Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Backup Server would be very bad news for Hillary

Backup Server would be very bad news for Hillary

ABC News reports there may be a backup server.

As I mentioned in prior posts, from the very start Hillary Clinton’s email and server stories were inconsistent and self-contradictory.

On the one hand, in her March 10, 2015 press conference, Hillary said the server housing her email system would not be turned over because it contained personal messages between her and Bill. Hillary’s answer suggested that the server existed and was under her control. (Put aside that Bill’s spokesman says he only sent two emails in his life, when he was President.)

The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private … [transcript]

On the other hand, we now know that the actual server which ran the email system while Hillary was Secretary of State was taken into the custody of Colorado-based Platte River Networks in or about June 2013, the data was transferred somewhere, the server was wiped clean, and then physically stored in New Jersey.

(Bookworm Room has a very helpful chronology with sources of the email and server stories and events.)

So what and where was the server Hillary was refusing to turn over in March 2015 that contained personal information? It could not have been the wiped server just turned over the the Feds by Platte River Networks because that server was blank and not under Hillary’s control.

The server with the data had to be somewhere else, as I suggested in How did Hillary’s lawyers search a server no longer in her possession and which had been wiped clean?

Another discrepancy suggesting the existence of a second server was that Hillary’s attorneys in the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit represented to the court that Hillary did not ask for her attorneys to search her emails on clintonmail.com until “late 2014.”

But how could they search the emails if the server had been wiped clean over a year earlier and was sitting in a storage facility in New Jersey, unless there was [another] place where all the data resided? (The thumb drives possessed by the attorneys apparently contain only the emails Hillary acknowledges are federal records.)

So, Hillary’s refusal to turn over the original wiped server appears to have been something of a mislead, as I explained in Hillary refusal to turn over server for months may have led people off the trail.

There had to be a second server or at least database somewhere with all the emails in undeleted form. That was the only consistent story, though it was not the story Hillary or her attorneys were telling.

But it was the story I thought had to be the case.

And we may be inching closer to that reality, as Jon Karl at ABC News reports that Platte River Networks has informed the federal government that there likely is a backup of the server:

(Via Twitchy)

Why is this potentially huge trouble for Hillary?

Remember, she has staked her entire defense on only truly personal emails (Yoga, Chelsea’s wedding, her mother’s death) being withheld. If that turns out not to be true, Hillary has potentially campaign-ending credibility problems.

But there’s more. Remember I asked Did Hillary just walk into a perjury trap over her emails? after she submitted a Declaration under penalty of perjury in the Judicial Watch FOIA litigation. While Hillary left herself some potential dodges and outs, she nonetheless represented to the court, among other things:

“While I do not know what information may be “responsive” for purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records to be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.”

“As a result of my directive, approximately 55,000 pages of these emails were produced to the Department on December 5, 2014.”

If it turns out that not all potentially federal records were turned over, and if there is evidence that Hillary knew that representation to be false at the time of the Declaration, Hillary may face a perjury prosecution, or more likely because of the lower level of proof needed, obstruction of justice.

In fact, depending on how the evidence turns out once the “Second Server” is examined, the Feds could plausibly claim that the entire private server and deletion scenario was an attempt to obstruct justice.

So the Second Server, or backup database, could prove to be a major legal headache for Hillary.

And that’s not even getting into the problems of classified information, which could be more serious than originally reported. There now appear to be at least 60 emails containing retstricted information based on initial sampling, as The Washington Times reports:

While media coverage has focused on a half-dozen of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal emails containing sensitive intelligence, the total number of her private emails identified by an ongoing State Department review as having contained classified data has ballooned to 60, officials told The Washington Times.

That figure is current through the end of July and is likely to grow as officials wade through a total of 30,000 work-related emails that passed through her personal email server, officials said. The process is expected to take months….

Among the first 60 flagged emails, nearly all contained classified secrets at the lowest level of “confidential” and one contained information at the intermediate level of “secret,” officials told the Times.

