does one spell CO-CONSPIRATORS ?

    LN

    Stan522 Aug 25, 2016 7:27 PM I looked up BleachBit and here's part of the description....

    "Beyond simply deleting files, BleachBit includes advanced features such as shredding files to prevent recovery , wiping free disk space to hide traces of files deleted by other applications, and vacuuming Firefox to make it faster. Better than free, BleachBit is open source."

    Besides for nefarious reasons, why else would someone use this type of software? And to top it off, this software is open source shareware... in her world that means free.....

    [Aug 24, 2016] That is why she went to the extraordinary step of deleting everything the high-ranking source told The ENQUIRER

    That's a wild rumor from yellow rag, but it tends to explain the extreme stupidity of Hillary behaviour with "bathroom" server... See also http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/hillary-clinton-lesbian/
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary made the huge mistake of mixing public and private messages while using her personalized email server – before risking a massive scandal by refusing to make the documents public. ..."
    "... Hillary is particularly concerned about intimate emails to longtime aide Huma Abedin – who married U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner in a ceremony that many ridiculed as a political arrangement. ..."
    Apr 15, 2015 | blindgossip.com

    From [ National Enquirer ]

    Hillary Clinton isn't just caught in a political scandal over her missing emails from her stint as secretary of state – she's also terrified of personal revelations about a secret lesbian lifestyle!

    Now a world-exclusive investigation by The National ENQUIRER reveals that some of the presidential candidate's famously "deleted" emails are packed full of lesbian references and her lovers' names.

    "I don't think she's so concerned about emails referring to her as secretly gay," said a Clinton insider. "That's been out for years – her real fear is that the names of some of her lovers would be made public!"

    The ENQUIRER learned the list of Hillary's lesbian lovers includes a beauty in her early 30s who has often traveled with Hillary; a popular TV and movie star; the daughter of a top government official; and a stunning model who got a career boost after allegedly sleeping with Hillary. Hillary made the huge mistake of mixing public and private messages while using her personalized email server – before risking a massive scandal by refusing to make the documents public.

    "That's clearly why she went to the extraordinary step of deleting everything," the high-ranking source told The ENQUIRER .

    Hillary is particularly concerned about intimate emails to longtime aide Huma Abedin – who married U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner in a ceremony that many ridiculed as a political arrangement.

    [Aug 23, 2016] Congress subpoenaed three technology companies involved in Clinton bathroom server setup and maintenance

    Notable quotes:
    "... congressional Republicans subpoenaed three technology companies involved in her unusual home server setup. ..."
    "... The subpoenas were issued after the companies did not cooperate with a House committee's investigation into the issue, said House Science panel Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas. ..."
    www.cnn.com

    Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill Monday, congressional Republicans subpoenaed three technology companies involved in her unusual home server setup.

    The subpoenas were issued after the companies did not cooperate with a House committee's investigation into the issue, said House Science panel Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Hillary Clinton is Blaming Colin Powell for her Private Email Problem - The Atlantic

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The truth is, she was using it for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did." (Powell added, "It doesn't bother me. But it's okay; I'm free.") ..."
    "... The Clintons' blatantly dishonest attempts to cover-up and deny their scandals are almost always worse than the scandals themselves. They are shameless and believe they are above reproach ..."
    "... Ha. You realize that the first time that Hillary Clinton used the term "vast right wing conspiracy" was regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal? How did the GOP force Bill to take advantage of a subordinate? ..."
    www.theatlantic.com

    When People spoke with Powell Sunday night in the Hamptons, he was blunter. "Her people have been trying to pin it on me," he said. "The truth is, she was using it for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did." (Powell added, "It doesn't bother me. But it's okay; I'm free.")

    JerseyCowboy > xplosneer

    The Clintons' blatantly dishonest attempts to cover-up and deny their scandals are almost always worse than the scandals themselves. They are shameless and believe they are above reproach.

    spudwhisperer > JerseyCowboy

    I disagree - I think the scandals would be disqualifying and liable for prosecution even if there were no cover-up.

    mtbr1975 > xplosneer

    I think a lot of that developed because of all the attempts to pin scandals on her... Can you really blame her? Look at all the garbage she's been accused of... Everything from murder to enabling Bill Clinton to cheat on her.

    Uncle Luie > mtbr1975

    100% true! From her lawyer billings in the early 80s, to Whitewater to Vince Foster, Travel-gate and on and on. The most accurate thing she ever said was about the "vast right wing conspiracy", also 100% true, just like Mconnell's plan to oppose and obstruct everything Obama tries to accomplish. These people are dirt

    oracle > Uncle Luie

    "The most accurate thing she ever said was about the "vast right wing conspiracy", also 100% true"

    Ha. You realize that the first time that Hillary Clinton used the term "vast right wing conspiracy" was regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal? How did the GOP force Bill to take advantage of a subordinate?

    Disqus 30 > qaz zaq

    Don't forget she's the devil and founded ISIS. Those are the best ones.

    Lexi > Disqus

    It's true trolly. Proof is all over the place. Wow- you are defending her like she's a saint. Nobody is doing that. You seem full of morality (Not) to defend a serial liar who corrupted our country in the worst possible ways. Sad you.

    bookish1 > mtbr1975

    Sorry, but it was Hillary who decided to set up her own email server, send classified material, refuse to authorize a Benghazi rescue mission, make millions off the Russian uranium deal, and "mistakenly" delete 30,000 emails. If she wasn't so inept and corrupt, she wouldn't be hit with all these "scandals."
    See how that works?

    jar > xplosneer

    This one is particularly mendacious as she has previously publicly stated that she chose the private server so she would only have to carry one device. Of what relevance is Powell's prior practice if this was her motivation? The fact is that she will throw up as many excuses and deflections as she can, without any regard for the consistency of her arguments. This is why over 60% of the American people find her dishonest and untrustworthy (or, as a recent poll indicated, only 11% of the public finds her honest and trustworthy).

    Yoch Man > Lew

    The world has NOT changed much in 25 years and being young has nothing to do with it. I have worked in IT for 26 years at a state level. If I had done what Clinton did back in 1989 I would have been fired and gone to jail for several reasons. aside from top secret or classified information. FERPA and the Federal records act are just two reasons. The Federal records act is as old as 1950. Every single document that is compiled on work computers OR work hours belongs to the state or Federal government. I also have an obligation to protect emails addresses, employees that I work with. I must keep their personal information confidential. Add on top of that a nations secrets.

    In 1995 Bill Clinton passed legislation and clarified the Federal records act and classified information. See state department manual "5 FAM". It has been there for 21 years. Hillary Clinton is lying to you.

    DB > Lew • 7 hours ago

    Clinton hired her own IT boy. He was not in his 60s. You can make excuses for her age all you like..... but it doesn't work. Btw, I have friends in their 60s who run major IT depts. Being old yourself, you should know people can stay sharp barring some physical/cognitive issues.

    Lew > bookish1

    How would you grant control of 1/5 of Americas Uranium? You believe if you owned 20% of Berkshire Hathaway you'd start pushing Buffets buttons?
    You think you'd be telling the board; I'll be taking home six tractor trailer loads of wrigley gum for my son's birthday party?
    You think you'd be telling "fruit of the loom" how to put a better cheaper elastic on their underwear?...
    This company will share in Corp. profit, little more...

    Tyfereth > Admiral Nelson

    Loathing Donald Trump and finding Hillary Clinton's serial mendaciousness and corruption upsetting are not mutually exclusive propositions. There is literally no one who Hillary Clinton won't blame to avoid personal responsibility for her actions, and while it may not matter to her supporters that she's throwing General Powell under the bus, its a sign that we are in for 8 years of Hillary Clinton making poor decisions, and deflecting blame onto others.

    Raubüberfall

    Hillary's reason for using a private email server was so she could control that source of information, which the public and other State Dept. officials would now have access to only through her. A shadow Secretary of State, that is, unaccountable to president, public, and law enforcement alike.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Clinton Finds New People To Blame For Email Scandal

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now the former first lady is refusing to even take blame for the use of the server, saying that the practice has been around for decades and that another former secretary of state. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has been an expert at bobbing and weaving around controversy during this election cycle, but the sheer magnitude of her recent scandals may end up blindsiding her with excuses this sloppy. ..."
    The Unofficial Megyn Kelly

    Hillary Clinton has insisted from day one that her illegal use of a private email server was no big deal at all, even if it put many Americans' lives at risk.

    Now the former first lady is refusing to even take blame for the use of the server, saying that the practice has been around for decades and that another former secretary of state.

    "Now, it turns out Hillary's trying to push blame for the whole fiasco on someone else entirely: Colin Powell. As the New York Times writes: Pressed by the F.B.I.about her email practices at the State Department, Hillary Clinton told investigators that former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had advised her to use a personal email account."

    Colin Powell has denied using a private email account for anything other than non-classified material.

    "And as we know, Hillary did use that email server for sending and receiving classified information, while Powell did not. This is yet another case of Hillary trying to push her poor judgement onto someone else. Unfortunately for her, Colin Powell isn't willing to quietly take the fall for her."

    Hillary Clinton has been an expert at bobbing and weaving around controversy during this election cycle, but the sheer magnitude of her recent scandals may end up blindsiding her with excuses this sloppy.

    [Aug 08, 2016] The subtext is that it was Clinton's carelessness with classified material which got him killed

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Cortes , August 7, 2016 at 6:06 pm
    The narrative for the opening chapter of WWIII beginneth like this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/07/iran-executes-nuclear-scientist-shahram-amiri-returned-country-from-us

    Persian nukes? Check

    R2P? Check.

    Crazy mullahs? Check.

    Et cetera

    marknesop , August 7, 2016 at 8:50 pm
    The subtext is that it was Clinton's carelessness with classified material which got him killed. And the probability that the reason for his return to Tehran was that his minders had assessed it was now safe for him to go back and be Washington's ear in Tehran.

    [Aug 02, 2016] NSA Architect: Agency Has ALL of Clinton's Deleted Emails

    A very important, informative interview. Outlines complexity of challenges of modern society and the real power of "alphabet agencies" in the modern societies (not only in the USA) pretty vividly. You need to listen to it several times to understand better the current environment.
    Very sloppy security was the immanent feature both of Hillary "bathroom" server and DNC emails hacks. So there probably were multiple parties that has access to those data not a single one (anti Russian hysteria presumes that the only party are Russian and that's silly; what about China, Iran and Israel?). Russian government would not use a "known attack" as they would immediately be traced back.
    Anything, any communications that goes over the network are totally. 100% exposed to NSA data collection infrastructure. Clinton email messages are not exception. NSA does have information on them, including all envelopes (the body of the message might be encrypted and that's slightly complicate the matter, but there is no signs that Clinton of DNC used encryption of them)
    NSA has the technical capabilities to trace the data back and they most probably have most if not all of deleted mail. The "total surveillance", the total data mailing used by NSA definitely includes the mail envelopes which makes possible to enumerate all the missing mails.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday. ..."
    "... Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists." ..."
    "... "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA. Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
    "... Listen to the full interview here: ... ..."
    "... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer ..."
    www.breitbart.com
    The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.

    Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National Committee's server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned about Clinton's compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.

    Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.

    He was speaking on this reporter's Sunday radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio," broadcast on New York's AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia's NewsTalk 990 AM.

    Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

    Stated Binney:

    "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA. Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."

    "So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.

    Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.

    "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."

    Listen to the full interview here: ...

    Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.

    And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.

    The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:

    GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).

    Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

    [Jul 14, 2016] Hillary (while Sec. of State) forced the resignation, in June of 2012, of US Ambassador to Kenya J. Scott Gration for using unauthorized (personal) email account to conduct official government business

    This is from comments
    Notable quotes:
    "... I guess the ' Queen ' is exempt. ..."
    "... Source: Washington Post (hardly a conservative newspaper) June 29, 2012 ..."
    "... even her dumbest, I mean most loyal followers know she is a living double standard ..."
    "... 65% of americans (across the board) dont trust hillary........lmao ..."
    "... neither do the rest but cannot admit it ..."
    www.foxnews.com

    Sanders supporters lash out following Clinton endorsement Fox News

    GP Russell

    * This is the topper, on the whole email server issue -

    Interesting (and inconvenient) fact:

    Hillary (while Sec. of State) forced the resignation, in June of 2012, of US Ambassador to Kenya J. Scott Gration , (get this) after the Inspector General found that he was using an unauthorized (personal) email account to conduct official government business … sound familiar?!?

    I guess the ' Queen ' is exempt.

    Source: Washington Post (hardly a conservative newspaper) June 29, 2012

    viablanca

    @GP Russell well yeah, even her dumbest, I mean most loyal followers know she is a living double standard

    mryummie

    65% of americans (across the board) dont trust hillary........lmao

    viablanca

    @mryummie neither do the rest but cannot admit it

    [Jul 08, 2016] Despite FBI findings, experts say Clinton's email likely hacked

    POLITICO
    Wright noted that while the State Department's information technology budget trails many other departments, Clinton's arrangement was likely still more vulnerable because it was administered by many people without a cybersecurity background.

    "When you take a bad situation and put something else bad on top of it you've made it far worse," he told POLITICO.

    And the countries interested in going after Clinton's emails all possess advanced cyber capabilities, experts said. The federal government has determined that Chinese hackers have been snooping on personal email accounts of top U.S. officials for years and just last year Secretary of State John Kerry said it is "likely" that Russian and Chinese hackers are reading his emails.

    As for Israel, hackers would have targeted Clinton's emails to glean her positions on Middle East issues, according to Wright.

    "They're friendly … but even friendlies can get aggressive on spying on each other," he said.

    Clinton also accessed her private email "extensively" while traveling, Comey said, "including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries."

    This practice considerably heightened the risk of compromise, particularly if Clinton used unencrypted pathways to access her email while abroad, said Jason Straight, chief privacy officer of UnitedLex, which advises corporations on cybersecurity practices.

    Comey also said FBI investigators determined that hackers had infiltrated the private commercial email accounts of people that regularly emailed Clinton's personal account, opening up another potential entry point for digital snoops.

    The FBI chief didn't name these outside contacts, leading some, including Wright, to wonder if there would be further investigation into the emails of top aides, like Cheryl Mills or Huma Abedin.

    But while there are considerable factors pointing to a likely intrusion, there may never be a smoking gun, according to specialists.

    "The bottom line is that we will likely never know for certain whether her server was compromised or not," said Straight.

    [Jul 08, 2016] 12 highlights of FBI Director Comey's testimony on Clinton email investigation WJLA

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton's personal system did not have full-time security staff ensuring that its protection was up to date. ..."
    "... Comey said as many as ten people who did not have clearance had access to the system. ..."
    "... Unconfirmed media reports had indicated that the FBI investigation spread to look at the activities of the Clinton Foundation as well ..."
    wjla.com

    House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) formally requested Thursday that Clinton's security clearance be revoked because of the careless handling of classified material that the FBI investigation revealed.

    ... ... ...

    While Comey maintained that nobody else would face criminal prosecution for doing the same things Clinton did, he emphasized in his testimony that there would be consequences if a current government employee did it. This could include termination, administrative sanctions, or losing clearance.

    He refused to definitively assess a hypothetical situation where someone like Clinton was seeking security clearance for an FBI job, though.

    ... ... ...

    Gmail: One aspect of Clinton's actions that Comey said was particularly troubling was that he could not completely exclude the possibility that her email account was hacked. Unlike the State Department or even email providers like Gmail, Clinton's personal system did not have full-time security staff ensuring that its protection was up to date.

    ... ... ...

    Clearance: Clinton and her top aides had security clearance to view the classified material that was improperly being transmitted on the server, but Comey said as many as ten people who did not have clearance had access to the system.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton Foundation: Unconfirmed media reports had indicated that the FBI investigation spread to look at the activities of the Clinton Foundation as well

    [Jul 08, 2016] Representative Gary Palmer: she is stunningly incompetent in handling e-mail and classified information

    From comments: "Just last year: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military ... /30862027/ Granted that was two a year probation plus forever not being allowed a security clearance but there is no substantial difference between between their violations. In fact her violations were several magnitudes worse. "
    Notable quotes:
    "... Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?"-meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of State. "Yes, she was," Comey replied. "Good grief," exclaimed Mulvaney. ..."
    "... Under further questioning from Chaffetz, Comey said that the FBI did not look at civil issues, such as violations of the Freedom of Information Act and federal records law, nor did they look at whether Clinton had committed perjury before Congress in sworn testimony wherein she said that she had neither sent nor received classified information via her e-mail. ..."
    "... Comey also said that Clinton's mail server was "less secure" than Gmail. "Individual accounts might be less secure, but Google does regular security checks and updates," he explained. Clinton's mail server, set up by people working for former President Bill Clinton's foundation, sat in a basement of the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York. ..."
    "... He's calling her incompetent, stupid, careless, reckless even...but just saying he doesn't believe they can charge her based on the evidence they reviewed. He even said that prior to this investigation he would have thought that any reasonable person would have known this, but now he is not so sure. ..."
    "... "Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be President." -- Edward Snowden ..."
    "... Between a rock and hard place... On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law applies to everyone, and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful woman in the world and possibly the next president. For someone who wanted software backdoors so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person. ..."
    "... This seems like a situation where an independent attorney should have been brought on. Why the fuck would the FBI have a role in determining whether or not to prosecute? Isn't that the DOJ's role? A role best delegated to an independent attorney in cases like this? ..."
    "... Proving criminal intent was never necessary considering the standard here should be gross negligence, and even though actual harm was done when her server according to experts was almost certainly hacked, her not being indicted is about what anybody who has been paying attention to the bishops of the democratic party circling her and anointing her while chanting "All really do like her. None have any issues with trusting her... ..."
    "... In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?", meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of Stat. ..."
    "... People with security clearances are not generally prosecuted for unintentionally mishandling classified documents. If it is a significant level of negligence, they lose their security clearance and therefore their job and the ability to hold a similar job. ..."
    "... Clinton's intentional use of her own email server takes negligence to new heights. While I don't think she had any justifiable reason to set up her own mail server and we have good reason to suspect that it was done to avoid oversight, it doesn't seem to have been done with the intention of mishandling classified docs. With Clinton we once again have evidence that she is trying to hide her actions, but no clear evidence of criminal intent. Ideally she would lose her ability to handle classified material and be banned from any position requiring access to classified information. However, negligence in handling the nation's secrets isn't spelled out in the Constitution as disqualifying someone for the office of President. You might think that no one would vote for someone who's been proved untrustworthy and negligent on this scale, but that simply isn't the case. ..."
    "... Other people who negligently handle classified information also do face serious consequences. They lose their security clearance. That means they lose their job and can't get another one like it. In some cases that is pretty much career ending. ..."
    Jul 07, 2016 | Ars Technica

    House Oversight Committee grills Comey over Clinton e-mail findings by Sean Gallagher

    "The FBI's recommendation is surprising and confusing," Chaffetz said in a statement announcing the hearing. "The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law. Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable. Congress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI's investigation. I thank Director Comey for accepting the invitation to publicly answer these important questions."