Those 60 emails do not include two emails identified in recent days by Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III as containing “top-secret” information possibly derived from Pentagon satellites, drones or intercepts, which is some of the nation’s most sensitive secrets.

The Hillary emails scandal is picking up steam.

The political vultures are circling. And Democrats are panicking.

At some point the Democratic Party decides that it cannot risk the generational devastation which would follow the collapse of its presumptive nominee late in the campaign season.

When that point comes, all bets are off.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I can’t see the DOJ doing anything but providing cover for Hillary. Even if Obama hates her guts, they protect their own.

    Estragon in reply to Sanddog. | August 17, 2015 at 5:31 am

    True – but the statute of limitations for most federal offenses is five years, and if a conspiracy, the last overt act furthering or concealing the conspiracy is the one which starts the clock.

    No matter how you measure it, Hillary is in jeopardy until 2018 at least, probably later. So she not only depends upon Obama and Lynch, but upon a Democrat winning next year.

      jimb82 in reply to Estragon. | August 17, 2015 at 10:40 am

      True, but you have to find a jury of 12 in NY or DC who will convict Hillary. It will never happen, and she knows it.

    Dr P in reply to Sanddog. | August 17, 2015 at 12:43 pm

    There is defense in depth. Each takes time to breech. She had multiple email accounts, and multiple hard drives, and now multiple servers.

    Yet just like pulling the layers of onions reveal another layer, eventually you run out of layers.

    She can delay. Indeed she was successful in delaying information until after the last OBAMA election. She may be successful in delaying long enough to get the democrat nomination.

    Yet the information revealed now is enough to take the democrat party down in the general election. Imagine what it will look like if she is the nominee and new information is revealed.

Hillary Clinton’s shenanigans make Richard Nixon’s look like tiddlywinks.

    jimb82 in reply to JohnC. | August 17, 2015 at 10:42 am

    I believe we are at the scandal stage of what John Ehrlichman termed the “modified limited hangout.”

    Pace Victor Marchetti: “When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout

So, as timing is everything . . . exactly was Bubba talking to Barky about on the golf course today?
(great photo heading up Drudge this evening)

I really want to see Hillary go to prison but I don’t believe it will ever happen.

Why?

The same reason the Clintons always skate: They know too much about too many very powerful people. I believe the Clintons survive politically by using a system of Mutually Assured Destruction. They have proof of things, really bad things, concerning many people at the top of our government. And I mean the very top. Anyone who tries to drop the hammer on Hillary will find an envelope lying on their desk containing copies of the information that will be leaked to the press should things not go the ‘right’ way.

    Eastwood Ravine in reply to JohnC. | August 16, 2015 at 11:24 pm

    That would only work until someone has the will to reap the consequences (face the music). If I was the target of such blackmail, I’d suffer the slings and arrows to ensure the Clinton family is no longer viable politically.

    The symphony of destruction would be beautiful.

      I think the info they collect is of the kind that destroys marriages, ends careers and sends people to the Federal pen.

      I wish someone would do as you suggest but their strategy has worked for decades so far.

      I can imagine that should any real punishment fall on either Hillary or Bill their people, including their daughter, will use the data to destroy every person involved even if it takes many years. We’re talking some real Game of Thrones scheming here.

        Bettijo in reply to JohnC. | August 17, 2015 at 10:41 am

        Remember Vince Foster.

          jimb82 in reply to Bettijo. | August 17, 2015 at 10:45 am

          I think Jim and Susan McDougal are a more instructive case. He died in prison because they didn’t give him his heart medicine and she went to the slammer for contempt rather than testify about what she knew. You don’t screw with the Clintons.

          Sammy Finkelman in reply to Bettijo. | August 17, 2015 at 6:33 pm

          Vincent Foster was not killed by the Clintons – the cover-up got up to too much of a rocky start for that, plus Predident Clinton was not stalin and could not have gotten his other aides to cover it up if they thought he had done it.

          He was probably killed by the Saudi Arabian Ambassador ro the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who lived right across the street from Fort Marcy Park, and often met alot of important people in Washington there, or by one of his employees, after he had tried to blackmail the ambassadir for money to pay for a lawyer (he wanted the contents of one of Prince Bandar;s famous locked briefcases)

          After this happened, Prince Bandar rushed over to the White House for an unscheduled meeting with President Clinton and Sandy Burglar, where he got President Clinton to agree to cover it up. The meeting was leaked to Fred Barnes and published on page 10 of March 14, 1994 issue of the New Republic, with a completely false explanation as to why the meeting took place, which they even took pains to tell people not to generalize from. This was right at the time of other Foster case leaks. My efforts to use the FOIA to confirm this meeting failed.

          Vincent Foster had panicked< I think, as a result of reading an e-mail I had sent to [email protected], which among other things, warned him not to fire the FBI Director and said reporters knew more than tghey printed, and if he check that days's Wall Street Jornal editorial (that os the 19th – the email was receoved and printed out on July 20) and that if he was fired, reporters would be released from their pledges of confidentiality and would be free to tell what they know, particularly about how he was kept from the scene at Waco and how his water cannon plan was rekected in favor of tear gas. It got kicked up to him because it started out abot Crown Heights, and Gov Mario Cuomo was keeping the Girgente Report under wraps and nobody at the White House knew what it said. Shortly after reading that, I think he heard William Sessions was calling a press conference for Thursday.

          Sammy Finkelman in reply to Bettijo. | August 17, 2015 at 7:20 pm

          Note: The Fred Barnes article only gave the month of Prince Bandar’s secret unscheduled visit to the White House (July) not the date or time)

          I remember something else. At a high school graduation, Hillary Clinton just dropped into the public record that she and Bill had visited the home of a friend who had died.

          That would have have been Diane D. Blair.

          I thought they were looking for doccuments to remove. She would have known all about Cattlegate but there was probably more. Like about Bill Clinton’s claim to have balanced 11 budgets in a row, which he made much of in the 1992 and which was a lie (Arkansas has a 2-year budget cycle – she wrote the book – and Bill Clinton hadn’t been Governor for 11 years in a row.)

          It is interesting that Hillary did leave some stuff behind.

The law of selective gravitation says that a dropped hammer will land where it does the most damage. So… Let her fall. Fall, hammer, FALL!

Backup server? Where? Besides how can anyone trust that to hold anything of value? Seriously! ./snark off

“…Anyone who tries to drop the hammer on Hillary will find an envelope lying on their desk containing copies of the information that will be leaked to the press should things not go the ‘right’ way.”

This would be a bad thing? I can’t think of any spectacle I’d rather watch.

Sammy Finkelman | August 17, 2015 at 12:19 am

So what and where was the server Hillary was refusing to turn over in March 2015 that contained personal information? It could not have been the wiped server just turned over the the Feds by Platte River Networks because that server was blank and not under Hillary’s control.

I don’t know how Hillary and her lawyers got people to believe that there was only one server, or that the original server, used until 2013, was “the” server, but it might have been in part by a careful choice of words.

I am still surprised, but I am probably missing some details. Some people are coming across as really stupid.

Her e-mails, of course, were extracted from the new server, which was in use as of the fall of 2014, and had all her e-mails going back to 2009, and other people’s e-mails, too.

They may have gotten rid of that server, too, and replaced it.

If it turns out that not all potentially federal records were turned over

I beleive she and her lawyers believe she’s covered there, because she got the State Department to agree that what she turned over was all the records, and they had no further requests.

And then she destroyed whatever was left. Or at least deleted it from the server. The new server.

That server was not a back-up. It was a replacement. It was in active use. The back-up that Platte River is talking about is another thing altogether, unless they mean the server that was turned over to the Clintons in 2013 for active use.

As for why they kept the old one, that was maybe because it was worth money, but they didn’t sell it or anything because they believed, contrary to what is being said now, that data or metadata maybe could be extracted from it, maybe by some means that nobody had developed yet.

taken into the custody of Colorado-based Platte River Networks in or about June 2013, the data was transferred somewhere, the server was wiped clean, and then physically stored in New Jersey.