    Update, 11:30 am: Eight e-mail threads of the more than 30,000 messages stored on Clinton's server included conversations containing what was determined by State Department and Intelligence Community review to be of the highest level of classification (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information). But that information wasn't marked as such-and much of it was sent to Clinton by her staff from the State Department's unclassified e-mail system. Both Clinton and State Department staff sent messages stored on Clinton's server and on the State Department's unclassified e-mail system that included classified, secret, and Top Secret/SCI information, including names of intelligence community personnel.

    In response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." (Later in his testimony, Comey elaborated that the lack of sophistication was more technical than understanding the importance of protecting classified data.)

    Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?"-meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of State. "Yes, she was," Comey replied. "Good grief," exclaimed Mulvaney.

    "Based on your answers, and what we know, it seems to me that she is stunningly incompetent in handling e-mail and classified information," said Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), acknowledging Comey's honesty. "For a Secretary of State, that level of carelessness is shocking."

    Chaffetz concluded the hearing with a battery of questions over the people who had access to Clinton's e-mails, including the administrators and lawyers. "She's not the head of Fish and Wildlife," Chaffetz shouted.

    Comey responded that it wasn't unreasonable for Clinton to assume that administrators would not be reading her e-mail. And in other testimony, Comey said that because of the lack of security markings on the vast majority of the content, it was reasonable to assume Clinton believed the contents to be unclassified.

    Under further questioning from Chaffetz, Comey said that the FBI did not look at civil issues, such as violations of the Freedom of Information Act and federal records law, nor did they look at whether Clinton had committed perjury before Congress in sworn testimony wherein she said that she had neither sent nor received classified information via her e-mail.

    Update, 1:00 pm: While a statute passed by Congress in 1917 allowed for prosecution based on "gross negligence," Comey said that there were questions about the constitutionality of that statute, and a later statute for misdemeanor offenses based on negligence. He said the decision not to recommend prosecution "fits within a framework of fairness and what the Justice Department has prosecuted over the last 50 years. I don't see cases that were prosecuted on facts like these," continued Comey. "There was one time it was charged in an espionage case, and the defendant pled guilty on another charge so it was never adjudicated."

    The general tone of Comey's testimony was that while Clinton was careless with classified information, virtually none of the information that was sensitive was marked as such. Three e-mail threads included "content markers" at the beginning of paragraphs within the body of messages indicating that the paragraphs included classified information (using a letter "C" in parentheses). In response to a question from Rep. Thomas Massie, Comey said, "Someone down in the chain put a portion marking in the paragraph."

    However, as noted by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, the State Department had said that the content classification markings were in error-that they were preliminary marks from a "call sheet" for Clinton, and should not have been left in the document when it was forwarded to Clinton.

    Comey also said that Clinton's mail server was "less secure" than Gmail. "Individual accounts might be less secure, but Google does regular security checks and updates," he explained. Clinton's mail server, set up by people working for former President Bill Clinton's foundation, sat in a basement of the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York.

    As for Clinton's comments when asked if she had "wiped" her server: "Do you mean with a cloth?" Comey quipped. "I would assume it was a facetious comment about a cloth, but I wouldn't know that."

    Rommel102
    crustytheclown wrote:

    In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification."

    Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?", meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of Stat.

    "Yes, she was," Comey replied.

    This says volumes about Comey's bias and political aspirations. Shame! Shame!

    I didn't read it like that. I think Comey is honestly trying to say that Hillary is just not sophisticated about it, even after decades of being read in to the program.

    He's calling her incompetent, stupid, careless, reckless even...but just saying he doesn't believe they can charge her based on the evidence they reviewed. He even said that prior to this investigation he would have thought that any reasonable person would have known this, but now he is not so sure.

    TechTuner777Wise ,

    "Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be President." -- Edward Snowden

    iPirateEverything

    Between a rock and hard place... On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law applies to everyone, and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful woman in the world and possibly the next president. For someone who wanted software backdoors so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

    arkielArs

    This seems like a situation where an independent attorney should have been brought on. Why the fuck would the FBI have a role in determining whether or not to prosecute? Isn't that the DOJ's role? A role best delegated to an independent attorney in cases like this?

    Is an FBI recommendation a prerequisite to prosecution now? The fact that they found "extremely careless" sounds like factual information upon which charges could be brought (but then again, I don't know the letter of this law).

    IGoBoom
    > These people all wish the rules that they were privvy to the same rules as Hilary Clinton.

    The last two cases could easily have been hand waived in the same was as being "extremely careless".

    MeaildaArs

    Marid wrote:

    The decision not to prosecute was expected by anyone neutral to the politics. Proving criminal intent is a very high bar to meet. And without actual harm done the case became even more difficult who understands the politics.

    Sub this for the strike: Proving criminal intent was never necessary considering the standard here should be gross negligence, and even though actual harm was done when her server according to experts was almost certainly hacked, her not being indicted is about what anybody who has been paying attention to the bishops of the democratic party circling her and anointing her while chanting "All really do like her. None have any issues with trusting her...

    IGoBoomWise,

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/?q ... archresult Also, here is a sampling of emails tagged with the secure internet the military uses.

    Read them yourselves. Look at the actual PDFs and see all the redacted info. Read the emails and see how there is conversation that directly discusses information that was sent via secure channels.

    crustytheclown

    In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?", meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of Stat.

    "Yes, she was," Comey replied.

    This says volumes about Comey's bias and political aspirations. Shame! Shame!

    IGoBoom wrote:

    These people all wish the rules that they were privvy to the same rules as Hilary Clinton.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/co-of- ... d-1.168997 Mishandling of classified materials

    Clinton is not SoS, so they can't fire her

    Quote: https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials Mishandling of classified materials, without intent to distribute.

    Lied to the FBI, kept the materials after he was told to delete them.

    Quote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... ck-upheld/ Mishandling of classified materials, in an attempt to prevent an attack that ultimately caused US service members to die.

    Again, was fired, not criminal charges filed

    Quote: The last two cases could easily have been hand waived in the same was as being "extremely careless".

    Coriolanus A, about 19 hours ago

    I did a quick bit of research. The only instance of 18 U.S.C. 793(f) being used to prosecute anyone was U.S. v. Dedeyan, 584 F.2d 36 (4th Cir., 1978) (which was referenced by Dir. Comey in his press conference and at the House hearing).

    In that case, a civilian mathematician took some classified documents home to proofread. His cousin, who was a Soviet agent, was staying with him and took pictures of the classified work he brought home with him. The cousin later told him he copied the classified materials and gave him $1000 to keep quiet, which he did.

    In that case, the DOJ brought charges under 18 U.S.C. 793(f) because he didn't report that the classified material was copied after he learned about it, and for taking the bribe to remain silent.

    There has never been an instance of the DOJ bringing a 18 U.S.C. 793(f) case against anyone for mere gross negligence alone.

    AlexisR200X Ars Scholae Palatinae

      I have lost all faith in the democracy the US politicians spout. Sounds good but its rotten to the core with secret bullshit behind closed doors actually calling the shots. There is not much point on expecting anything meaningful to come from this circus, its just pretending to look busy and the outcome was already decided long before it even started.

      Last edited by AlexisR200X on Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:34 am

    flatrock Ars Centurion

        iPirateEverything wrote:

        Between a rock and hard place...

        On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law applies to everyone,

      and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful woman in the world and possibly the next president.

      For someone who wanted software backdoors so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

      People with security clearances are not generally prosecuted for unintentionally mishandling classified documents. If it is a significant level of negligence, they lose their security clearance and therefore their job and the ability to hold a similar job.

      Clinton's intentional use of her own email server takes negligence to new heights. While I don't think she had any justifiable reason to set up her own mail server and we have good reason to suspect that it was done to avoid oversight, it doesn't seem to have been done with the intention of mishandling classified docs. With Clinton we once again have evidence that she is trying to hide her actions, but no clear evidence of criminal intent. Ideally she would lose her ability to handle classified material and be banned from any position requiring access to classified information. However, negligence in handling the nation's secrets isn't spelled out in the Constitution as disqualifying someone for the office of President. You might think that no one would vote for someone who's been proved untrustworthy and negligent on this scale, but that simply isn't the case.

      Prosecuting Hillary would be justified. However, an argument can also be made that without evidence of clear criminal intent, that the voters should not be denied the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. Even if it's a really bad choice in my opinion.

      The decision not to prosecute can be justified and if the people want to elect someone as President who as Secretary of State put covering her ass and obscuring her actions over the security of the United States, then we will have one more example of how democracy is an imperfect system. I don't think there is a better system overall, but I of course have my own ideas on how our system could be tweaked to make it a bit better.

    benderific about 19 hours ago
    Marid wrote: The decision not to prosecute was expected by anyone neutral to the politics. Proving criminal intent is a very high bar to meet. And without actual harm done the case became even more difficult.

    Yep. Criminal intent is core to a good persecution.. Simple possession of classified information can be trouble, but these people in state all have clearances. Just from personal job experience, a staggering number of government employees have top secret clearances. It's not like stuff on a private email server was more or less safe than going through official routing. In fact, it's probably a bigger target.

    If this is about how big a liar Hilary Clinton is, I would push people to look over some of the very first presidential campaigns the USA has had to see all sorts of whoppers flying at candidates. This is business as usual. Complete with the totally uninformed public spouting expert technological opinions about things they know nothing about.

    flatrock , about 18 hours ago
    greatn wrote:

    HonorableSoul wrote:
    You all know this is a witch hunt. FBI Comey is doing the right thing in trying to be transparent so as to let voters decide. Still going to vote Hillary and not Trump.

    But this has nothing to do with voting for Hillary or Trump. I don't plan on voting for either one, but that doesn't change what Hillary did, and the fact that her actions received zero consequences, when anyone else would have received life in prison.

    The FBI director has been very clear that no one else has EVER received prison for something like this. In fact, this is a direct quote from him from this hearing: "You know what would be a double standard? If Clinton actually were prosecuted for gross negligence"

    Well there is a significant difference in both the level of negligence and the level of authority of the person involved. Other people who negligently handle classified information also do face serious consequences. They lose their security clearance. That means they lose their job and can't get another one like it. In some cases that is pretty much career ending.

    As long as Clinton can get elected to public office that requires access to classified data, she can't be denied access simply based on mishandling such data in the past. The voters can elect the representatives they want and have every right to make stupid choices. So basically Clinton violated the law and is avoiding all consequences because she seeks to be an elected official, not a government employee.

    If Clinton manages to escape any consequences it will be because of voters. If she was criminally prosecuted, maybe more voters would realize who they would be voting for, however there seems to be lots of evidence that Hillary supporters just don't care that she is untrustworthy and puts her own ambitions ahead of the country. It's not likely they haven't been presented with enough evidence of that before now.

    danstl , about 18 hours ago
    I think a big take-away here from watching this unfold is that the FBI director is correct in his assertion that Clinton did not lie to the FBI. BUT because she was in charge she bears the responsibility of information handled improperly.

    From the questioning it was brought up that no actual documents classified or greater classification were actually transmitted to/from her email server, BUT transcribed conversations (conversations that happened in person between two or more individuals) that contained classified information was. These message threads all originated from a person lower on the chain and then forwarded around (not just to Clinton's server) through non-classified systems. Sometimes (like in many forwarded emails) only portions of the original messages were maintained (this is common with any forwarded and or quoted email in long chains) and a paragraph for instance would have a [C.] marking at the beginning of the thread, but as it got forwarded around that message was quoted and modified and the marking was removed by another individual (accidentally or on purpose, this is unknown).

    Comey stated that they are not actively investigated the origination of the email chains as that was not part of their original investigation (this is somewhat interesting, but makes sense as it was not in their original investigative scope)

    linnen, about 18 hours ago
    sugarbooger wrote:

    Interesting. Others have been punished more severely for less. from the Military Times

    Quote: When another officer who received the email raised the alarm about sending the document over a nonsecure network, Brezler reported himself to his superiors and cooperated with a Naval Criminal Investigative Service probe into the classified material spillage. The probe turned up another folder with some 106 documents marked secret. Brezler said he inadvertently brought them back with him following his 2010 deployment to Now Zad, Afghanistan, where limited resources sometimes meant Marines worked on their personal computers and thumb drives.

    Quote: But a Marine prosecutor said this week that the case was about more than that one communication with Marines in Afghanistan. Brezler knowingly kept classified documents to inform a book he was writing about his Now Zad experiences, said Maj. Chip Hodge, showing that Brezler had copied and pasted a paragraph from the Sarwar Jan document into his manuscript, "Rebirth of Apocalypse Now Zad."

    [Jul 08, 2016] Clinton Email Hairball

    Notable quotes:
    "... I also made this comment during the morning links, but I think it bears repeating. Robinson considers this to be a great day for Clinton? By what standard? The FBI director went on national television and described her as "extremely careless," and then essentially called her a liar. Is a politician considered to be ethical if he or she is not indicted? ..."
    "... Called her a liar? Un-indicted liar or perjurer…because the investigators are reasonable. ..."
    "... What an inversion – this must be the first time it was good for Hillary that her husband had a scandalous private meeting with a younger woman. ..."
    "... In Hillary's nomination victory speech a month ago she argued she has the moral high ground and Trump's response was to focus on the problems in the economy. If the recession starts to hit hard enough late this year, Trump will win, and he will tell Hillary and Bill, "Its the economy stupid!" ..."
    "... It is a SAD day when a President of the US cheers for an "extremely careless" leaker after being the most aggressive prosecutor of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act…ever. Can I haz my money back? ..."
    "... When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance? ..."
    "... Can a president operate without having a security clearance? ..."
    "... "Mere mortals" get indicted. Here is the complaint filed in U.S.A v. Bryan Nishimura, July 24, 2015 ..."
    "... BRYAN H. NISHIMURA, defendant herein, from on or about January 2007 through April 2012, while deployed outside of the United States on active military duty with the United States Navy Reserve in Afghanistan and thereafter at his residence located in the County of Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, being an officer and employee of the United States, specifically: a United States Navy Reserve Commander, and, by virtue of his office and employment as such, becoming possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, specifically: CLASSIFIED United States Army records, did knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at his residence in the County of Sacramento, an unauthorized location, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924(a), a Class A misdemeanor. ..."
    "... In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. ..."
    "... Apparently Hillary's problems with the FOIA cases will worsen. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Clinton Email Hairball

    "Comey and Lynch asked to testify before Congress on Clinton probe" [MarketWatch]. From my armchair at 30,000 feet: If the Republicans really want to make Lynch squirm, they just have to ask Lynch one question, which Comey - strong passive-aggressive move, there, Jim! - handed to them on a silver platter at his presser, yesterday. I've helpfully written it down (quoted phrases from Comey's press release, parsed here):

    Q: Attorney General Lynch, what "security or administrative sanctions" do you feel are appropriate for Secretary Clinton's "extremely careless" handling of her email communications at the State Department?

    No speeches instead of questions, no primping on camera for the folks back home, nothing about the endless lying, no Benghazi red meat, no sphincter-driven ranting about "security", tie gormless Trey Gowdy up in a canvas bag and stuff him under a desk. Just ask that one question. And when Lynch dodges, as she will, ask it again. I don't ever recall having written a sentence that includes "the American people want," but what the American people want is to see some member of the elite, some time, any time, held accountable for wrong-doing. If it's Clinton's "turn" for that, then so be it. She should look at the big picture and consider the larger benefit of continued legitimacy for the Republic and take one for the team. So let's see if the Republicans overplay their hand. They always have. UPDATE This is a good, that is, sane letter from Bob Goodlatte (pdf), chair of the House Judiciary Committee (via MsExPat). But don't get down in the goddamned weeds!! K.I.S.S.!!!

    "Comey's solo appearance Tuesday stood out for historical reasons, because it's highly unusual for the FBI to make public findings when investigators have decided no charges should be brought" [CNN]. This purports to be the inside story of how Comey "stood alone" to make the announcement. But there are some holes in the narrative:

    Matthew Miller, the former top Justice spokesman under Attorney General Eric Holder, called Comey's announcement "outrageous." "The FBI's job is to investigate cases and when it's appropriate to work with the Justice Department to bring charges," he said on CNN. House Republican sides with Comey over Trump on Clinton emails. Instead, Miller said: "Jim Comey is the final arbiter in determining the appropriateness of Hillary Clinton's conduct. That's not his job."

    When you've lost Eric Holder's spokesperson… And then there's this. After Clinton's "long-awaited" Fourth-of-July weekend three hours of testimony:

    Officials said it was already clear that there wasn't enough evidence to bring criminal charges. The interview cemented that decision among FBI and Justice officials who were present. …

    By Monday night, Comey and other FBI officials decided the public announcement should come at the earliest opportunity.

    The fact that Tuesday would also mark the first public campaign appearance by Obama alongside Hillary Clinton didn't enter in the calculation, officials said.

    But as Yves points out, there was no time to write an official report of Clinton's "interview" over the weekend. So for this narrative to work, you've got to form a mental picture of high FBI officials scanning the transcript of Clinton's "interview," throwing up their hands, and saying "We got nuthin'. You take it from here, Jim." That doesn't scan. I mean, the FBI is called a bureau for good reason. So to me, the obvious process violation means that political pressure was brought to bear on Comey, most likely by Obama, despite the denials (those being subject to the Rice-Davies Rule). But Comey did the bare minimum to comply, in essence carefully building a three-scoop Sundae of Accountability, and then handing it, with the cherry ("security or administrative sanctions"), to Lynch, so Lynch could have the pleasant task of making the decision about whether to put the cherry on top. Or not. Of course, if our elites were as dedicated to public service as they were in Nixon's day, there would have been a second Saturday Night Massacre (link for those who came in late), but these are different times. (Extending the sundae metaphor even further, it will be interesting to see if the ice cream shop staff knows what else is back in the freezer, the nuts and syrups that Comey decided not to add; Comey certainly made the ethical case for leaks.)

    "Hillary Clinton's email problems might be even worse than we thought " [Chris Cilizza, WaPo]. Cillizza, for whom I confess a sneaking affection, as for Nooners, isn't the most combative writer in WaPo's stable


    voteforno6, July 6, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Re: "Hillary Clinton's great day"

    I also made this comment during the morning links, but I think it bears repeating. Robinson considers this to be a great day for Clinton? By what standard? The FBI director went on national television and described her as "extremely careless," and then essentially called her a liar. Is a politician considered to be ethical if he or she is not indicted?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef, July 6, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Called her a liar? Un-indicted liar or perjurer…because the investigators are reasonable.

    Elizabeth Burton, July 6, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    The cultish nature of Clinton followers struck me months ago; it's quite plain to anyone who's done any amount of study of cults. The giddy insistence now that the Comey statement is total vindication is a case in point, and any attempt to point out how damning it actually was only brings an "innocent until proven guilty" reply.

    One can only surmise that a large number of people have been so inured to corruption they no longer consider it a negative unless the perpetrator goes to jail; and even then there would likely be more insistence that person was railroaded.