Vague terminology is perfect cover for a professional hair-splitter like Clinton. “Physically stored” doesn’t mean that it was inactive. It was “stored” at a data center. Most of the world’s servers reside at data centers, but they’re not in dead storage, they’re connected to T1 and T3 phone lines, and they’re active. They are also normally part of the data center’s routine monitoring, which includes periodic backups.

Plate River Networks is also playing the hair-splitting game. Consider, from Daily Caller three days ago:

“The information had been migrated over to a different server for purposes of transition,” said Wells. The transfer was carried out in June 2013, she told The Post.

“To my knowledge the data on the old server is not available now on any servers or devices in Platte River Network’s control.”

No, of course not. They wouldn’t be under Platte River Networks’ control, they would be under the control of the data center. This is routine for all customers; there’s nothing especially Clintonian about it. Data centers do have provisions for “high security” (though generally not up to government specification) which involves limiting physical access to the servers; techs normally have easy access so they can swap out drives which are showing signs of failing.

And, of course, “migration” just means that the websites handled by a server are copied to another server, usually either to update to faster hardware (not too important if it’s all e-mail) or to move the website to a different data center. Usually when “migrating” one doesn’t go into a data center, unbolt a server from the rack panel, carry it to the Post Office and mail it to another data center; one simply copies the needed data to another server via the internet, probably via ftp rather than http, and then changes the setting at the name registrar so that clintonemail.com points to the IP address of the new server. This can be done from Denver or from Chappaqua or from anywhere in between.

Now when Hillary was Sec of State, the server wasn’t in a data center, it was in Fort Clinton in Chappaqua, NY. That means that there were no data center techs to run periodic backups, and if there are backups, they’re under Hillary’s control. If she hasn’t specifically denied it, with one of her famous “there are no backups to my knowledge, and if there were, I’ve previously directed that they be destroyed, and they were only about yoga classes no matter what the Vast Right-Wing conspiracy may say,” then we can be pretty sure that there are backups, and that they’ve been hidden somewhere by Hillary, her staff, her lawyer, Blumenthal, etc.

The whole “wiping the server” thing is suspicious all by itself. First off, you don’t “wipe” servers. You wipe the storage (usually one or more hard drives). But why bother? Just replace the drive and physically destroy the old one; throw it on a campfire, toss it in the river, whack it with a hammer, shoot it, whatever. Replacement with a new drive is quick and cheap.

    janitor in reply to tom swift. | August 17, 2015 at 2:39 am

    If Hillary gave out accounts on her machine, that means there were multiple persons with remote login capability into her “server”. That means that Hillary’s techs had remote access into her machine for software maintenance, backups, etc., even when the hardware was sitting in Chappaqua. FTP, SSH, VNC, whatever. Also hackers. I’ve yet to even hear what the operating systems were, which would give us some clues.

    I myself don’t know what “server” here means. I have multiple “mail servers”, “web servers”, “file servers”, etc. (By the way, a “database” is merely a program storing data in retrievable fashion, and it’s on a computer. It’s not a storage closet.) I have a relatively small business. For it, just as many, many do, I have multiple machines, some working in tandem. I have machines with multiple hard drives, routinely covering for each other and backing each other up (so that, e.g. if one goes out, another is there). I have offsite backups to machines in a weatherproof high security data center. Redundancy. Etc. Etc. Etc. And I am not Secy State of the U.S. Even if she had only one box sitting in her house, there was a lot more to it because I doubt that Hillary Clinton did her own software and hardware maintenance.

    As I’ve said before, this is getting ridiculous already.

      janitor in reply to janitor. | August 17, 2015 at 3:05 am

      Added thought. One might come back with, well maybe Hillary had only one un-backed-up very simple machine that maybe had only one or two hardware updates. I suppose it’s possible, given the extreme incompetence of what government officials seem to hire these days; anyone at all can hang out a shingle and claim to be a computer mavin.

      But think about it: Clinton Foundation? Doesn’t have private network too? No connex? And, do you really think that any computer firm hired by the Clintons wouldn’t have looked to gouge them a little with fancier, more expensive stuff, as well as some turf-protecting complexity under the guise of “security”? And also wouldn’t have done redundancy because, can you imagine if something failed and you lost data belonging to the Secy State?

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to janitor. | August 17, 2015 at 10:19 am

      “Hillary’s techs”

      They really were Bill’s techs.

      A special new e-mail address was created for her right before she took the office of Secretary of State, but clintonemail.com had been around, I think, since 2001.

        Not according to the domain name registrar.

        “Internet records show the clintonemail.com domain was first registered on Jan. 13, 2009.”

          Sammy Finkelman in reply to Paul. | August 17, 2015 at 7:23 pm

          Right. They were using one or two other domains before. presidentclinton.com was one and I think there was another. But the thing is, it was at the same location.

      Paul in reply to janitor. | August 17, 2015 at 10:22 am

      This article suggests she was running Windows OS with Exchange Server: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2895892/hillary-clintons-email-system-was-insecure-for-two-months.html

      And I agree with your comments regarding the multiplicity of hardware that comprises a “server” these days. Didn’t we learn anything with the Lois Lerner debacle? The data are ALWAYS backed up somewhere.

    DaveGinOly in reply to tom swift. | August 17, 2015 at 1:37 pm

    She may have “wiped” the hard drives (I believe they’re using “server” as shorthand for “hard drives” – technically inaccurate, but not terribly important) because Hillary can spin that as something that is normally done in the course of decommissioning a server. Take the drives out and sink them, hit them with hammers, or shoot them, and it looks like you’re up to no good, because these things couldn’t be spun as “normal.” Although actual destruction of hardware is normal when hard drives have been used to hold classified information, Hillary’s position is that they never held classified information, so she can’t use that as a reason for the drives’ destruction, another reason they weren’t destroyed.

“…Plate River Networks is also playing the hair-splitting game. Consider, from Daily Caller three days ago:

…This is routine for all customers; there’s nothing especially Clintonian about it.”

Of course she’s splitting hairs, tom. Barbara Wells is an attorney for Platte River Networks. I am imagine since the FBI has knocked on their door she is going to be very careful and precise when/if she makes any public statements. But as you point out there is nothing particularly Clintonian about it.

Nor will there be. Nor can they be; they can’t play the same game the Clintons can play. I’m just guessing; nobody at Platte River Networks has anywhere near the political connections as Hillary Clinton. If they did, they wouldn’t be working at Platte River Networks. So the FBI will roll up the low level people first and, uhh, convince them to cooperate fully and enthusiastically with their investigation.

Notice how their tune has changed in the face of FBI persuasion. A few days ago Wells said to her own knowledge the data no longer exists. Today Platte River Networks says, “Oh, you meant that data. Yes, it looks like we made a full back-up and it is very likely the data does exist.”

Here’s the 2 + 2 that I’m having trouble with: How did she do the job of Secretary of State and NOT deal with any classified or secret emails?

So either 1.) she didn’t ever send or receive anything secret, or 2.) she was sending and receiving secrets through an unsecured private system.

Which is it?

This is a very basic question, and why do I live in a country where the “news journalists” will not ask it?

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to RKae. | August 17, 2015 at 10:06 am

    How did she do the job of Secretary of State and NOT deal with any classified or secret emails?

    So either 1.) she didn’t ever send or receive anything secret, or 2.) she was sending and receiving secrets through an unsecured private system.

    Which is it?

    Asked and answered. This is what she claims:

    Whenever she had to look at any classified document, she had it sent to an aide’s classified e-mail address and had it printed out.

    She also says she dealt with classified matters:

    A) In person

    B) Over a secure phone

    OR

    C) Over a secure video teleconference network.

    But not by e-mail.

    At least not her e-mail.

      But we know she’s lying, don’t we? He system stored at least two Top Secret emails and now we hear as many as 60 others that were classified or above.

      Just because this vile old lying whore says something doesn’t mean it’s true. In fact, after decades of watching these scum bags crap all over everybody I’m inclined to think just the opposite.

      So when are the “Press” going to grow a pair and really get after her?