    Tertium Squid, July 6, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    What an inversion – this must be the first time it was good for Hillary that her husband had a scandalous private meeting with a younger woman.

    Tim, July 6, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    On election day hindsight will show the real inversion with the Clintons is:

    In 1990s Bob Dole ran on a platform of having the moral high ground, while Bill Clinton said "it's the economy stupid", and Bill won.

    In Hillary's nomination victory speech a month ago she argued she has the moral high ground and Trump's response was to focus on the problems in the economy. If the recession starts to hit hard enough late this year, Trump will win, and he will tell Hillary and Bill, "Its the economy stupid!"

    Isolato, July 6, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    It is a SAD day when a President of the US cheers for an "extremely careless" leaker after being the most aggressive prosecutor of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act…ever. Can I haz my money back?

    Kokuanani, July 6, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance?

    Can we hope for that to happen to Clinton? [Why not?]

    Can a president operate without having a security clearance?

    3.14e-9, July 6, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance?

    "Mere mortals" get indicted. Here is the complaint filed in U.S.A v. Bryan Nishimura, July 24, 2015:

    The United States Attorney charges: THAT BRYAN H. NISHIMURA, defendant herein, from on or about January 2007 through April 2012, while deployed outside of the United States on active military duty with the United States Navy Reserve in Afghanistan and thereafter at his residence located in the County of Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, being an officer and employee of the United States, specifically: a United States Navy Reserve Commander, and, by virtue of his office and employment as such, becoming possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, specifically: CLASSIFIED United States Army records, did knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at his residence in the County of Sacramento, an unauthorized location, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924(a), a Class A misdemeanor.

    voteforno6, July 6, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    Since the classification program falls under the President by law, it is impossible for a President to not have a security clearance.

    Pookah Harvey, July 6, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Clinton supporters seem to feel the fat lady has sung but it might be they are only hearing someone who is slightly chunky. From Politico:

    On the same day that the FBI announced that the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server is likely to conclude without any charges, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that could complicate and prolong a slew of ongoing civil lawsuits over access to the messages Clinton and her top aides traded on personal accounts.

    In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.

    Apparently Hillary's problems with the FOIA cases will worsen.

    [Jul 08, 2016] The Clinton Email Probe and the Question of Gross Negligence

    Notable quotes:
    "... Why are you focusing on the gross negligence aspect? ..."
    "... Where is the removal from the proper place of custody? I've seen nothing in any legal analysis in this paper that talks about it. Is the presence of classified material on a private server of one who is authorized to have it equivalent to such a removal? ..."
    "... She was specifically not authorized to have a private server. ..."
    "... "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained SECRET information at the time; and eight contained CONFIDENTIAL information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification." ..."
    "... "We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." ..."
    "... Making an argument for the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness" is the sort of semantic hair-splitting that Hillary Clinton ought to have been compelled to do in court - in the same way that her husband prevaricated over "what the meaning of the word 'is' is," shortly before he lost his law license. ..."
    Jul 5, 2016 | WSJ

    ...Mr. Comey also referenced a more obscure provision of the Espionage Act that has little to do with intent or state of mind, but rather makes it a crime to disclose classified information through "gross negligence."

    That provision of the Espionage Act, the primary law governing the handling of classified information, could require at least proof that the offender knew the classified information disclosed could harm the United States or benefit a foreign power if it got into the wrong hands.

    But the crime of "gross negligence" in the Espionage Act doesn't appear to require proof of any intentional mishandling of documents, according to Stephen I. Vladeck, a national security scholar at the University of Texas.

    Specifically, the law makes it a felony to permit classified information relating to national defense to be "removed from its proper place of custody" through gross negligence.

    What would constitute a degree of recklessness that rises to gross negligence? Mr. Vladeck offered an example of accidentally leaving a briefcase stuffed with classified national security secrets on a busy sidewalk in Washington, D.C.

    ... ... ...

    Charles Silva

    Why are you focusing on the gross negligence aspect?

    Where is the removal from the proper place of custody? I've seen nothing in any legal analysis in this paper that talks about it. Is the presence of classified material on a private server of one who is authorized to have it equivalent to such a removal?

    Lee Hartwig

    @Charles Silva She was specifically not authorized to have a private server.

    Clifford Crouch

    @Michael Piston

    "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained SECRET information at the time; and eight contained CONFIDENTIAL information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification."

    -FBI Director James Comey, July 5, 2016

    "We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

    -James Comey, July 5, 2016

    Making an argument for the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness" is the sort of semantic hair-splitting that Hillary Clinton ought to have been compelled to do in court - in the same way that her husband prevaricated over "what the meaning of the word 'is' is," shortly before he lost his law license.

    [Jul 06, 2016] The Strange Gaps in Hillary Clinton's Email Traffic

    Notable quotes:
    "... But a numeric analysis of the emails that have been made public, focusing on conspicuous lapses in email activity, raises troubling concerns that Clinton or her team might have deleted a number of work-related emails. ..."
    www.politico.com

    POLITICO Magazine

    But, when it comes to Clinton's correspondence, the most basic and troubling questions still remain unanswered: Why are there gaps in Clinton's email history? Did she or her team delete emails that she should have made public?

    Story Continued Below

    The State Department has released what is said to represent all of the work-related, or "official," emails Clinton sent during her tenure as secretary-a number totaling about 30,000. According to Clinton and her campaign, when they were choosing what correspondence to turn over to State for public release, they deleted 31,830 other emails deemed "personal and private." But a numeric analysis of the emails that have been made public, focusing on conspicuous lapses in email activity, raises troubling concerns that Clinton or her team might have deleted a number of work-related emails.

    We already know that the trove of Clinton's work-related emails is incomplete. In his comments on Tuesday, Comey declared, "The FBI … 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 also already know that some of those work-related emails could be permanently deleted. Indeed, according to Comey, "It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that [Clinton and her team] did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery."

    Why does this matter? Because Clinton signed documents declaring she had turned over all of her work-related emails. We now know that is not true. But even more importantly, the absence of emails raises troubling questions about the nature of the correspondence that might have been deleted.

    Peter Schweizer is president of the Government Accountability Institute, senior editor at large at Breitbart News and the author of Clinton Cash.

    [Jul 06, 2016] The FBI gave Hillary Clinton a legal victory – and a political setback

    Notable quotes:
    "... it could hardly have gone any worse for Hillary. Many people proclaimed that she was the safe pair of hands but she's now been stamped with "extremely careless" with regards to national security. ..."
    "... If the FBI (at the time) did not know that Hillary Clinton was using a personal email address and a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State, then I have lost all confidence in our nation's security apparatus. ..."
    "... I think it was good for the FBI to let Hillary Clinton off even though she violated the law (no intent is no excuse). It actually takes the curtain down and the voters realize the special DC people have different rules than the common people! ..."
    "... Nope. Dems did this. None of this stuff today is new info, Dems nominated and voted for her despite this investigation. Plus it was Clinton's fault, no one forced her to have a private email server or an unsecured phone. I don't often agree with Trump, but this is one thing he's right about, and it's all on the Dems this time. ..."
    "... Didn't the FBI director say most people would face consequences for this kind of thing? Then let's Hillary off the hook.... Rather careless of him. ..."
    "... Seems about right. The Wall St bankers, credit ratings agencies, and government regulators didn't intentionally destroy the world economy. They were simply "extremely careless", too. ..."
    "... Hillary's arrogance, not "Republican operatives," put her in this hole. The question is why she ignored her own agency's regulations, and for so long. ..."
    "... No one really believes that Hilary thinks any of the rules apply to her, so this is all about nothing. She was able to dispose of about half of her e-mails before there destruction could be the subject of obstruction of justice charges, so she skates there too. ..."
    "... Christopher Hitchen's wrote a great deal on the Clinton's when they were last in the White House. He was scathing about them and their corrupt dealings. Christopher Hitchens' Case Against Ever Voting For Hillary Clinton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyDQxfDeWRc ..."
    "... I've never seen the DNC struggle so hard to support a disaster. Shady smoke around donations to the Clinton Foundation and arms deals certainly haven't made her any more trustworthy to many Americans. She not a disaster waiting to happen...she's a disaster happening. ..."
    "... If the FBI were to charge Clinton for using her private e-mail for government work they the FBI would have to charge Bush and several hundred of his employee's. Not only did they use a private e-mail server but it was run by the National Republican Committee. They not only used it but they illegally deleted at least 5 million government E-mails that by law had to be saved. Bush and Cheney and the Republican Nation Committee did this to cover up multiple crimes related to hundreds of Billions of American Taxpayer dollars as well as activities into 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. ..."
    "... She DELIBERATELY set up the home server to try and keep her emails out of the reach of Freedom of Information Act requests. ... Calculated felony. ..."
    "... That is absolutely ****ing outrageous, as is the fact Hillary has apparently promised Lynch she'll be re-appointed AG in the event she is elected come November. ..."
    "... The reason why Clinton is viewed as liar is not because she is a woman, or because of partisan smears or because of the fact that she has had a long political career. The reason she is viewed as a liar is because she is one. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Haigin88

    "......but Clinton's enemies will say yes. And that means the political witch hunts will begin anew......".

    This is no witch hunt. Aside from the fact that she wasn't indicted, it could hardly have gone any worse for Hillary. Many people proclaimed that she was the safe pair of hands but she's now been stamped with "extremely careless" with regards to national security. She's also, yet again, been confirmed as a shameless liar. Her proclamation - in that tired, "bored teenager" voice that she affects when she's boxed in to a corner - at that event: "I never sent any classified information.....I never received any classified information" has been proven as a lie. The standard that she was held to was that intent meant that she was a spy. The standard of intent that you or I would have been held to would have been a heck of a lot lower.

    Also, the law says that 'gross negligence' is enough to either fine someone or put them in jail for not more than ten years or both: how is Hillary's 'extreme carelessness' is any way different from 'gross negligence'? Everything that people suspected of Hillary Clinton has been borne out, if not more (yesterday was the first I'd heard of *multiple* servers: how is that not intent to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act?) but - yay! - the bar for presidential candidates is now so staggeringly low that champagne corks are being popped because she avoided jail.
    *Clap..........clap.............clap...........clap...........clap.........clap.......*

    Raskente

    If the FBI (at the time) did not know that Hillary Clinton was using a personal email address and a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State, then I have lost all confidence in our nation's security apparatus.

    Iron Mike

    I think it was good for the FBI to let Hillary Clinton off even though she violated the law (no intent is no excuse). It actually takes the curtain down and the voters realize the special DC people have different rules than the common people!

    There is no telling what Bill told Loretta but it worked. I know they didn't discuss grand kids for 30 minutes.


    HungerArtist

    In that way, Republican operatives have already accomplished their mission

    Nope. Dems did this. None of this stuff today is new info, Dems nominated and voted for her despite this investigation. Plus it was Clinton's fault, no one forced her to have a private email server or an unsecured phone. I don't often agree with Trump, but this is one thing he's right about, and it's all on the Dems this time.

    erik_ny

    Didn't the FBI director say most people would face consequences for this kind of thing? Then let's Hillary off the hook.... Rather careless of him.


    ga gamba

    Seems about right. The Wall St bankers, credit ratings agencies, and government regulators didn't intentionally destroy the world economy. They were simply "extremely careless", too.

    One can be graduated from one of the world's finest law schools and still plausibly state that she didn't intend to break the law. Seems law school trains people how to treat the law cavalierly. Sure, she was informed she was flouting the rules, and she disregarded this each time, but this is meaningless because the FBI is unable to read her mind. Ignore the actions because they suggest nothing of a person's intent.

    That's the privilege of power. You're never accountable.

    Tom Cuddy

    Once again with feeling. We know Sec Clinton won her delegates. She has achieved the numerical feat of having enough delegates to be our nominee. And I see the tree coming closer and the brakes are not working. This is why Sander's is not enthusiastically joining the Clinton effort as yet. The party can stop from making a terrible mistake. I like Sec Clinton and believe she would make a good Prime Minister. She is also exactly the kind of politician Trump eats for breakfast. We are not unrealistic, we are not anti woman and we are not "Bros'. We just see Sanders as giving Trump a serious campaign and Hillary just being , not quite.... The question; do Americans fear Clinton or Trump more. The great unpopulated states ( y'know, the Red one's) are terrified of Clinton. DEmocrats ( and a few Republicans) are terrified of trump. This truly shows Plato's point about Democracy

    Shotcricket -> Tom Cuddy

    Sanders is what the US need but are told they don't, not unlike the UK in its portrayal of Parties & their leaders etc.


    Robert Rudolph

    Hillary's arrogance, not "Republican operatives," put her in this hole. The question is why she ignored her own agency's regulations, and for so long.

    Did Hillary want to evade normal channels because she was using her official position to lever money out of people? Follow the money, people....

    Dee Smith

    I wish to humbly apologize in advance to the other nations that inhabit this earth on what the US is about to unleash on our collective space. Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated she is a money and power grasping disingenuous liar, complicit in the murder of US citizens, and not bearing the sense that the good Lord gave a woodchuck in handling information that ought to be more protected than storing it on an unsecured server in a basement. Conversely, we have Mr. Trump, whom, while opening up a very necessary dialog for myself and my American brethren, demonstrates all the sensitivity of rampaging water buffalo at a wallow.

    Dear God, help us.

    SteveofCaley -> Dee Smith

    Don't fret. They already suspected, I think. Another day, another drone.

    devanand54

    The FBI did a lot more than rebuke her for being "extremely careless." It was a scathing report, the conclusion of which was not consistent with what was actually in the report. It also proved Clinton to - once again - be lying.


    Dale Roberts

    No one really believes that Hilary thinks any of the rules apply to her, so this is all about nothing. She was able to dispose of about half of her e-mails before there destruction could be the subject of obstruction of justice charges, so she skates there too. I recall a couple of military officers who were brought up on charges for failing to lock their safe containing classified material in a secure building. The nightly security sweep found the safe closed but combination lock had not been engaged. Eventually no one was prosecuted but the matter was handled administratively so neither was likely to ever see another promotion. Being a politician may save Hilary from this fate too.

    DebraBrown

    Oh, enough of the balony that we don't trust Hillary because of her gender. We don't trust her because she LIES, again and again, demonstrably and proveably, beyond any shadow of doubt. Both the IG Report and Comey confirm her lies about the email server.

    Comey's decision is purely practical, given America's two-tiered justice system. The wealthy class are virtually un-indictable, they can get away with any crime because they hire armies of lawyers. It is sickening.

    After being a loyal party member for 35 years, I am leaving the Democratic Party because Hillary Clinton is a bridge too far. God save America... from the Clintons.

    eminijunkie

    Odd. No mention of the fact that like Bill, who got nailed for lying under oath, albeit he only lost his lawyer's license and gained some fame for having said 'it all depends on the meaning of the word is,' Hillary is now shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to have committed perjury. As far as I know though, that's only something Congress can deal with at this point.

    We should hear soon if they are going to do anything about it.

    Balmaclellan

    The case ultimately comes down to a matter of intent, something famously difficult to prove. Did Clinton intentionally send out or receive any sensitive information?

    The Guardian seriously expects people to pay for this 'jourrnalism'? Seriously?
    Clinton was the Secretary of State. How could she fail to "intentionally send out or receive sensitive information"? What the case actually comes down to is whether she intentionally placed the sensitive information she was sending out and receiving on a private server in order to conceal it from scrutiny and specifically to evade the provisions of Freedom of Information.

    And no, I won't be subscribing.

    Balmaclellan

    Some of it may be attributable to poor optics... attributable to gender... partisan-fueled attacks...

    Alternatively, it could simply be that she's a pathological liar. You know, the sort of person who tells stupid, pointless lies for the purpose of self-aggrandisement, and then bone-headedly continues to insist that they're true even when they've been incontrovertibly proven to be lies.

    "Yah, the plane zig-zagged as it landed under sniper fire... I ran across the tarmac dodging bullets..."

    BigPhil1959 -> Balmaclellan

    Her husband was accused of rape and had sexual relations with an intern. She trashed the reputations of these women to protect her husband. I doubt neither May nor Leadsom have ever played the woman's card as Hilary Clinton has. The Clinton's are awful people and should be banned from public office.

    badfinger

    Flox Newts asks the tough questions:
    1. What is the Statute of Limitations?
    2. What about the Clinton Foundation?
    Watch for a bogus "investigation" of the Foundation soon.
    Brought to you by the GOP at taxpayers expense.

    Filipe Barroso -> badfinger

    A bogus investigation on a Foundation that would make the Mafia embarrassed? No way, they are too compromised for that and the Clinton's would be able to bought their way off anyway.

    BigPhil1959 -> badfinger

    Christopher Hitchen's wrote a great deal on the Clinton's when they were last in the White House. He was scathing about them and their corrupt dealings.
    Christopher Hitchens' Case Against Ever Voting For Hillary Clinton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyDQxfDeWRc

    Sadly no longer with us, but a proper journalist.

    Alpheus Williams

    "Careless" with classified material...certainly careless with the facts...careless with promoting the bombing of M.E. countries. Her record on Iraq, Syria and Libya don't instil confidence....Europe is overwhelmed with refugees from war and chaos from our making and Clinton's judgement certainly hasn't helped. She has not only managed to spot the Nation but there own political party. I've never seen the DNC struggle so hard to support a disaster. Shady smoke around donations to the Clinton Foundation and arms deals certainly haven't made her any more trustworthy to many Americans. She not a disaster waiting to happen...she's a disaster happening.


    WMDMIA

    If the FBI were to charge Clinton for using her private e-mail for government work they the FBI would have to charge Bush and several hundred of his employee's. Not only did they use a private e-mail server but it was run by the National Republican Committee. They not only used it but they illegally deleted at least 5 million government E-mails that by law had to be saved. Bush and Cheney and the Republican Nation Committee did this to cover up multiple crimes related to hundreds of Billions of American Taxpayer dollars as well as activities into 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

    Beside these government protected account are hacked far more often than private servers, so the information she passed on was safer where she had it.

    simonsaysletsgroove -> jsayles

    From what I read elsewhere, it wasn't an 'accidentally leaving files on a bus' scenario... She DELIBERATELY set up the home server to try and keep her emails out of the reach of Freedom of Information Act requests. ... Calculated felony.


    kaltnadel

    If Hillary had any integrity, she would step down in the face of being deemed "extremely careless" by the director of the FBI. Clearly she is unsuitable for a position of responsibility.

    Being better than Trump is not good enough.

    "Witch hunt" is a totally inappropriate phrase. HC has been close to felons over and over again for decades. She lies as she breathes; she speaks in vapidities; she laughs without a glimmer of what good humor is. She is not only bad, she is dangerous. If she has avoided out and out criminality herself, she has her Yale law degree to thank for that, not her moral compass. And she has not a grain of political ambition that isn't personal to herself.

    Someone should help her to realize that she ought to step down, and it clearly isn't going to be Obama.


    Metreemewall

    Never mind her husband, her carelessness, her snipe's fire dodging skills, her gender.