      DaveGinOly in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | August 17, 2015 at 1:55 pm

      “Whenever she had to look at any classified document, she had it sent to an aide’s classified e-mail address and had it printed out.”

      We may also surmise that she had an aide (or personally used an aide’s device) to reply to classified emails (with responses that would have been likewise classified). So she sent and received email messages by proxy. Where are these emails? Wouldn’t they be responsive to various demands for her emails? Just because they were sent by or through a proxy (indirectly by an aide or personally using an aide’s device), they’re still her communications. Or can a government official use an aide as a proxy and make those emails invisible to document requests because they weren’t sent/received in person or were/sent received by the official using someone else’s device and using that person’s email address?

      Assuming that any classified information that shows up on clintomail.com was simply accidental (and not because Hillary used the address for classified messages as a matter of course), and that Hillary generally did use secure communications for classified messages, where are those messages?

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 17, 2015 at 7:27 pm

        can a government official use an aide as a proxy and make those emails invisible to document requests because they weren’t sent/received in person or were/sent received by the official using someone else’s device and using that person’s email address?

        I would think so, especially if the aide typed in the message and didn’t type in the name Hillary, or Clinton or the Secretary.

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 18, 2015 at 6:16 am

        In the federal government I think, both the sender and receiver have resposibility for preserveinbg records, but, as we learned from the what came out in the Lois Lerner case, in many or all federal agencies, it is up to the judgement of the person who has custody of the mail to determine (although there is vague guidance) what is and what is not a federal record, and Hillary Clinton pointed that out in March.

        In reality, many of the people on the other side of a Hillary Clinton e-mail that came from or went to a state.gov address did not archive many or most of their e-mails, but Hilary Clinton had no way to know what had and what had not been preserved, so she probably turned over all e-mails that fit into the category of mail to and from state.gov e-mail addresses (except maybe for some e-mail with her closests aides where she had reason to know it was not preserved.)

No way Hillary gets prosecuted. The rule of law doesn’t exist for Democrats.

    DaveGinOly in reply to randian. | August 17, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    Is anyone setting up a betting pool? What are the odds:
    That she will be prosecuted?
    That she will be found guilty?
    That she will serve time? (Very long odds on that, I’d wager!)
    That she will/won’t be the Democratic nominee?

The original server – the one found “wiped” at Platte River – was already in place and in use before Hillary ever was Secretary of State or had an email account on it. It was used for Bill’s official office and the Clinton Foundation.

Bill may not use email, but you can bet his office staff does, and his scheduling, reservations, etc. are handled by them. Same for the Foundation, which was always very busy with travel expenses for all three Clintons and their staff and cronies. That data was to be saved in the transfer to the new server.

– –

The real issue, then, is when did Hillary and her mystery aides (we still don’t know who helped, they would have needed top clearance) go through the emails to delete the incriminating, I mean “personal,” ones? If it were done before the old server was retired, the deleted files would not be transferred to the new server.

But if the emails still existed after that old server was put out to pasture in 2013, and the survey was taken and deletions made after that time, this is a grand trick to turn over the old server. It’s like turning over the surveillance video of the day before the crime.

One more observation: for someone who pretends to be unfamiliar with the ins and outs of emails, Hillary sure as heck sent and received a bunch of them.

A person who deals with that volume of emails over a period of five years, even if not before, gets pretty darned proficient at it. And while still in office, she specifically asked an aide for a book on deleting emails.

There is a lot more here we don’t know yet. For those who recall the near-daily disclosures on Watergate in 1973-74, it’s an eerie echo.

Mark my words — this vile, arrogant, lawless and self-serving crone, Hilliavelli, is finished. She has become ensnared by her own unabashed and reflexive deceit, lawbreaking and machinations, caught in a proverbial web of lies. What a pleasure it will be to see her hauled away in handcuffs, something that should have happened months ago, when news that she had transacted official government business on a private server with total indifference to national security implications, first were revealed.