    She's a warmonger - "We came , we saw, he died"a - was her giggling reaction to the news of Gaddaff being sodomised and murdered. And she is an AIPAC tool. And she's partly responsible for the immoral profitable prisons' scheme. And she does not believe in universal healthcare. And she's putting her "Glass-Steagall" poster child of a husband in charge of the economy.

    And the list goes on, and on, and on...


    elliot2511

    "Bill Clinton bumbled his way into the eye of a political storm last week when a private meeting he arranged with Lynch"

    That is absolutely ****ing outrageous, as is the fact Hillary has apparently promised Lynch she'll be re-appointed AG in the event she is elected come November.

    If this sort of thing had occurred in, say, Bolivia or Kazakhstan, everyone would know what was going on and be able able to see this behaviour for what it is. The contemptible idiocy and demagoguery of Trump doesn't change that.


    keeptakingthetablets

    The reason why Clinton is viewed as liar is not because she is a woman, or because of partisan smears or because of the fact that she has had a long political career. The reason she is viewed as a liar is because she is one.

    Just to take this particular issue as an example, she lied when she said she would fully cooperate "anytime, anywhere' with the respective inquiries and she lied when she said she had permission to use a private email server.

    Slammy01

    I don't see the matter of intent as a particularly relevant factor here. She has an obligation to protect classified information as part of being granted access. James Comey said she and her aids were "extremely careless" with how they handled information which any reasonable person in that situation would recognize was classified. Any other person would already have been indited....

    calderonparalapaz

    compared the case to that of retired general David Petraeus, former director of the CIA, who was sentenced to twoyears' probation after he shared classified information with his biographer, with whom he was having an affair. . "The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment."

    Yup, it sure is rigged.

    [Jul 05, 2016] FBI rebukes Clinton but recommends no charges in email investigation

    Looks like the Democratic establishment decided that they wants Clinton in November no matter what. But the price of this decition si that she will now compete as officially named "reckless and stupid" candidate.
    An interesting side affect might be that there will be attempts to impeach her from day one.
    Notable quotes:
    "... How is having your own private server for Secretary of State business not any of these things? What is the purpose of having your own email server if not for intentional misconduct? I imagine it costs a fair amount to set up and then run, did she just set it up for the lulz? ..."
    "... "Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked on Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection." ..."
    "... After the FBI qualifying Hillary as extremely careless - precisely while acting as SoS - it sounds silly to hear Obama saying she was a great Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Well, Comey just secured his job in a Clinton administration. ..."
    "... Hitlery is just another establishment bankster cartel stooge/puppet. Expect more wars and genocides if this woman is elected. ..."
    "... The NYTimes, 2 days ago: ..."
    "... But, can we now at least admit that she lied, repeatedly and comprehensively, about her email server. This is now proven. ..."
    "... She said there was no classified info on her email. This was a lie. ..."
    "... She said everything was allowed per State Dept rules. This was a lie. ..."
    "... She said the server was never hacked and remained secure. This was a lie. ..."
    "... She said that she turned over all her emails. This was a lie. ..."
    "... "110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information AT THE TIME they were sent or received. EIGHT of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET AT THE TIME they were sent; 36 chains contained SECRET information AT THE TIME;" ..."
    "... I think they got that backwards, An Indictment would destroy Clinton's election hopes, and opened the door for Bernie Sanders to become president. ..."
    "... Obama himself issued an executive order in 2009, "Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information," that deals at length with the handling of various levels of classified/top secret data by top officials and others they designate. An executive order has the force of law, and Obama specified various sanctions and penalties that violations can occur. ..."
    "... The order even includes sanctions for "reckless" handling of classified data, and Comey used the term "reckless." Why those sanctions were not applied here is baffling. ..."
    "... This woman is a dangerous sociopathic liar. I say that as a feminist and registered Democrat for 35 years who voted for her husband in the 1990's. Yes, I'm afraid of what Trump might do as president. But I am MORE afraid of what Hillary will do. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... "Extremely Careless" - that's a great defense for a potential president of the USA. That's what we all welcome - an extremely careless president. ..."
    "... Now, to be really, really clear: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' ~~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945). ..."
    "... First, the FBI decides whether to indict, not whether to prosecute. It is not part of its proper remit to decide not to indict on the supposition that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. That is end-running the legal system of a nation ruled by law. ..."
    "... Second, whether or not Hillary Clinton could mount a defense of carelessness is not a concern of the FBI, though they act as if they know the mind of Hillary Clinton. I realize they interviewed her yesterday or something. I would hazard she knew every question beforehand and they knew every answer beforehand. But, anyways. ..."
    "... They all lie even Comey. He was there and with straight face saying what Clinton did didn't rise to the level of prosecution. Nonsense, for even smaller infractions the FBI refers prosecution to the DOJ. DOJ in these cases depending on mostly resources, decides if to prosecute or not, or seek a plea bargain. ..."
    "... Everything he said pronounced her guilt, you'd think he was about to announce charges, then no charges. He even described her actions as gross negligence using other words, which is enough to indict. But no... ..."
    "... She was careless with the fate of Libya and she was careless with national security. Yet, according to President Obama, it is hard to think of any person better qualified for the presidency than she. ..."
    "... the State Dept contradicts her assertion that she was authorised to use an unguarded private server. No she was not. She neither had the approval, nor had she even requested it. Pure lies! ..."
    "... Sorry but carelessness is when you are distracted like going to take a coffee and forget to lock the screen. She deliberately setup an email server at home ans she knew that is illegal and a huge breach of security. ..."
    "... Is the FBI also suggesting that she is suffering from Affluenza, you know when rich people think they are above the law. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    Rob Lewis , 6 Jul 2016 01:27
    In violation of the Espionage Act. The relevant part of the law, 18 USC 793, says that anyone who handles important national security documents with "gross negligence," so that they are "delivered to anyone," or "lost," or "stolen," is guilty of a felony.

    The guilty party "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."

    Tomas Desent , 2016-07-06 01:07:47
    18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, "entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Comey called her "extremely careless." But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the statute requires.

    18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who "knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.

    18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who "uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.

    18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years." Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.

    eastbayradical , 2016-07-06 01:06:04
    Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's huckster-populism: a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average person and their intelligence is palpable.
    • She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking globally.
    • She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the cap on taxes to do so.
    • She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US has waged in the past 25 years.
    • She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention them but in passing in a recent speech before AIPAC.
    • She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and believes Edward Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.
    • She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international pact granting increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its expense in the past 25 years.
    • She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the objectively-racist death penalty and the private prison industry.
    • She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the '90s, making them easier prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her husband and her financially.
    • She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec. of State actively campaigned against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to 60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents an hour sounded better for the investor class whose interests are paramount to her.
    • She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever release the Wall Street speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.
    • She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters, who aren't.
    Timothy Everton , 2016-07-06 03:11:19
    Can the House of Representatives or The Senate vote to prosecute a former Secretary of State?
    Defiini -> Timothy Everton , 2016-07-06 03:26:17
    Under which law? For what crime? Chortle.
    thenthelightningwill -> Defiini , 2016-07-06 03:30:13
    Aggressive war is a war crime, Defini.

    Probably couldn't be prosecuted in the U.S., but we have charged others with it.

    http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record /

    Timothy Everton -> consumerx , 2016-07-06 03:12:31
    "Even if information is not marked classified in an e-mail, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it," Mr. Comey said, suggesting that Mrs. Clinton and her aides were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

    Mr. Comey said the emails included eight chains of emails and replies, some written by her, that contained information classified as "top secret: special access programs." That classification is the highest level, reserved for the nation's most highly guarded intelligence operations or sources.
    SEE A PATTERN HERE ?

    hadeze242 , 2016-07-06 03:06:14
    "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" (FBI/CNN). that's a lie. anyone in a working situation who lie so many times, and in so many different ways would be terminated. for Clinton to become the next US President is an absolute moral disaster - which will haunt not only America, but generations of young people watching this moral deception unfold.
    RonettePulaski -> hadeze242 , 2016-07-06 03:07:04
    Bernie lost.

    deal with it.

    hadeze242 -> RonettePulaski , 2016-07-06 03:10:50
    Bernie did not lose. He was run over by the corrupt establishment of the Dem. Party. He didn/t take their money, & condemned them for their undemocratic manipulations.

    BlooperMario

    She is a symbol of American hegemony and globalisation.
    The East is rebelling and so is Europe.
    Shamerica has been exposed as liars and cheats.
    Poverty in Asia was promoted in order for USA to rule.
    Regime change in Europe and Middle East created to support Lockheed-Martin , Boeing, and military financial machinery.
    Time for Europe to disconnect from Washington; link with Asia where the future will come very soon.
    Stop Uncle Sam's Navy and Air Force provoking China and Russia.
    Hilary needs to go to Laos and Vietnam to clear minefields and unexploded bombs that US is responsible for.

    Chirographer

    Comey offers his opinion that "no reasonable prosecutor" would press charges, but the dividing line is between a finding that Clinton did wrong and was "extremely careless" is that she was not "grossly negligent."

    That's a judgment call to be made by the 'reasonable prosecutors" in the DOJ. It's not for the FBI to prejudge that for them.

    In a case like this the decision would normally be made by the AG. But, she had already announced she would not be able to do her job in the circumstances- her chit chat with Bill tainted her impartiality - and the decision whether or not to prosecute would be made by senior level career prosecutors. Apparently the FBI wasn't interested in what the people charged with the responsibility to make the decision would think.

    Finally, for some unexplained reason, the FBI Director felt he had to make his statement today without the DOJ's knowledge. Doesn't the FBI operate under the DOJ?

    What a mess.

    ExKStand

    I think this shows you how scared the establishment in the U.S. is of Trump taking up power. Save them from organising a black operation against him. No way should Hiliary be exonerated in this way. In a democracy this should be for a court to decide, not the FBI. Hard to see how a fair court could find her not guilty of at least incompetence.

    kiwijams

    Are their Clinton supporters who can read through this entire saga and still think she has a high degree of integrity and honesty? By all means vote for her because she isn't Trump, but surely you can't think this woman is all that trustworthy?

    GrandmasterFlasher

    Hillary is too big to fail, and too big to jail. There are too many vested interests invested in the megalomaniac for charges to be laid.

    funnynought

    Hillary Clinton has repeatedly lied that none of her emails were classified at the time of sending/receiving. This stinks.

    Bill Clinton didn't have a "chance meeting" with Loretta Lynch, but walked across the tarmac and boarded her plane to talk. Hillary Clinton has misleadingly characterized numerous times how the two met, even with Lynch's own account out in the press. This stinks.

    Lynch had the option of refusing to talk with Bill Clinton for the sake of avoiding conflict of interest. She didn't. This stinks.

    Just days after her husband met Lynch, Hillary Clinton was called into the FBI for a meeting, on the quietest news weekend of the year till Thanksgiving. This stinks.

    Somehow, after a mere 3 days of deliberating--over a holiday weekend--the FBI came to a recommendation. This stinks.

    The recommendation was no charges. This stinks.

    The recommendation lays heavy emphasis on her intention, not on her negligence with classified information. This stinks.

    If elected president, Hillary Clinton is "considering" retaining Lynch as Attorney General. Quid pro quo. This stinks.

    President Hillary Clinton: "I didn't really mean to leak the nuclear codes to ISIS in Libya. My bad. I didn't have bad intentions, though." This stinks.

    "The buck stops here." -Democratic President Harry Truman. This doesn't stink.

    Shardz

    Meanwhile, feel free to leak any government documents you might have and see how lenient the FBI will be with your case. I guarantee you will be in federal prison before dusk. Hillary was not authorized to set up an external mail server no matter what the status was with those documents. More Liberal ridiculousness.

    Britaining

    So Hillary carelessly voted for Iraqi war, carelessly pushed the Libya/Syria civil wars, carelessly paved the way for Benghazi attack and refugee crisis in EU.......but liberal idiots won't care.

    Anyway, she made a special contribution to Brexit, just like theGuardian's smarty pants.

    Michronics42

    This decision is deeply disappointing but not surprising as the late Carl Sagan observed:

    " One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."

    The FBI's partial exoneration of Hillary comes with this proviso: "Although we did not find clear evidence that the Secretary or colleagues intended to violate laws, [of course has been clearly documented that Clinton knew exactly what she was doing

    1)by lying that she received government permission to set up her private servers and

    2)knowing full well that she would evade FOIA requests by destroying thousands of these emails]there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of highly classified information, said Comey."

    For those Clinton, Inc supporters who continue to support this "congenital liar," and longtime "charlatan," this just the latest 'careless' episode in the deeply troubling career of a sociopath who craves power way more than she cares about the nation she may one day govern.

    I'll always Feel the Bern and I'll always support those who will continue the fight for reform.

    jimmy coleman

    Praise the mosquitoes in a Louisiana swamp, Ms. Hillary is innocent. She didn't know what she was doing!! On several levels I can believe that. We can now all sleep better just knowing the Clinton's once again dodged a close one, like the time Ms. Hillary and Chelsea dodged gunfire in Bosnia. We are told to believe that no reasonable prosecutor, from Maine to Texas, from Alaska to Florida, from the moon to Pluto would dare try the fair lady.

    Ms. Hillary may not know what she twas doing after she signed the pledge not to do such a thing, she may have misspoken like she did when traveling in Bosnia or talking about the Benghazi video to the victim's families. She may have used bad judgment, ad infinitum, slept through the burning of the midnight oil as Rome burned and been a lousy administrator of the nation's secrets but add, according to the latest legalese, Ms. Hillary ain't guilty of deliberately knowing what she was doing!! She can do more harm in ignorance than a smart person can do on purpose!

    For those of you working in the computer security field, your job has just become easier, for now nothing, absolutely nothing one can do with classified or even Top Secret information can be considered criminal. If the prospective Democratic nominee, perhaps our next Great Leader of the 'free' world, can do what the FBI Director himself said she did, then none of the underlings should have a fear to face or a hefty price to pay for emulating the shenanigans of Ms. Hillary.

    Ain't this country great. If you got money and power - where you can send your disbarred, impeached hubby to visit secretly for half an hour with the chief law enforcement official, all the while the FBI G-men shoo away pesky reporters with cameras rolling - and then two days later those same G-men interview the prez-in-waiting, - with just a one day interval in-between the FBI Director can say to the country, with a straight face, that 'no reasonable prosecutor in the whole wide country would convict Ms. Hillary.... And if that don't beat all, while the FBI is talking to the nation, Ms. Hillary and the other guy,...... oh yes, Mr. Obama, who promised us to run the most transparent and honest government in the nation's history, strap themselves in Air Force One to go campaigning together. And if that wasn't enough poop through a goose, a big chunk of the unwashed masses swallowed what was said and done, hook, line and stinker!!

    jgwilson55

    WaPo piece on the topic....

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/05/hillary-clintons-email-problems-might-be-even-worse-than-we-thought/

    I wouldn't rule Bernie out quite yet! The superdelegates don't like liars!

    TheRealCopy

    "Several thousand work related emails were not among those returned to the government and appeared to have been deleted"!
    How does the FBI know what was in the e-mails apparently missing if they were deleted?

    It appears to be a political decision not to charge her for security breached and they won't charge her because she's who she is and in the middle of a campaign as POTUS nominee for the Democratic Party!

    To put the matter into perspective, Remember what happened to General Petreaus! A top notch war commander completely destroyed over breaching information security on a much smaller scale!

    ericsony

    Talk about friends in high places....Watch the Clinton chronicles on you tube.. what these people get away with is amazing...If it was made into a film you would think it was a bit too far fetched!!

    CaliforniaLilly -> ericsony

    Time to watch a classic movie: The Manchurian Candidate. Love the original one with Angela Lansbury. But, good time to see it. Trust me.

    PotholeKid

    "This extreme, unforgiving, unreasonable, excessive posture toward classified information came to an instant halt in Washington today – just in time to save Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations." /Greenwald
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton/

    lot3con3rr1

    "Extremely careless" just the kind of person you need with the finger on the button.

    ID8020624

    The 15 minute press interview w/ the FBI, however, was vey revealing, but not duplicated here. She was shown to be the careless arrogant system-girl that she is. W-leaks just published 1000 of her emails for all to see,...go see for yourselves.

    Bot candidates have highest unfavorable ratings ever recorded in US history. This is not right: over 60% of voters neither support nor Trump!

    The Oligarchic rule is stripped naked for all to see. US people are not that dumb not to see a couple crooks running to rule over them,...

    Vote Green! Vote Stein!

    Unfortunately Bernie is busy trimming party platform that has never been followed by any Dem president.

    Robb1324

    All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

    How is having your own private server for Secretary of State business not any of these things? What is the purpose of having your own email server if not for intentional misconduct? I imagine it costs a fair amount to set up and then run, did she just set it up for the lulz?

    Is there a benefit to having your own email server to conduct department business on other than skirting FOIA requests and internal oversight?

    KlaatuVerataNiktu

    Glenn Greenwald: Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations - until Hillary Clinton

    "Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked on Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection."

    time2plyBsides -> Nelson Ricardo

    I worked in IT for the U.S. gov't. Everybody has to take the trainings for IT and data protocol. The lowliest cleaning staff who merely dust a laptop. The highest ranked general. They are VERY serious about it.

    There are specific rules for which communications go over which networks. If Hilary wants to log on to her gov't computer, the system must register that she took the training or she will be locked out. Let me be clear: THERE IS NO WAY THE SEC. OF STATE DID NOT KNOW ALL DoS BUSINESS ALWAYS MUST STAY ON SECURE GOV. NETWORK. She would have had that drilled into her head by then.

    She is a lawyer. She knows all Sec. of State emails are archived to protect the People from malfeasance. She intentionally side-stepped protocol. There is no other reasonable explanation IMO.

    eminijunkie

    ""I am confident I never sent nor received any information that was classified AT THE TIME it was sent and received,..."

    Same sentence parsed properly: " I know i sent and received classified information, so I can't say I didn't, but I need to make it sound like I didn't know what I was doing in an nice, innocent way, so I'll say I was 'confident that I didn't because I think that's the safest thing I can say to seem to deny the possibility of doing what i know I did."

    Goias Goias -> CriticAtLarge

    After the FBI qualifying Hillary as extremely careless - precisely while acting as SoS - it sounds silly to hear Obama saying she was a great Secretary of State.

    Bo1964

    A decade ago CIA claimed Iraq of WMD, now FBI recommends 'no charges' against Hillary. All collusions to please the bosses!

    Brockenhexe

    Well, Comey just secured his job in a Clinton administration.

    Brendan Groves

    Hillary has been careless with her emails, careless with her votes for the Iraq war, and very careless with her husband. all of this carelessness does not bode well for a future President.

    shaftedpig

    Hitlery is just another establishment bankster cartel stooge/puppet. Expect more wars and genocides if this woman is elected.

    johhnybgood

    Proof if any is needed, that the US Administration, together with its Judiciary and its law enforcement agencies, are criminally negligent. The elites are above the law, just like the banks. This may well be the tipping point that sends Trump and Sanders supporters over the edge.

    rochestervandriver -> MtnClimber

    "The head of the FBI is a Republican, btw."

    This is what he is (below) so no wonder people think the fix is in. Obama appointed him , republican or not. He's a "Business as usual" man. I guess he hopes that Trump doesn't get elected as I'm sure this story will not end here.

    Anyway, this will cost Hilary on the campaign trail . Trump will rip chunks out of her with this.

    In December 2003, as Deputy Attorney General, Comey appointed the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, close friend and former colleague Patrick Fitzgerald, as Special Counsel to head the CIA leak grand jury investigation after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. In August 2005, Comey left the DOJ and he became General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin. In 2010, he became General Counsel at Bridgewater Associates. In early 2013, he left Bridgewater to become Senior Research Scholar and Hertog Fellow on National Security Law at Columbia Law School. He also joined the London-based board of directors of HSBC Holdings. In 2013, Comey was appointed as the director of the FBI by President Barack Obama.

    NoOneYouKnowNow -> outfitter

    The NYTimes, 2 days ago: "Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation's first black woman to be attorney general, who took office in April 2015."

    UKnowNothing

    Whether it's putting the Bush/Cheney crime family in prison for an illegal war and thousands of innocent deaths, or HRC in prison for Bengazi and releasing sensitive documents, y'all are starting to see what's wrong in this nation. It's a nation of crooked professional politicians, family dynasties run by the 1% and the banksters... Welcome to the land of the free. Free for the wolves to eat our souls.

    Vladimir Makarenko

    Not counting this:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-04/hillarys-closest-aide-admits-clinton-illegally-burned-daily-schedule

    Scott Anderson

    Clinton is not above the law. If the GOP really thinks they have a legitimate case then Speaker Ryan and the other members can impeach her if she wins. The reality is it is game over since it is only GOP partisans who are interested in pursuing this. I think it would be a repeat of the last time with the Senate laughing at the House for their stupidity. Everyone knows that neither Clinton nor Trump are honest. The Democrats don't see it as a real issue. Bernie Sanders said he does not care about "her damn emails".

    Both the GOP and the Democrats are more intent on partisanship than in talking about ideas on how to improve the government and society. Sanders was different and I think a lot of his supporters felt that it wasn't just about him. Both Trump and Clinton do not have strong morals and it is a bit sad.

    Leviathan212

    I'm glad Hillary is not being indicted, and I'm happy that we still have a viable candidate against Donald Trump.

    But, can we now at least admit that she lied, repeatedly and comprehensively, about her email server. This is now proven.

    - She said there was no classified info on her email. This was a lie.
    - She said everything was allowed per State Dept rules. This was a lie.
    - She said the server was never hacked and remained secure. This was a lie.
    - She said that she turned over all her emails. This was a lie.

    People are so blinded by their worship of a candidate that they are willing to ignore blatant wrong-doing. This is how moral and ethical corruption happens. Try admitting the truth to yourself - it's okay to say, "Yes, I support Hillary Clinton, but I can also see how she lied in these instances".

    RealWavelengths

    if an average worker at, say, a bank would have been caught using a private email account to conduct bank business, and some of those emails contained unsecured, confidential bank customer info that could have been at risk for interception by identity theft crime rings, that worker would have been in violation of several laws. And if subsequently it turns out that employee deleted some of those emails and claimed they did not contain customer data but were personal, it is doubtful, given other evidence, the employee would have gotten away with just scolding words from the FBI.

    At least a fine would be levied, and perhaps a prohibition from working with confidential financial data again. Here, Clinton just got scolded, and that's it. Clearly, this is a problem with high ranking elected and appointed officials, and yet many of us somehow keep letting these people get into office. We should indeed let our voices be heard online in various ways that enough is more than enough. Time to get rid of the revolving door of past corrupt officials getting back into office with the same corrupt ethics. Both parties are trash. There's a better way…

    Georwell

    "...is Ian Bremmer who said that "it's very clear that in trying to make it go away actually lied, repeatedly, about whether or not these materials were classified at the time. And it's the cover up frequently that gets people in trouble, it's not the actual misdeed. This was very badly mishandled by Hillary all the way through."

    But then she got some much needed help from the FBI to complete the cover up.

    In retrospect, perhaps former Attorney General Eric Holder said it best when he justified with the US DOJ simply refuses to bring up criminal cases against those it deems "too big to prosecute":

    if you do bring a criminal charge it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps world economy

    And just like that, Hillary is "systemically important", if mostly for her countless Wall Street donors. "

    full story here:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/peak-fbi-corruption-meet-bryan-nishimura-found-guilty-removal-and-retention-classifi

    midnightschild10

    Welcome foreign countries. You will soon be able to know everything you need to know about thrUS if Hillary becomes President. Will need a larger bedroom or basement for her server which of course the White House has. The head of the FBI says although statutes may have been broken, it is no big deal. We don't need them anyway. Good to know, so if anyone wants to break statutes in the future, they just need to ask the FBI for the Hillary deal. Poor people of Washington D.C. Just when we thought it couldn't get any worse then the poisoned water in Flint, or the Green Algae in Southern Florida, the toxic smell of whitewashing covers D.C. Stay indoors, take precautions, donate to the Clinton Foundation, because this could last for years.

    Leviathan212

    So, Bill Clinton meets with Loretta Lynch and four days later the FBI recommends no charges?

    I'm not saying that there was any corruption - mainly because I have a high enough opinion of Loretta Lynch's integrity (and not of Bill Clinton's). But the optics are not good. It further fuels the idea that the Clintons play fast and loose with the rules and are morally and ethically compromised.

    virginiacynic -> boscovee

    No one should ever, ever talk to the FBI without a lawyer (preferably two lawyers) and a Tape Recorder.
    The FBI will not record it and instead write up a summary of what was said and ask the person to sign the summary. If the person subsequently says something contrary to the FBI summary then that person can be charged with lying to the FBI.
    It was not overkill when the FBI had eight people. It was good sense and good lawyering by Clinton's Counsel once it had been decided to talk with them. If she were not running for President then any sane lawyer would have said to take the fifth, just as the guy who set up the server system did.

    greg2644

    For all of you guys who are up in arms about this decision, let's pretend for a second that serious classified information did get out from her server. Even if that were true, involuntary treason is not a crime. Intent matters in a court of law. All of the things Hillary is being accused of are only crimes if she intended for information to get out. There's no proof that she did, so they can't charge her with anything. This decision shouldn't surprise anyone. Politicians are untouchable unless they're caught with blood on their hands... and even then...

    Vladimir Makarenko -> greg2644

    It's called "criminal negligence". The stress is on the word "criminal". If she couldn't have understood after had been told many times the rules of separation of private from government emails how she can be trusted with Red Button?
    As minimum JD must withdraw her clearance. She can apply for a job at her "foundation".

    Georwell

    so Hitlary declare she never sent any classifieds documents
    ""I am confident I never sent nor received any information that was classified AT THE TIME it was sent and received,..." (Hitlary )

    BUT next we get this from FBI :

    "110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information AT THE TIME they were sent or received. EIGHT of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET AT THE TIME they were sent; 36 chains contained SECRET information AT THE TIME;"

    Its this incompetence or just THE MOST corrupt system ever ?

    ghostintheshell29

    "An indictment could have wrecked Clinton's election hopes and perhaps opened the door for Donald Trump to become president."

    I think they got that backwards, An Indictment would destroy Clinton's election hopes, and opened the door for Bernie Sanders to become president.

    Its a lot easier for Trump to beat Hillary then Bernie. People actually like him.. Huge advantage over both other opponents.

    RealWavelengths -> Joe Smith

    Actually, laws were broken. Comey just chose not to prosecute because, in his and his staff's opinion, no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the matter, which is in the discretion of the prosecutor to do. But Obama himself issued an executive order in 2009, "Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information," that deals at length with the handling of various levels of classified/top secret data by top officials and others they designate. An executive order has the force of law, and Obama specified various sanctions and penalties that violations can occur.

    As Secretary of State, Hillary was considered an "Original classification authority," which is a top ranking official that not only handles such data, but classifies and declassifies it. The order even includes sanctions for "reckless" handling of classified data, and Comey used the term "reckless." Why those sanctions were not applied here is baffling.

    DebraBrown, 2016-07-05T19:59:58Z
    America's two-tiered justice system strikes again. One rule of law for the masses, a very different set of rules for the elite.

    However one may feel regarding whether or not Hillary committed crimes, one thing is absolutely clear -- she lied.

    Comey listed a number of points which prove beyond doubt that she lied. For instance, she said she never sent or rec'd anything marked classified at the time. Per Comey, there were seven (known) email strings that were clearly marked classified at the time.

    The Inspector General's report also made it clear beyond doubt that Hillary lied about her use of the email server, point by point by point refuting everything she said about its use. And yet, after the IG report came out, Hillary went on air to say how happy she was that the IG report validated everything she'd been saying (though the opposite is true).

    This woman is a dangerous sociopathic liar. I say that as a feminist and registered Democrat for 35 years who voted for her husband in the 1990's. Yes, I'm afraid of what Trump might do as president. But I am MORE afraid of what Hillary will do. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.

    gvs951

    "Extremely Careless" - that's a great defense for a potential president of the USA. That's what we all welcome - an extremely careless president.

    Sarah7

    FBI Director James Comey stated the following, which makes it clear that the investigation of Hillary Clinton and her top aides is a very 'special case' that would not pass the standard statutory criteria:

    To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. (Emphasis added)

    Now, to be really, really clear: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' ~~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945).

    theguardianread

    Forgot to say that mishandling US Official communications is a crime-- there is NO WAY TO KNOW IF AN INCOMING COMMUNICATION IS CLASSIFIED OR NOT, ESP AT THAT LEVEL, EVERYTHING IS CLASSIFIED BY THE "LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS" RULE. No matter how unimportant it may seem to you, it is part of the bigger picture of responsibility...

    Goias Goias

    I am listening to Hillary giving a speech and she hasn't mentioned a word about the FBI declarations. Can she really think her bulshit is above answering for being called extremely careless by the FBI?

    KlaatuVerataNiktu -> Goias Goias

    Being high-ranking in the establishment means never having to say you're sorry.

    Goias Goias Goias Goias

    Even Obama is looking ridiculous building up Hillary after the FBI wiped the floor with her credibility.

    MARK Corrales

    So by this rational it is okay to break the law and violate national security protocols as long as its unintentional. WOW! The political elite do not have to worry about any kind of accountability for there actions.

    Jessica Roth -> Stu Wragg

    It's not so much her wealth, but how she got it. When you're in the pay of the Saudis/MIC/Wall Street, the US government looks out for you.

    Seriously, she swears under oath that she's turned over all her emails, it eventuates that there are thousands more emails, but the FBI goes "no big, don't worry"? I didn't know that the federal perjury statutes had been wiped off of the books. Perhaps Hillary sent me an email, but I missed it?

    Snowden gets exiled, Manning gets tortured…Clinton gets a coronation. Yes, very fair.

    I urge everyone to vote for Jill Stein. Nothing can be done about this election (Trump, despite his manifest flaws, is the more honest candidate and the peace candidate, but he has very little chance of winning), but by getting Stein/the Greens to 5%, there is an opportunity for the left to be properly heard next time, rather than the same corrupt dance between the two halves of the Money Party. It's the only way to deny Clinton the second term she's already planning.

    Yuri Esev -> zepov

    Quote: ...love people who think that because Comey is a Republican, that this means that he tried everything he could to reach an indictment. He's TELLING YOU that he's choosing not to.
    Some people refuse to acknowledge this simple reality:
    If there is one thing that democrats and republicans *always* agree on, it's helping big business to buy our politicians wholesale so that they can continue to redirect money away from the most electorate, and towards big business and the existing political establishment. In this case, it means putting the first lady of Goldman Sachs in the White House Unquote

    Carpasia

    First, the FBI decides whether to indict, not whether to prosecute. It is not part of its proper remit to decide not to indict on the supposition that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. That is end-running the legal system of a nation ruled by law.

    Second, whether or not Hillary Clinton could mount a defense of carelessness is not a concern of the FBI, though they act as if they know the mind of Hillary Clinton. I realize they interviewed her yesterday or something. I would hazard she knew every question beforehand and they knew every answer beforehand. But, anyways.

    I believe Hillary Clinton fully intended to break the law, that law being the Freedom of Information Act under which her emails were capable of being publicized upon request after vetting for, among other things, how classified they were. Only a fool would think otherwise given the information she had and the use of a private server in the face of that information.

    I do not think she intended to break laws concerning effectively risking the loss and publication of classified security materials by using an unsecured private server for her email.

    Thus, what she did resulted in the risk of loss of classified materials that would never have been lost if she had stayed within the government system, which laws she broke, one intentionally and one carelessly, so journalists could not read her other unclassified emails, for they would never have seen the classified ones.

    At best, she was ignorant of the law on classified materials while intending to break the law on access to information.

    This bodes well if she is elected a President of the United States, for it will put paid to the vaunted myth the Americans ceaselessly tell the rest of the world, that it is a nation in which no one is above the law. This is the truth. Hillary and Barack having a laugh at The Donald.

    csterling11 , 2016-07-05T19:09:05Z

    In the meantime, a serious federal lawsuit, not business related, has been brought against Trump, alleging, among other things, rape and false imprisonment of a minor, about which I see little to no coverage in the media. http://lawnewz.com/celebrity/why-isnt-anyone-paying-attention-to-the-sexual-assault-lawsuit-against-trump / and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

    Jooolie

    Its great to see this investigation come to an end so quickly after such a long process.

    June 27th Bill speaks with Lynch
    July 2nd FBI interviews Hillary
    July 5th FBI clears Hillary

    ClearItUp

    They all lie even Comey. He was there and with straight face saying what Clinton did didn't rise to the level of prosecution. Nonsense, for even smaller infractions the FBI refers prosecution to the DOJ. DOJ in these cases depending on mostly resources, decides if to prosecute or not, or seek a plea bargain.

    For what she did, at a minimum she would have been charged with something to cause her to agree to a plea bargain, the terms of which would have been at a minimum not being able to receive classified information, i.e. losing her security clearance. If she were not running for president, I have no doubt she would have plea bargained to that level and admitted she broke the law.

    But in the infinite wisdom of the FBI, they decided not to pursue her because just charging her with anything would have ended her campaign for presidency. The punishment would have been greater than the crime, again in their mind. So they didn't charge her. They would have even charged Hillary Clinton if she wasn't running for president. This was a political decision no matter how you look at it.

    dongerdo

    Critically, the FBI said that other similar cases in which a prosecution had been sought involved evidence of "willful or intentional" breaches of the rules, "vast quantities" of data or "indications of disloyalty or efforts to obstruct justice". "We do not see that here," he said.

    Interesting. Considering all those things are actually applicable, it was intentional, it involved a lot of mails concerning Libya, she made an effort to keep it secret and tried to delete rather large quantities and therefore has been obstructing justice I am curious if they would still 'Do not see that here' if the opponent would not be called Trump....

    Adoniran

    "Nonetheless the detail of the FBI's investigation is likely to hit Clinton politically. Comey revealed that of the 30,000 emails returned to the state department, 110 emails in 52 chains were determined to contain classified information at the time they were sent."

    Just add it to the list of lies that she told about this.

    From the FBI:

    "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

    So I guess we have different standards of intent for her than we do for the rest of us. That intent to commit an action that is felonious would be enough for anyone else. For Clinton though, it seems she needed to intend to break the law knowingly, otherwise she's immune. But wait, even if we use that lofty, specialized standard, more from the FBI:

    "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

    ..........So why, again, are we not indicting?

    ClearItUp

    If a government agent takes a folder of classified (not even talking about highly classified) information and leaves them on a counter in a public restroom, then after say a few hours remembers and goes and retrieves it, he will be charged with neglect or mishandling classified information. Depending on what the information and intent was, they could be charged anywhere from a misdemeanor to a felony with possible years in jail. If this act occurs multiple time by the same individual not being charged with something is unusual, even in cases of unintentional confidential information. The usual outcome for such unintentional negligence, if they are minor is plea bargain in which the subject gives up his/her security clearance for a period of time or permanently.

    Hillary Clinton by Comey's own admission violated the law, but they decided no to pursue prosecution. Because, the penalty would have been too strong in her case, i.e. dropping out of nomination. This is the real story. It was a political judgement, no two ways about it.

    venkatt

    The Farce of a Presidential nomination cycle is now complete. The billionaire Donor class has officially INSTALLED its "Chosen One" on the American Masses...

    Lester Smithson

    The Clinton propensity for ethical shortcuts, special treatment, statute dodging (they are both Yale-educated lawyers), and supreme entitlement are eclipsed by the last GOP president ($7T war, and wrecking the economy) and the prospect of Trump, whose potential for destruction in near infinite.

    Clinton dodged this one. She'll destroy Trump and the next ethically challenged foot in the dung is just around the corner. It's the Clinton way.

    Jill Stein 2016

    skatterbrayn

    Everything he said pronounced her guilt, you'd think he was about to announce charges, then no charges. He even described her actions as gross negligence using other words, which is enough to indict. But no...

    Another win for the oligarchy and queen of the weapons industry. I fear for families in the Middle East if she is POTUS. Get ready to go play in the desert again troops.

    A sad day for justice in America. The Guardian must be thrilled though. Congratulations. I'm sure Lucia will write a a great nyah nyah piece about this. Pat yourselves on the back, your queen of global intervention skated on something others have been destroyed for.

    callingallcars

    People are attracted to Trump because he is not a member of the political establishment, viewed by many as incorrigibly corrupt and discredited. Ironically, the decision not to prosecute Clinton will enhance the prospect of Trump's being elected, because it reinforces widespread views in the public that political elites like Clinton can act with impunity and are immune from the laws that apply to the rest of us. If Trump is elected, Clinton only has her own bad judgment to blame. Using a private server for email and effectively stealing the public record is conduct that one only does if one actually feels immune to the rules that the rest of us must follow. Her arrogance may well lead to her own downfall and the foisting of Trump on the rest of us. (That is not to suggest that Clinton would serve the American public well.)

    Longleveler

    The e-mail server imbroglio is the tip of the iceberg. Under the water and as yet out of MSM's sight is the influence peddling, money laundering , and election rigging:
    https://medium.com/@Chijourno/bernie-sanders-should-go-there-on-arms-sales-for-donations-influence-peddling-is-at-the-rotten-f4b61019be9a#.8fnh4x1jy
    http://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/is-democracy-dead-in-california_us_5772c94fe4b04650f1505de2
    If the Fairness Doctrine was still in effect the Corporate Media would have had less influence in creating the mirage that Hillary is capable of being President.

    Jon404

    There's an old Roman saying -- 'Res ipsa loquitur' -- 'The thing speaks for itself'. Basic to our tort law; you don't need to prove intent.

    For 28 minutes, Comey precisely described the 'thing'. Then, in his last two minutes, he ran away from the law, and then out of the room as fast as he could go.

    Is there a different law for the Clintons than for the rest of us? Yes. From Whitewater until today, obviously. In the corridors of power, from the leaders of both parties, the fix is in.

    As a Democrat, does this mean that I should vote for Trump, and put up with four years of babbling idiocy, rather than going with Hillary and furthering the assault on our democracy and on our law?

    Maybe.

    steveky

    So She was not knowingly Criminal.
    She only had an unsecured server and put national security at rick so she could have her own Blackberry.....
    Or she had the server to circumvent freedom of information act laws, which Comey did not even address.
    This is not over folks....
    Stupid or Criminal... If she is to be president I almost hope Criminal....


    Curt Chaffee

    "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," said Comey."

    The poodle speaks.

    Copper65 -> Curt Chaffee

    ..no reasonable prosecutor who wanted to keep his job (or maybe his life).

    dddxxx -> Wolfclan

    Winston Churchill once said when criticized, "Any fool can see what is wrong---Can you see what is right?"

    BillFromBoston

    I'm sure that many of you Europeans speak Spanish and,therefore,know what "plato o plomo" means.However,I'll wager that few of you know much about the Mexican drug cartels that literally control Mexico today.And they control Mexico through "plato o plomo".This utterance is very,*very* effective when directed at the police,judges,prosecutors and elected officials.

    Although it's possible that Mr Comey and/or his subordinates were promised "silver" that seems unlikely.Much more likely is that they were promised jobs...promotions...lucrative consulting gigs.Remember,Europe...there are many,many,*many* people who make very,*very* comfortable livings while connected to folks "inside the Beltway" (meaning Washington).

    It's also possible,but highly unlikely,that anyone involved was threatened with "lead".Much more likely is that threats to careers...threats to reveal the existence of a mistress...and other less extreme,but *very* persuasive,threats were communicated.

    "Plato o plomo"..."I'll make him an offer he can't refuse"...take your pick.

    nerospizza -> ID1773222

    It means silver or lead- as in you can take a bribe or a bullet..

    Arbuzov

    I possessed a Top Secret Special Intelligence Compartmented Access security clearance for 34 years before my retirement, and I handled uncountable classified documents in my time. And I can assure you that 90 percent of them (at a minimum) were either overclassified, or never should have been classified in the first place.

    Joelbanks

    She was careless with the fate of Libya and she was careless with national security. Yet, according to President Obama, it is hard to think of any person better qualified for the presidency than she.

    What is grievously wrong with this picture?

    ilipe Barroso -> alan101

    Then, explain this rubbish: https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials

    There was no intent but a lot of recklessness. How different is from this case? I'll help you: he was a nobody.

    makaio -> alan101

    Lying - Her ongoing lie about the server's purpose, and her past b.s. about it being approved and fully above board.

    Reckless - See this article, and take into account her support for toppling Muammar Gaddafi, among others.

    Obstinate - Twelve years to admit toppling Saddam Hussein -- with millions suffering as a result to this very day -- was a bad call. She's still lying about her server a year after its discovery and, to the detriment of her supporters who always have to avoid this topic, she obviously doesn't care.

    Secretive - Her server was implemented to evade public and official records requests, with a degree of success.

    Warring - Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Honduras leader ousters or attempts, all without follow-on plans, all increasing suffering and terrorism, all indirectly or directly supported by Hillary.

    Her traits are right before us, and they're only "Rubbish!" for those who cower, deny, and stick their heads in sand.

    And they don't bode well for our future.

    guicho

    So she lied when she said no classified information was sent on the private server, the FBI just admitted that there was information of the highest security classification on the server. Whether intentional or not, failing to keep top secret information safe from intrusion and access to persons without the proper security clearances is a crime. Yet the FBI won't recommend charges. I can't believe this is going to be swept under the rug and "news" media will continue to champion Hillary for president. If any of us breached security protocol at work we would be fired, prosecuted and prevented from finding work in the future. Just another example of how the law discriminates based on who you are and how much money and influence you have.

    bill9651

    Emailgate looks like it is just the tip of the iceberg!

    https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3qbytj/hillarys_22_biggest_scandals_ever_with_cliffnotes/


    ciaofornow -> trilobitestew

    Dud?

    I am no Republican.

    Clinton has been outed as a serial lair to the nation:
    .

    the State Dept contradicts her assertion that she was authorised to use an unguarded private server. No she was not. She neither had the approval, nor had she even requested it. Pure lies!

    Now the FBI contradicts her statements that none of the material she sent was marked as top secret or as classified.
    The FBI found: 110 emails in 52 chains were determined to contain classified information at the time they were sent.
    Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time, 36 chains contained secret information at the time, and eight contained confidential information.

    So is the FBI part of the right wing conspiracy? And if so, why no indictments. She broke rules in order to keep the public from knowing anything about her using her post to boost the corrupt Clinton Foundation. By doing so, she played fast and loose with govt secrets, even top secrets. And then she repeatedly lied to the nation about it.

    Not my findings, not that of Republicans, but of Democrat appointed FBI directors and State Dept investigators.

    Her corruption is becoming public knowlege at last.

    Battlehenkie

    Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"

    Because doing so would make for a weak case that a prosecutor is unlikely to win, or because it would be career suicide for the prosecutor due to upsetting vested interests?

    wjpietrzak

    Now we'll never know if the contents of the compromised Secret files led to any harm to the US, its citizens, Servents and allies. No prosecution, no need to reveal the facts.

    LeaveHasLost

    Just a coincidence http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/bill-clinton-tarmac-history.html?_r=0

    Mauricio Faria -> ataylorusa

    Sorry but carelessness is when you are distracted like going to take a coffee and forget to lock the screen. She deliberately setup an email server at home ans she knew that is illegal and a huge breach of security.

    Doug Wenzel

    When my dad was a lt. jg on Kwajalein 50+ years ago, he was an entry level Communications Officer. The whole island was one big Nay base. One day, he got distracted, and forgot to deliver a minor, routine encrypted message. It was found in his pants at the base laundry.

    Needless to say, that was the end of his career in communications. he was reassigned as a radar operator in the belly of a single-engined SkyRaider like this one, which meant sure drowning if the plane had to ditch.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider#/media/File:AD-5W_on_deck_USS_Kearsarge_1957-58.jpg

    When Hillary Clinton opted to have her own server she assumed strict liability for everything involved with it. Plus she signed an acknowledgement when assuming work at the State Department. Clearing her is an disgrace, and an insult to those in the intelligence community and with foreign allies whose lives were put at risk, as well as to all those who have had their careers drawn and quartered for breaches far less significant than these.

    Jack Dornan

    Careless = little or no regard to the consequences.

    Top Secret = disclosure consequences would be damaging to the nation or place US lives in danger

    No prosecution = no unauthorized disclosure occurred

    Conclusion = Lucky Lady

    stratplaya

    No classified info: lie
    Allowed by State: lie
    Turned over all work emails: lie
    Wanted a single device: lie
    Never breached: lie

    Laws are for the peasants, not our rulers.

    Reason336 -> stratplaya

    ahhh when has it EVER been different than that in human history???

    You expected different now?

    Kommentator

    On the premise she did nothing wrong (snigger....) she is reckless, careless, a proven lair, Wall St. bought & paid for, a known warmonger, a recipient of funds from dubious nation states and apparently a war hero from dodging snipers bullets........and yet......and yet you still she is the best option, you could not make this up.

    Urgelt

    This is very disturbing to me.

    The FBI doesn't mention the legality, or lack of legality, of Clinton's avoidance of compliance with federal records statutes and the FOIA. She purged official correspondence from her e-mail server - a fact turned up by discovery of that correspondence on the senders' servers. Did they even ask her if her intent was to avoid compliance with federal records statutes and the FOIA? We can see no evidence that the FBI even brought it up.

    So the Obama Administration hands to Clinton a mild spanking on classified document handling, but ignores the elephant in the room: why she refused to use an official government server for her official correspondence. If her intent was to avoid compliance with federal statutes, then she broke the law.

    Adrian Newton

    Is the FBI also suggesting that she is suffering from Affluenza, you know when rich people think they are above the law.

    God bless exceptional America. Lady Justice will not be back anytime soon.

    callingallcars

    "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," said Comey.

    Evidence of potential violations of criminal statutes is typically called "probable cause" that would get every American in the country other than its elite and untouchable political classes indicted and brought to trial. Or at least all of the black ones, i.e., the superpredators that must be brought to heel.

    [Jun 26, 2016] Hillary Clinton email scandal shines light on specter of shadow IT

    Notable quotes:
    "... Surely, The State Department had an enterprise-grade email solution in place in 2013. We can only hope that Clinton protected her personal accounts with something more sophisticated than "Chelsea1980". ..."
    "... 52% of IT executives said they don't have processes in place to manage outside sources, such as Dropbox in Vision Solutions' 2015 State of Resilience Report . Meanwhile, 70% of employees that use Dropbox do so solely for work, according to a 2013 Forrester report, and shadow IT appeared as a concern for the first time in the 2015 SIM IT Trends Study . ..."
    "... Former FBI Director Robert Mueller said in 2012, "There are only two types of companies: those that have been hacked and those that will be." ..."
    "... What kind of security risks does shadow IT create for your organisation? What happens when an employee uses the same password for both personal and enterprise accounts and hackers target that person's personal account? ..."
    "... Their low-security Google Drive password just created a big headache for your organisation. ..."
    "... Sourced from Bob Dvorak, founder and president, ..."
    Mar 6, 2015 | Information Age

    Consumer-grade and insecure applications can make headlines – and not in a good way

    ...This revelation should have public and private sector IT pros questioning their policies and practice around shadow IT – those programs outside of the formal control of the information technology department.

    The Times wrote: "Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach."

    Surely, The State Department had an enterprise-grade email solution in place in 2013. We can only hope that Clinton protected her personal accounts with something more sophisticated than "Chelsea1980".

    IT has an important job, and keeping tabs on the personal email accounts of executives or high-ranking officials should be the least of their worries. However, with 783 reported data breaches in 2014, according to The Identity Theft Resources Center, shadow IT is a strategic IT issue that is too important to ignore.

    The topic raises an important issue around policy and practice of shadow IT, individual or departmental use of consumer-grade applications, such as personal email accounts, and cloud storage, departmental (or individual) SaaS accounts, even employee social media activity. All fall within this category in an age where the lines between work life and personal life are increasingly blurred.

    While there may be individual, departmental or even organisational benefits to some elements of shadow IT, there are both operational and security risks associated with it and professionals' use of consumer grade tools for email, cloud storage and other services. CIOs and IT leaders need to be vigilant in developing, instituting and enforcing corporate IT governance policies and procedures.

    52% of IT executives said they don't have processes in place to manage outside sources, such as Dropbox in Vision Solutions' 2015 State of Resilience Report. Meanwhile, 70% of employees that use Dropbox do so solely for work, according to a 2013 Forrester report, and shadow IT appeared as a concern for the first time in the 2015 SIM IT Trends Study.

    ...Gartner reported in its 2015 CIO Agenda that shadow IT consumes as much as 20% of a company's IT resources and, for the first time, respondents to the SIM IT Trends Study included shadow IT among their list of management concerns.

    So what happens when Dropbox experiences downtime, as it did in January of last year? How do businesses react? What happens to the customer data, financial data or important documents they stored there?

    When nearly two-thirds of organisations using the cloud reported not having HA or DR solutions for their enterprise applications, according to Vision Solutions, you can imagine how low the number must be for companies actively able to recover from, or are even monitoring, employee activity in the cloud.

    The small matter of security

    Former FBI Director Robert Mueller said in 2012, "There are only two types of companies: those that have been hacked and those that will be."

    What kind of security risks does shadow IT create for your organisation? What happens when an employee uses the same password for both personal and enterprise accounts and hackers target that person's personal account?

    Their low-security Google Drive password just created a big headache for your organisation.

    You may not face a public records request that brings the specter of shadow IT in your organisation to light, but publicly traded corporations have internal control requirements to consider and private companies are notoriously protective of their intellectual property and confidential information.

    All it takes is one instance and your company can be front-page news – and not in a good way.

    Sourced from Bob Dvorak, founder and president, KillerIT

    [Jun 26, 2016] Hillary Clinton takes shadow IT mainstream

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now let's strip away all the politics, sniping and legality over Clinton's email practices. What you have is shadow IT for official business and a State Department without the IT clout to stop it. You could argue with all the NSA snooping that Clinton's own email infrastructure was warranted. ..."
    "... Security issues often are tossed aside for convenience. For Clinton it was a homemade email server. For the rest of us it's a personal cloud storage account. ..."
    "... In the end, the Clinton email flap will play out for months. There will be hearings and non-stop election coverage about it. Just keep in mind what you're witnessing is shadow IT at a grand scale ..."
    March 4, 2015 | ZDNet / Between the Lines

    Hillary Rodham Clinton is in one big email mess, but if you zoom out and look at her as any other employee you have a leading example of shadow IT at play.

    Hillary Rodham Clinton reportedly ran her own email server out of her house and now is in the middle of political firestorm. For our purposes, Clinton has provided us with the most high-profile case of shadow IT practices. And the first lesson of shadow IT is that the techies aren't going to push around the top execs. For the folks in business tech, the concept of shadow IT isn't exactly new. You're the CIO. Your other C-level peers have had their own cloud services provisioned for years. Developers have Amazon's cloud on a corporate Amex. It started with an innocuous printer under a desk. Then went to a server. Then smartphones to cloud services. People bring their own devices, apps and business practices with them to work.

    Hell, the poor CIO is just finding out about some of these things.

    Enter Clinton. According to the Associated Press, Clinton ran her own email as a Cabinet-level official. Enter records laws and all sorts of concerns. On the bright side, Clinton at least wasn't using a public email server. She at least earns some techie props for that.

    Now let's strip away all the politics, sniping and legality over Clinton's email practices. What you have is shadow IT for official business and a State Department without the IT clout to stop it. You could argue with all the NSA snooping that Clinton's own email infrastructure was warranted.

    Boil this down to Clinton as an employee and you have the following.

    1. Clinton was a top exec and those folks often get to push IT around. How do you think the iPad and iPhone became an enterprise juggernaut? You guessed it. The CEO wanted one.
    2. The email infrastructure Clinton ran was techie, but how many of you are conducting work on personal accounts? Thought so. You may not have federal records laws, but you're ignoring IT policies almost daily.
    3. Security issues often are tossed aside for convenience. For Clinton it was a homemade email server. For the rest of us it's a personal cloud storage account.

    In the end, the Clinton email flap will play out for months. There will be hearings and non-stop election coverage about it. Just keep in mind what you're witnessing is shadow IT at a grand scale

    [Jun 26, 2016] Hillary clintons private email account hacked the perils of shadow IT

    www.tripwire.com

    According to the Washington Post, the worst scenario may have come true when hacker "Guccifer" reportedly released several emails pertaining to Benghazi, which appear to be between Sidney Blumenthal and Hillary Clinton at the "clintonemail.com" domain. The domain was registered January 2009 through Network Solutions.

    clintondomain

    Looking a bit deeper at the MX records for the domain they map to a service run by McAfee:

    clintonemail2

    MX Logic was acquired by McAfee in June of 2009 and is now part of McAfee's SaaS offerings. So, it looks like someone knew what they were doing at some level to modify the MX records to use McAfee's service.

    However, the risk of this email account being compromised is significant and one wonders who else aside from Guccifer may have had access to sensitive communications.

    Before we pick on Hillary Clinton too much, we should evaluate how common this practice is. If the goal is to circumvent a regulatory requirement and is putting communications at risk, these shadow IT practices should be evaluated government-wide.

    tonyE

    This is a security breakdown at a very high level.

    From personal experience I can tell you that any emails that are classified MUST be routed via very specific networks.

    For the SecState to use a private network is a breakdown of security at the HIGHEST LEVEL.

    She is guilty of a very serious crime, there is simply no way for her to excuse herself.

    Also, how about all the people who were communicating with her? Surely they knew they were breaking the law... ( and I&#039m not talking about the records, I&#039m talking about a security breach at the highest level of our nation).

    [Jun 25, 2016] Clinton email flap highlights issues of shadow IT

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The reality is that every organization has a BYOD program - whether they think they do or not," Stevens said. "Now's the time to shore up the systems and enable mobility without sacrificing security." ..."
    March 4, 2015 | .federaltimes.com

    "I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business," former NARA Director of Litigation Jason Baron told the Times.

    While pundits and politicians are debating the ethics and legality of this, it also raises questions about the security of Clinton's communications.

    "This news is yet another example of the lines blurring between work and personal lives and should serve as a wake-up call to federal IT departments," said Bob Stevens, vice president of federal systems at Lookout. "This trend towards mobility has clear benefits but it also adds a nuanced layer to not just email security, but all security."

    Stevens noted that mobile devices, by their nature, move about and touch multiple networks as they do so. Since some networks are less secure than others, it becomes even more important to use secure programs and services to communicate.

    "The reality is that every organization has a BYOD program - whether they think they do or not," Stevens said. "Now's the time to shore up the systems and enable mobility without sacrificing security."

    Subsequent reports revealed that Clinton maintained her own server, but whether that server was more or less secure than commercial or federal email offerings is still unknown.

    [Jun 25, 2016] The Perils of Shadow IT Your Most Senior Executives Are Doing It

    Notable quotes:
    "... In fact, according to the survey respondents, the average company already uses 20+ SaaS applications - think about it: Asana, Dropbox, Skype, Basecamp, Apple iCloud, Gmail, LastPass, not to mention your Facebooks and Twitters. But of those 20 or so SaaS platforms, more than 7 are non-approved. So, "…upwards of 35 percent of all SaaS apps in your company are purchased and used without oversight." ..."
    "... Instead of losing sleep over perceived risk, companies must develop clear and concise policies governing cloud computing and SaaS usage. And don't stone me for saying it, but IT departments shouldn't exclusively own this exercise. Today, most executive level employees are well versed in SaaS, and they are probably well aware of what systems and platforms their teams are using day to day. ..."
    duckduckgo.com
    They say any press is good press, and the ruling is still out as to whether or not Hillary Clinton knowingly broke any laws when she used a private, home based email account for official State business as Secretary of State. She admitted on Tuesday that she had made a mistake and should've created two email accounts: a government one and a personal one. Still, one thing is clear: When the story broke last week, the entire world was talking about the latest threat to corporate security: shadow IT.

    For those of you heavily immersed in the tech side of running a business, this won't be news to you. But for many business executives and CEOs the idea of classified information being run through outside servers or software can be chilling.

    Basically, Shadow IT, also known as Stealth IT, describes solutions and SaaS, specified and deployed by departments other than the organizations own IT department.

    As far back as 2012, IT research and advisory company Gartner was predicting that 35 percent of enterprise IT expenditures for most organizations would be managed outside the IT department's budget by 2015. Surely today, based on the innovations in technology which have occurred in 2012, that number's even higher.

    And if you think the blame lies with those hipster millennials and their "always on" lifestyle, you would be wrong.

    The Enemy Is Us

    According to a 2014 study by Stratecast and Frost & Sullivan and based on input from organizations in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, the biggest users of Shadow IT services are IT executives and employees.

    Now extrapolate that fact across your organization, to other executives, managers, and employees, and you can see just how quickly those numbers begin to add up.

    In fact, according to the survey respondents, the average company already uses 20+ SaaS applications - think about it: Asana, Dropbox, Skype, Basecamp, Apple iCloud, Gmail, LastPass, not to mention your Facebooks and Twitters. But of those 20 or so SaaS platforms, more than 7 are non-approved. So, "…upwards of 35 percent of all SaaS apps in your company are purchased and used without oversight."

    So, if you can't blame the millennials, who or what can you blame?

    You can blame technology.

    Get Off'a My Cloud

    More to the point, you can blame the rise of cloud computing. As with most things in life, that which can benefit us the most, can also harm us.

    With more and more companies adopting BYOD policies (often also referred to as BYOC, or cloud), it's no surprise that Shadow IT isn't really in the shadows anymore. Which probably isn't news to any of you.

    In fact, as the study discovered, Shadow IT is now being perceived as an important step in innovation, opening new channels of development for businesses, and reducing overall costs.

    Here's why:

    Of course, these are in addition to the direct benefits to a corporate IT department: No monies paid out in development costs, maintenance, testing, upgrades capacity planning, or performance management. Plus, backup and recovery of data and infrastructure is generally also the responsibility of the platform's vendor.

    Manage Your Risk

    So, where does that leave us? With remote working, job sharing, file sharing, and BYOD policies becoming commonplace, along with the rise of mobile and the ever evolving technological advances happening around us daily, it's a little too late to shut that barn door.

    And, contrary to how nefarious the term Shadow IT "feels," it appears most employees who "go rogue" and use unapproved SaaS during work hours are doing so with the best of intentions: They simply want to do their jobs, as efficiently and as cost effectively as possible. What's not to like about that?

    They're not doing it just because, either. These are generally speaking a smart group of people who want to get things done. They cite reasons like quickly gaining access to the right tools, overall comfort level with certain apps and platforms, and, perhaps most importantly, the desire to avoid a steep learning curve and the waste of time conquering such a learning curve entails if forced to adopt something new.

    I think the responsibility today in handling cloud computing and unregulated corporate SaaS usage lies squarely with each organization. As we need to look inward to see who's really performing this Shadow IT (our own executive, managers, and IT people), we also need to look inward when it comes to corporate policies and guidelines. Because most companies today don't have any.

    Instead of losing sleep over perceived risk, companies must develop clear and concise policies governing cloud computing and SaaS usage. And don't stone me for saying it, but IT departments shouldn't exclusively own this exercise. Today, most executive level employees are well versed in SaaS, and they are probably well aware of what systems and platforms their teams are using day to day.

    The ideal approach to Shadow IT is to collaborate. We've got to break down silos between IT and the rest of the organization, and involve all areas of your organization to work together to create best practices and help put the right policies in place to minimize corporate risk. Think outside the box. Remain flexible. Be prepared to drop old-school "firewall" thinking. And remember, the end-goal really is to improve business outputs and add to the bottom line of the organization.

    Was Clinton breaking the law with her Shadow IT efforts? I don't know. The State Department's email system is known to be vulnerable to hackers. But what I do know is she was leaps and bounds ahead of Romney and Palin, who conducted official business on free email services from Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.

    Sometimes, perspective really is everything.

    What do you think? Are you aware of any Shadow IT occurring in your organization? What do you think would be the most important things to include in policies and guidelines supporting SaaS usage? I would love to know your thoughts in the comment section.

    This post was written as part of the Dell Insight Partners program, which provides news and analysis about the evolving world of tech. For more on these topics, visit Dell's thought leadership site PowerMore . Dell sponsored this article, but the opinions are my own and don't necessarily represent Dell's positions or strategies.

    [Jun 25, 2016] Hillary Clinton's Shadow IT Problem

    Notable quotes:
    "... Again, the point here is not that Clinton should have ditched the secure, government system in order to use her phone of choice. In her circumstances, the security concerns should have outweighed her personal comfort. But for many, the desire to stick with tech that they know and love is often counter to logic, efficiency, security and policy. And most of us work in environments where bucking the system isn't quite as dire as it could be for the nation's top diplomat. ..."
    "... " Shadow IT " is technology that users install without company approval because they prefer it to what's offered. What I know is that I can't secure my network if it's packed with technology that my users hate. ..."
    March 20, 2016 | Techcafeteria
    ...Judicial Watch, a conservative foundation looking for evidence that Clinton broke laws in her handling of the email, received some fascinating information in response to a recent FOIA request.

    Upon joining the State Department in early 2009, Clinton immediately requested a Blackberry smartphone. Having used one extensively during her 2008 Presidential campaign, she, like almost every attorney in that decade, had fallen in love with her Blackberry, hence the request. After all, Condoleezza Rice, her predecessor as Secretary of State, had used one. President Obama had a special secure one that the NSA had developed for him. But they said no. Even after being called to a high level meeting with Clinton's top aide and five State Department officials, they still said no.The NSA offered Clinton an alternative. But it was based on Windows CE, a dramatically different, less intuitive smartphone operating system. A month later, Clinton started using her own server. Judicial Watch claims that this info proves that Clinton knew that her email was not secure, but I think that she has already admitted that. But it also reveals something much more telling.

    As a three plus decade technology Director/CIO (working primarily with Attorneys), I can tell you that people get attached to specific types of technology. I know a few Attorneys who still swear to this day that Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS was the best word processing software ever released. And there are millions who will tell you that their Blackberry was their virtual right arm in the 2000's.

    How devoted are people to their favorite applications and devices? I worked for a VP who was only comfortable using Word, so when she did her quarterly reports to the board, she had her assistant export huge amounts of information from our case management system. Then she modified all of it in Word. Once delivered, she had her assistant manually update the case management system in order to incorporate her changes. Efficient? Not at all. But she loved herself some Word. I've seen staff using seven year old laptops because they know them and don't want to have to learn and set up a new one. And it wasn't until the bitter end of 2014 that both my boss and my wife finally gave in and traded up their Blackberries for iPhones.

    Again, the point here is not that Clinton should have ditched the secure, government system in order to use her phone of choice. In her circumstances, the security concerns should have outweighed her personal comfort. But for many, the desire to stick with tech that they know and love is often counter to logic, efficiency, security and policy. And most of us work in environments where bucking the system isn't quite as dire as it could be for the nation's top diplomat.

    "Shadow IT" is technology that users install without company approval because they prefer it to what's offered. What I know is that I can't secure my network if it's packed with technology that my users hate. Smart people will bypass that security in order to use the tools that work for them. An approach to security that neglects usability and user preference is likely to fail. In most cases, there are compromises that can be made between IT and users that allow secure products to be willingly adopted. In other cases, with proper training, hand-holding, and executive sponsorship, you can win users over. But when we are talking about Blackberries in the last decade, or the iPhone in this one, we have to acknowledge that the popularity of the product is a serious factor in adoption that technologists can't ignore. And if you don't believe me, just ask Hillary Clinton.

    [Jun 25, 2016] How to Turn Hillary Clintons Shadow IT Habits into Opportunity

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton has quickly become the public face of so-called "shadow IT" practices, which already affects almost every organization ..."
    "... In other words, shadow IT is the unapproved, unmanaged solution that frustrated employees (and government officials) turn to when official systems don't meet their needs. In Chua's view, it's simply a good idea to take this bull by the horns, identify the pain points people are trying to avoid, and meet those needs through official channels instead. ..."
    "... "Heavy-handed approaches are not going to eliminate shadow IT, it'll just go farther underground," ..."
    "... In other words, a light touch might do wonders to tame the shadow IT beast even where strict policy edicts fail. And this lesson needs to be absorbed by a very large audience. ..."
    The Motley Fool

    ... there's also a big upside to Clinton's home-brew email solution getting national attention. Hillary Clinton has quickly become the public face of so-called "shadow IT" practices, which already affects almost every organization -- from small and medium businesses to enterprise-class giants, and onward to the government behemoth. It's high time investors and business managers take a closer look at this trend, so let's thank her for opening the debate.

    ... ... ...

    "I think we're at a point in time where companies can no longer ignore shadow IT," Chua said. "They need to put official policies in place, start talking to employees about what they need, make sure that these needs are aligned with the business.

    "If they don't, then people can start creating their own solutions and create this whole shadow IT problem."

    In other words, shadow IT is the unapproved, unmanaged solution that frustrated employees (and government officials) turn to when official systems don't meet their needs. In Chua's view, it's simply a good idea to take this bull by the horns, identify the pain points people are trying to avoid, and meet those needs through official channels instead.

    "This is definitely an opportunity to sit up and take action," Chua explained. "The IT industry is moving away from cookie-cutter solutions with help desk tickets and red tape around everything. This debate gives IT departments a chance to say, 'Hey, different business units have different needs. I'm going to create a baseline framework, but I'll be agile and respond to the various needs of different units.'"

    Chua's comments underscore a growing sentiment among IT industry professionals. Talking to the CIO magazine this week, Deputy Chief Technology Officer Steve Riley of data networking specialist Riverbed Technology (NASDAQ:RVBD) expanded on the problem. "Heavy-handed approaches are not going to eliminate shadow IT, it'll just go farther underground," Riley said. "There's no positive outcome for being a disciplinarian about something like this. You might end up with services that are even more dangerous, where people now actively seek to circumvent policies."

    How the solutions fit the problem

    In other words, a light touch might do wonders to tame the shadow IT beast even where strict policy edicts fail. And this lesson needs to be absorbed by a very large audience.

    According to Softchoice's data collection, over 80% of organizations -- businesses, corporations, churches, you name it -- already see some members stepping outside the formal IT structure to enjoy the convenience of cloud-based public services.

    Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) is a popular provider with tools including Gmail, Google Docs, and Google Calendar. Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) might lose some software license sales to other cloud providers, but its Windows Azure and SkyDrive services are also leaders in their own right.

    Sure, some of these service choices already have the official support of the IT department. But one-third of all users in a large Softchoice audit program recently reported employing tools such as SkyDrive or Google Calendar at work -- without so much as notifying the IT department.

    The shadow IT market seems to open up a very large business opportunity for software-as-a-service providers such as Google and Microsoft. Managing these tools in a properly approved and budgeted fashion will help in closing boatloads of security and transparency concerns. And that way, they could soak up the demand for unofficial email servers and unapproved data warehouses running in some random employee's garage, beyond the reach of corporate firewalls.

    Final words

    A flexible approach to systems management can help businesses and government agencies make the most of their resources. There will always be rogue systems and maverick users, but acknowledging this reality can help contain the problem -- and maybe turn it into a strength instead.

    Sweeping shadow IT under the rug, on the other hand, only opens up the door to more security leaks and the next Clinton-style transparency scandal.

    [Jun 23, 2016] Clinton's email server ran without security software, new records reveal

    Notable quotes:
    "... Just a month before the email issue arose, in November 2010, Abedin and Clinton discussed that department employees were not receiving emails sent by then-secretary, the newly-released emails indicate. ..."
    "... "We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam," Abedin wrote to Clinton on November 13, 2010. ..."
    "... Another email shows that John Bentel, then the technical support director, warned Clinton that if she opted to use the official email box, "any email would go through the Department's infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches." ..."
    "... After Abedin reported the technical problem, the State Department technical staff suggested that "turning off the anti-spam filter" would resolve the problem. ..."
    "... As shutting down the security software didn't appear to be helpful, one email recommended turning off two of the three anti-phishing filters that protect personal data from identity thieves and cybercriminals "in order to eliminate the categorizer." ..."
    Jun 23 , 2016 | www.rt.com

    Hillary Clinton's private server was temporarily unprotected by security features in December 2010, when the then-secretary of state had technical problems with her email. In 2011, Clinton's server was hacked multiple times, newly-disclosed papers show.

    On Wednesday, the legal advocacy group Judicial Watch published a batch of back-and-forth emails between high-level State Department technical support and Clinton staffers as they tried to fix a serious problem with the secretary's private home email server.

    Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. © Lucas JacksonHacker 'Guccifer 2.0' publishes DNC campaign docs with strategies for defending Clinton
    According to December 2010 emails, one of Clinton's closest aides, Huma Abedin, reported that some people within the State Department, using the state.gov domain, were not receiving emails sent from the Clintons' private clintonemail.com server.

    "There are many messages and responses not received," one of the officials, Cindy Almodovar, wrote to S/ES-IRM staff, delivering Huma's complaint.

    Just a month before the email issue arose, in November 2010, Abedin and Clinton discussed that department employees were not receiving emails sent by then-secretary, the newly-released emails indicate.

    "We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam," Abedin wrote to Clinton on November 13, 2010.

    In response, the secretary wrote: "Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible."

    Another email shows that John Bentel, then the technical support director, warned Clinton that if she opted to use the official email box, "any email would go through the Department's infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches."

    After Abedin reported the technical problem, the State Department technical staff suggested that "turning off the anti-spam filter" would resolve the problem.

    However, after the Trend Micro Inc. security software installed on Clinton's server was turned off, a senior State Department official, Thomas W. Lawrence, wrote: "We view this as a Band-Aid and fear it's not 100 percent fully effective. We are eager for TrendMicro to fully resolve, quickly."

    A screenshot of TrendMicro's 'ScanMail for Exchange' in one of the emails showed the anti-spam disabled.

    As shutting down the security software didn't appear to be helpful, one email recommended turning off two of the three anti-phishing filters that protect personal data from identity thieves and cybercriminals "in order to eliminate the categorizer."

    However, in his response, Lawrence did not support the idea, saying that both "content-filtering and anti-virus checking… has blocked malicious content in the recent past."

    Another set of emails from January 2011, just mere weeks after attempts to fix Clinton's email server, reveal that someone tried to compromise it.

    "Someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to," the non-departmental advisor to President Bill Clinton, who provided technical support, told the State Department's deputy chief of staff for operations on January 9, 2011.

    "We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min," he wrote later that day.

    The next day, Abedin instructed Clinton's chief of staff and deputy chief of staff for planning not to email the secretary "anything sensitive" and stated that she could "explain more in person."

    Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has repeatedly denied that her private email server was ever breached.

    In late May, the State Department's Office of the Inspector General released a scathing report largely concerning Clinton's email use, saying that unsecured communications at such a high level created "significant security risks."

    This most recent release of Clinton-linked records by Judicial Watch referred to that report. The group requested the emails and was granted the right to obtain the records under a June 14, 2016 court order by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

    Clinton's use of a private email server has been a major headache for her presidential campaign.

    [May 28, 2016] Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

    Notable quotes:
    "... the DoS requires workers to print out each email sent or received, and file it in a box, which is preserved. In general, these printouts, when done at all, are "filed" in printout order, making them difficult to search (which may be the intent, given the historic hostility to FOIA requests). ..."
    "... Also, wasn't mail.presidentclinton.com used for the emails of the Clinton Foundation aides? Doesn't this mean the FBI likely now has very precise timing of both Hillary's SoS travel communications and Bill Clinton's speaking fee arrangement and Clinton Foundation donation emails, due to the emails likely having timestamps from a common clock? ..."
    "... Assuming the ISP has decent security.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGmDBo-00mY ..."
    "... That is a GREAT Youtube video. I've only gotten through the first 10 and a half minutes of it so far, and I had to stop watching it for a bit, because I was laughing my ass off so hard that tears were rolling down my cheeks. ..."
    "... So let me get this straight, she COULD have been sending stuff involved with Black ops over an unencrypted link, and POTENTIALLY those files could have been printed off ANYWHERE in the world, and people are STILL defending her actions! Did it happen – IRRELEVANT! The very notion that she made it POSSIBLE means she breached national security! ..."
    "... if I was an attacker, with or without the backing of a foreign government, I'd have been poking at THE PRINTER in the first instance, because (a) its security is likely to be weaker and also (b) its entirely less likely that there would be any logs produced or kept of my poking around. ..."
    "... Now you're saying that not only was a printer available on this subdomain, and there was no firewall and no encrypted transport, but it was actually one of a particular series of HP LaserJet printers that allowed for a firmware upgrade upon receiving a new print job? ..."
    "... 24.187.234.188 sounds very much like it was from the optimum online network block, and a quick whois shows that currently it does belong to them. ..."
    "... he is not an engineer. Just a Manager that worked for a year 'managing' remote connectivity for foreign Embassies…. he did not go to school for CS or engineering and he has no training either. He was given immunity by the Justice Dept and was then fired by the State Dept so obviously he did something wrong. If you read Brian's post on FB - all of this is explained in the comments below his post with citations/links. ..."
    "... The AP and Wired news stories about this whole issue (of the security of the server) catalog an entire boat load of security screw ups. They don't exactly inspire confidence in the competence of the people who set this stuff up. ..."
    "... Interesting footnote: On tonight's NBC Evening Nudes, they mentioned that the FBI had seized Clinton's server, and also a USB thumb drive in August of last year. No mention of any PRINTERS being seized. (Typical incompetent FBI, still operating in the Louis Freeh era. The man didn't even know how to use a computer, and didn't want to.) ..."
    "... like most hackers, hes a pathological liar. Its in their nature. He came out real quick to brag and prove how he hacked a clinton aid. But didn't want to tell anybody until he went to jail and she runing for president that that he hacked clintons emails? I call total BS. ..."
    "... Did the sysadmin(s) who set up the mail and printer systems have security clearance(s) to read all the Mrs. Clinton's mail and print jobs? ..."
    "... Because she certainly gave the sysadmin(s) the ability to read her mail and print jobs. archive the data, and transport the data anywhere. If that was not all done by State Department IT employee(s). how is this not a punishable offense? ..."
    "... My understanding is that the same person who set up Bill Clinton's website and email after he left office set up Secretary Clinton's; hence, the shared IP addresses for similarly worded domains. Also, wasn't the same server used for both? ..."
    "... I say follow the money. Look at the links between Clinton Foundation and classified information. ..."
    "... She setup a private email server knowingly to exempt her from compliance. Now, the after the fact doesn't really matter. And she knows that… A .gov address would have full rights to all corispondance as the information belongs the the government and can be requested by ant civilian… ..."
    May 28, 2016 | krebsonsecurity.com
    Johnny Mnem, May 28, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    It has, I think, been shown by Venafi that there was for some time in 2012 and 2013 a VPN running on the clintonemail.com domain. However, that certificate expired. Running a directly Internet connected printer seems more a security threat than simply a chance of sniffing printer queues as modern printers sometimes have their own vulnerabilities.

    Venafi's posts (first story has information about VPN):

    https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/new-data-confirms-venafi-analysis-on-clinton-email-server/
    https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server
    https://www.venafi.com/webinars/view/on-demand-clinton-email-server-security-lapses
    Benjamin Lim , May 29, 2016 at 7:42 am

    I don't see why she requires a publicly routable IP address for a mail server, print server and VPN server. It can easily be NATed behind a router on a single public IP.

    JL, May 29, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    On a show last week, Rachel Maddow did a segment on the Department of State's official archive policy.

    According to Maddow, the DoS requires workers to print out each email sent or received, and file it in a box, which is preserved. In general, these printouts, when done at all, are "filed" in printout order, making them difficult to search (which may be the intent, given the historic hostility to FOIA requests).

    This reminded me that the DoS was dismayed at not finding Brian Pagliano's .pst file, indicating they did not expect to find his emails on any server-side backup. Presumably, no server-side DoS email backup capability exists.

    Also, wasn't mail.presidentclinton.com used for the emails of the Clinton Foundation aides? Doesn't this mean the FBI likely now has very precise timing of both Hillary's SoS travel communications and Bill Clinton's speaking fee arrangement and Clinton Foundation donation emails, due to the emails likely having timestamps from a common clock?

    Email Server Software Management, May 30, 2016 at 12:28 pm
    Well, there are many printers have more than one port and protocols in use which means many different ways of establishing a connection to that printer and not just layer 2.
    Whoever, May 31, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Yes, there are so many printers with integrated frame relay ports.

    Jim, May 31, 2016 at 10:35 am

    Loved all the arguments, but, show me in the laws where it was illegal, for Hillery, to have a second E-mail address? And that it was illegal to use it on government time. Or to have a printer hooked to that account? But, I will tell you what was illegal. The employees using that address to send classified information too. You shouldn't worry about Hillery, but the useful idiots.

    Ken, May 31, 2016 at 11:17 am

    There are some registrars that setup DNS by way of a template and assign A record subdomains by default to make it easier….such as MX, www, etc. Not excusing it as you need to be way more careful when you are the state department…but this is hardly the worst thing Clinton has done.

    Karen Bannan, June 1, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    I'm not surprised since people don't realize how much of a security risk a printer can be - and how to protect themselves and their network. Great white paper about printer and network security written by a third party here: bit.ly/1sq1kyG

    I also just read a story about printers and security on Computerworld.

    http://www.computerworld.com/article/3074902/security/printer-security-is-your-companys-data-really-safe.html

    –Karen Bannan, commenting for IDG and HP

    Joe, May 26, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    The printer queue to a pimple faced hacker wouldn't be of interest but for a state intelligence agency it would be a jackpot. Some of the greatest intelligence is gathered from the trash still today. Don't think that the printer queue would not be interesting to a knowledgeable party.

    Joe, May 27, 2016 at 7:09 am

    So… You want me to believe that Hillary's personal email server sat behind MILLIONS of dollars of security infrastructure to keep it protected? And that it employed D.O.D. grade 2 factor authentication, disk encryption, and had a team of the worlds best security professionals monitoring all traffic to/from the server and the network itself?

    I doubt it.

    IMorgan59, May 27, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Secure, nonsecure, whatever. If she had used State's email server, then 1) copies would have been on their server when she left office, 2) the Benghazi Commitee would have been able to wrap up its investigation 2 years ago, 3) if State's computers were hacked, that wouldn't be her responsibility, and 4) due to her choices, she's on the hot seat insisting she didn't do anything wrong. She made her bed and now has to sleep in it.

    Winston, May 27, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    The C-SPAN interview with former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph diGenova I linked to above was a real eye opener for me to how HUGE this scandal actually is.

    Once one is aware of the details, one can easily see through all of the many intentional red herrings and half truths thrown out on this by Clinton and her campaign. What is absolutely, positively amazing to me is how they have been able to get away with it since it really doesn't take much investigative effort at all to expose their spin job for what it is.

    Some of the lame excuses now coming from the State Department are a hint that officials there are also vulnerable to the very major repercussions that SHOULD come from this.

    Every one of the 127 to 150 (depending upon who you listen to) FBI agents investigating this and every person in the intel community knows darn well that if any one of them had done even the tiniest fraction of what has been done by Clinton and her crew, their security clearance would have been immediately revoked, they would have been indicted and, most likely, imprisoned.

    That is why, as revealed in the C-SPAN interview with Joseph diGenova who has a current Top Secret clearance himself and has his ear to the conversation within the retired DOJ and intel community in DC, there would likely be a revolt within the FBI and intel community if there are no indictments on this. Why?

    Well, first, there is that "Think of what would have happened to ME if I'd done even a tiny fraction of this." Second, the failure to indict and prosecute would set a dangerous precedent that would make the successful prosecution of anyone guilty of the mishandling of classified materials and avoidance of public record FOIA inquiries difficult if not impossible.

    herunobfuscatedemails, May 27, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    @notme and other defending Hillary Fanbois: There is tons of evidence it was not way more secure than a DOD platform and she didn't use a qualified individual to set up the email server.

    It was an out of the box config with little or no effort to obfuscate the domain / service. I highly doubt the server or IIS had been harden and I'd have to profile it was out of ignorance. No doubt all default vulnerabilities where unaddressed and patches weren't in effect if a reboot was necessary

    How do we know this??? Just a little recon. As you know whatever you post may never go away… Same goes for domains. Enter one of my favorite Internet recon tools The Way Back Machine. If you don't know it, search for it and do a little research.

    When the default IIS page comes up for the mail domain and the auth login page shows up for at the default OWA address, we can comfortably conclude this was a lame chatty effort. At least ssl was being used (by default no doubt):
    https://mail.clintonemail.com/owa/auth/logon.aspx

    Had someone intended to provide a layer of security by hiding her email, it never EVER would've been via that silly domain. An obfuscated domain would've been irrelevant and distasteful i.e. openmalwarehere.com

    Mark M, May 27, 2016 at 1:47 am

    Assuming the ISP has decent security.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGmDBo-00mY

    Ron G, May 27, 2016 at 6:44 pm

    That is a GREAT Youtube video. I've only gotten through the first 10 and a half minutes of it so far, and I had to stop watching it for a bit, because I was laughing my ass off so hard that tears were rolling down my cheeks.

    Looking forward to the additional amazing absurdities revealed in the NEXT 40 minutes of this video.

    You can't make stuff like this up.

    Robert, May 26, 2016 at 8:48 pm

    Could also DNS poison. They are not connecting to the printer via IP probably if they are setting up A records for it. Also don't underestimate how many routers on the web are hacked, and I am talking up stream core routers.

    But why are we even talking about eavesdropping a connection? You can usually trivially compromise a printer (likely default admin creds) and just capture each print job that is sent to the printer using the printer itself. Copy each job onto the filesystem memory on the device and FTP it out. Most all HP and other network capable printers support it or just upload your own firmware.

    psgm, May 27, 2016 at 2:20 am

    So let me get this straight, she COULD have been sending stuff involved with Black ops over an unencrypted link, and POTENTIALLY those files could have been printed off ANYWHERE in the world, and people are STILL defending her actions! Did it happen – IRRELEVANT! The very notion that she made it POSSIBLE means she breached national security!

    Would anyone else who did this be allowed in public yet alone to run for POTUS!?

    Why haven't the DNC disqualified her already?

    She is DONE

    onasty, May 26, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    The intercepting of data is also somewhat unlikely. Without knowing how they got internet access you can't say infallibly if it was sniffable. Over a fiber circuit she likely had a CIDR block and there wouldn't have been anyone else to sniff it. Over DOCSIS they would need to break BPI+, and be on the local RF segment. Both create extraordinarily unlikely scenarios for sniffing.

    Also you sent me on a confusing wild IP goose chase… You have both 24.187.234.188 and 24.197.234.188 listed in the story.

    Ron G, May 26, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    An interesting report from 2011:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/exclusive-millions-printers-open-devastating-hack-attack-researchers-say-f118851

    "In one demonstration, Cui printed a tax return on an infected printer, which in turn sent the tax form to a second computer playing the part of a hacker's machine. The latter computer then scanned the document for critical information such as Social Security numbers, and when it found one, automatically published it on a Twitter feed…"

    So, um, leaving aside the narrow possibility of printer traffic sniffing, I believe that it might be accurate to say that most printers these days have memory… lots of it… and thus, it would seem to be not entirely beyond the realm of the possible to imagine a scenario in which a less-than-perfectly-secured printer which happened to also have a PUBLIC internet address, might perhaps be induced to give up its secrets to some remote attacker, e.g. the last five or ten documents that were printed.

    The media and the Republicats are all gaga about the security of THE SERVER, but if I was an attacker, with or without the backing of a foreign government, I'd have been poking at THE PRINTER in the first instance, because (a) its security is likely to be weaker and also (b) its entirely less likely that there would be any logs produced or kept of my poking around.

    name, May 26, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    Now you're saying that not only was a printer available on this subdomain, and there was no firewall and no encrypted transport, but it was actually one of a particular series of HP LaserJet printers that allowed for a firmware upgrade upon receiving a new print job?

    After a few ifs, I agree this could look bad. But, Ron, you're piling on the if after if after if and stating factually that this was bad. Again, what we have is a subdomain with printer as the name. There's a ton of things in between that what you're trying to have poor Brian conclude.

    Directly connecting a computer to the internet without any firewall or hardening, bad idea. Directly connecting a printer to the internet without any firewall or hardening, yes, this too is a bad idea. Too bad we're playing hopscotch because of a subdomain name. Not like this: http://210.125.31.xxx/hp/device/this.LCDispatcher?nav=hp.EventLog

    Nixie, May 26, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Check this interesting Wayback Machine history out. Looks like the Clinton server was hosting adware, possible malware, on February 7, 2011.

    https://web.archive.org/web/form-submit.jsp?type=prefixquery&url=https://clintonemail.com/

    Ron G, May 26, 2016 at 7:23 pm

    Ummm… Maybe advertising.

    This brings up another interesting thing I just learned about the clintonemail.com domain. The FSI passive DNS data bases knows of about 10,000 subdomains of that domain. I was flaberghasted by this at first, but then I realised the real reason for this. (No, that domain DOES NOT actually have anywhere near that many REAL subdomains):

    http://serverfault.com/questions/582962/unused-domain-name-getting-routed-to-double-click

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/11/network_solutions_sub_domain_parking/

    The simple answer is that NetworkSolutions points your parked domains at their advertising. (That's not actually remarkable at all. That's just what pretty much every company that does domain parking does.)

    The more interesting thing is that in the cases of your live/active/non-parked domains for which NetSol provides DNS, they wildcard these domains, so that any time anybody punches in a misspelled subdomain name, they end up at NetSol's advertising partner, DoubleClick.

    This is arguably an underhanded thing for NetSol to be doing, but hey! It's (apparently) in the contract, so it _is_ explicit to the customer, and NetSol isn't in business for its health. It's a commecial enterprise, so they can't be blamed for trying to make a buck, here and there.

    But all this info about the DNS really brings up some other issues. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Hillary's server was, in actual fact, as tight as a snare drum with respect to security. There's still the question of her login credentials for her NetSol account. If those had gone walkaround… well… you can imagine the scenarios.

    Nixie, May 27, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    The Wayback links I provided are NOT for subdomains or parked domains. They are for the clintonemail.com domain, for the time period in question that a breach may have occurred. The URL strings captured show (at least) questionable adware running on this box, and I'm really surprised no one is looking at that. The &poru= string is tied to some very dubious adware, for example.

    Chris, May 26, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    So no evidence except wild speculation based on a sub domain name? I used to have a few sub domains such as router.mydomain voip.mydomain admin.mydomain netgear.mydomain setup as a honeypots. My plan was to script any ips buzzing them had all their future traffic dropped for several days. But alas I never got around to completing it.

    Ron G, May 26, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    Gosh! I had no idea, up until this moment, that Hillary was so sophisticated that she was even running her own honeypots!

    Returning to this planet for the moment, I'd just like to emphasize that, as I told Brian, there are really two core points here:

    1) Assigning a *public* IPv4 address to a printer opened up at least the theoretical possibilities that either (a) printer traffic could be sniffed or (b) that the printer itself could be compromised. We can debate all day the actual pragmatic level of risk associated with each of these two possibilities, but I think that it is non-zero in both cases, and in any case, perhaps this all misses the point.

    2) Perhaps even MORE importantly, the assignment of a static public IP address to the printer speaks to the general level of network security competence (or lack thereof) of whoever was setting up and maintaining this equipment for the Clintons. And what it says is not good at all. I don't think that many either would or could disagree with that. And this is the more troubling aspect of the whole story. If the Clinton's sysadmin messed up even this simple and obvious thing, then what ELSE did he or she mess up, security-wise?

    Ron G, May 27, 2016 at 7:25 pm

    "Putting anything on the internet opens up the theoretical possibility that's its traffic could be sniffed. So, unless that's the threshold, in which case she's as secure as anything else on the internet, what's the point of the outrage?"

    Actually, yea, you've made a good point. But let's dissect it a bit.

    In theory, at least, server-to-server e-mail transmission can be protected from prying eyes via TLS encryption. I personally don't know how well deployed that (TLS) is at the present moment, but let's just say for the sake of argument that it's 50/50, i.e. half the time Hillary's inbound and outbound messages, e.g. to various world potentates, were protected in transit from sniffing and/or MITM attacks, and the other times they weren't.

    More to the point, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that she at least understood the possibilities of her e-mails being spied upon… which, in the post-Snowden era, at least, she certainly should have understood… and as a result, she was at least smart enough not to send out e-mails like "Yea, let's drop those bombs now Bibi!" as some clever wag here said.

    Contrast this with her probable level of caution when it came to simply *printing* some draft document… which could be equally or perhaps even more revealing and/or inflamatory… to the printer sitting right there next to her desk in her home office.

    (As someone suggested, it is at least theoretically possible that data transport to the printer might be encrypted, but in practice, probably not.)

    So Hillary is sitting there, and she prints a draft of a document she's working on called "State Department Post-Invasion Plan for Crimea". She doesn't worry about the security implications of "sending" that document out over the Internet, because, as far as she knows, it is actually just going from the screen on the physical desk right in front of her just over to the printer which is sitting right at her elbow. As far as her (possibly technically naive) perceptions go, the document is just being printed, and isn't ever even leaving the room she is sitting in. So her _perception_ is that printing the document is utterly safe and secure.

    But this is the whole point here. Maybe that document could be sniffed. Even if that's not a realistic possibility, the printer itself could be directly compromised, and made to give up its secrets.

    The apparent high probability that (a) she had a home printer and that (b) this printer had a public Ipv4 address… which was ridiculously easy to find, by the way… and that (c) she probably was NOT just using that printer as a paperweight or a doorstop and (d) the undeniable possibility that said printer could perhaps have been "hacked"… perhaps even via something as simple as remote login using admin/admin… all adds up to what, in my book at least, seems to be a "Holy s**t!" type of scenario.

    The fact that the FBI apparently didn't bother to impound her printer when it impounded the rest of her gear is perhaps even more troubling.

    For all we know, as we speak, that printer may be sitting exposed in some landfill somewhere in the hills of Westchester County, just waiting for some dumpster diver with an eye for valuable e-waste to come along, fish it out, plug it in, login with admin/admin, and then print out copies of the last 20 documents.

    I think that it is safe to say that such a scenario probably would not be fully conformant with State Department rules & regulations with respect to the security of electronic documents.

    Name, May 26, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    Subdomain names mean little to nothing. Someone could guess what an IP address served based upon the subdomain name, or the domain name itself, but that is silly.

    What exactly is an "internet based printer"? I'm not sure if there's a technical person trying to sound not technical and using random jargon or if it's a non-technical person trying to sound technical. Let's try and define some terms maybe?

    24.187.234.188 sounds very much like it was from the optimum online network block, and a quick whois shows that currently it does belong to them. That sounds about right because they provide services around the area Hillary Clinton called home. Optonline does provide static IP addresses. But I have to wonder, are these terminated in the house? Do we know if the email server everyone is so hip to talk about was actually located at Clinton's house or was it in a DC (rack, not washington)? If it was in her house what was the connection? Did this IP reside on a cable modem? Was it a DSL line? Fiber? That area wasn't know for it's way updated and trendy transport. Did the carrier provide the equipment? Did Clinton hire a complete idiot to put the email server directly connected to the internet or was there a firewall in front of it?

    How likely is it that there was a firewall of sorts in front of the mail server and any printers that were likely there? Pretty damn likely. She didn't buy services from Stooges r Us. And even if she did, they would probably set up a firewall. That's all saying that the vendor supplied equipment didn't perform some firewalling technology. Anyone in the IT field would see this as not very likely outside of pre mid 90s.

    For the printer subdomain name, we think that the printer actually had IPP or something? LPD? Are you suggesting, but not saying, that Clinton set up a printing device directly on the internet so that while she was traveling around wherever she was when not at home and printing to that printer? That doesn't even make sense. Or are you suggesting, but not saying, she decided this fancy new printer she saw at Office Depot would look nice with a subdomain sitting next to her email server? And, now she could actually print stuff while she was outside in the yard or upstairs in the bedroom? Oh, it was connected to the internet? Really? "I didn't know it was on the internet even though I somehow called and registered a subdomain so I could get an external IP address for it. And I just plugged this big old CAT5(e)/6 cable into my printer directly from the wall???"

    Factually we can say the following: 4 subdomains pointed to 2 IPs. 2 subdomains use the English word "mail" and 2 subdomains use the English word "printer".

    Do we know that some mail transfer agent was listening on the mail domain? I assume someone knows this, but I've not seen any documentation on this, haven't looked, barely care. Do we have any open ports on this other IP? Did anyone do some research? Why don't you contact Robert Graham and ask him if masscan hit those IPs and what ports were open. Maybe he doesn't like reporters, but you can ask nicely. Tell him some guy on the internet told you about masscan and that Rob probably had some port information about those IPs.

    Ron G, May 26, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    "Do we know if the email server everyone is so hip to talk about was actually located at Clinton's house or was it in a DC (rack, not washington)? If it was in her house what was the connection? Did this IP reside on a cable modem? Was it a DSL line? Fiber? That area wasn't know for it's way updated and trendy transport. Did the carrier provide the equipment? Did Clinton hire a complete idiot to put the email server directly connected to the internet or was there a firewall in front of it?"

    These are all GREAT questions, many of which the FBI, in its usual half-assed manner, is probably not even thinking about, let alone actually asking. Do you have any of the answers to any of the questions that you yourself have raised? I mean DEFINITIVE answers, rather than just your personal speculations?

    "How likely is it that there was a firewall of sorts in front of the mail server and any printers that were likely there? Pretty damn likely."

    And you are basing that opinion/supposition on what, exactly?

    "She didn't buy services from Stooges r Us."

    Ummm… she did, actually:

    As detailed in both of the above news stories, whoever set up Clinton's network was probably a relative of Professor Irwin Corey.

    Jen, May 27, 2016 at 11:43 am

    She used a SUPER USER from State to set it up for her… he is not an engineer. Just a Manager that worked for a year 'managing' remote connectivity for foreign Embassies…. he did not go to school for CS or engineering and he has no training either. He was given immunity by the Justice Dept and was then fired by the State Dept so obviously he did something wrong. If you read Brian's post on FB - all of this is explained