Everyone is focused on the server turned over to the FBI. There may be information on the replacement server:

“Platte River Networks has retained control of the old server since it took over management of the Clintons’ e-mail system. She said that the old server “was blank,” and no longer contained useful data.

“The information had been migrated over to a different server for purposes of transition,” from the old system to one run by Platte River, she said, recalling the transfer that occurred in June 2013.”

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-e-mail-server-turned-over-to-fbi/2015/08/12/aba5feea-4160-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html

“Different Server” means there is another server, people.

holdingmynose | August 17, 2015 at 6:45 am

In the words of John Ehrlichman Hillary is “twisting slowly, slowly in the wind” while this email server story plays out.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to holdingmynose. | August 17, 2015 at 10:10 am

    The New York Post reports today that we’ve now got political people who say they are for Gore and Biden phoning New York Democrats and asking them if they are committed to Hillary, and if so, how strongly.

      I have quite a few progressive friends and family and not a single one of them supports her (or at least they won’t admit it).

      Granted, Texas progs are a different breed than your NY progs.

pablo panadero | August 17, 2015 at 9:03 am

Everybody is missing the real story here:
Democrats know that unless they can mobilize the black vote to go >98% for the Democrat and have the same turnout as when Obama is on the ballot, they will lose the presidency to any Republican.

Thus, since the server is in the possession of Obama (through the Justice Department) and it can be labelled as a potential criminal prosecution, Obama can hold onto the data away from Congress. Obama is now in full control of whether Hillary is the Democrat nominee or not.

Given the statement in the first paragraph, what candidate can mobilize the Black vote like Barack? Consider this scenario. Obama holds on to the information and keeps it away from Congress and the press (although the press is largely ignoring it anyways). After Hillary is bruised, but still ahead after 15 primary states, has a clear majority of the delegates thus far, and Bernie / Webb / O’Malley are broke, he breaks the news and announces an indictment of Hillary.

Hillary’s delegates are now free to choose another candidate. Who will mobilize the Black voters now? Michelle Obama. She enters a few late primaries, sucks up all the former support of Hillary, and cruises to the nomination.

Republican nightmare scenario.

Here is the timeline that I see

Although the prospect of the Obama foxes guarding the Clinton henhouse may not provide much comfort, some other thoughts…

1) Despite all the e-mail jargon and pseudo-confident statements from Hillary et al, the record shows that she was comically hopeless with technology as her struggles with sending and receiving faxes (!) demonstrate. The reality is that despite the relative simplicity of e-mail this is strictly black box stuff to Camp Hill, including her highly-paid attorneys who are used to tangible things like Rose Law Firm manila folders. They are attempting to brazen it out and have obviously given orders to scorch the earth – in which case conspiracy is a given. Ironically, best (or even bog-standard) practices in the IT business suggest at least one backup exists and this is keeping them awake at night. Platte River attorney’s ‘migrated for the purposes of transition’ plumbs new depths in meaningless doubletalk.

2) The subtleties of language are revealing. Hillary’s ‘As a result of my directive’ is superfluous but is meant, even in the face of legal peril and even if written by her lawyer(s), to portray her as some sort of effective leader, giving orders and getting results when the opposite is true. She learned this tactic from Obama/Jarrett, who would rush to claim they specifically ordered up a dry, sunny weekend and now is our cue to praise them.

Loretta Lynch sprinted to the mics to address the Planned Parenthood controversy. Why not discuss this pressing (and more relevant) legal matter, especially if the investigation appears to be stage-managed at the highest levels of the FBI?

the mx record for the exchange server in question pointed to the house just a few months ago.
there had not been any dns record changes for the domain for a long time.
thought I had saved screenshots but cannot find them now so I cannot prove anything.

Kristopher Harrison had an interesting article up about the email issue at Huffington Post (yeah, I know, HuffPo) a few days ago. Harrison had worked at both State and Defense in the Geo. W. Bush administration.

Harrison’s point is that it really was irrelevant whether Hillary had a few confidential/secret/top secret documents on her server. This is because the real intelligence coup would have been to get inside her thought process. By reading her email, the Russians and Chinese whom we can reasonably expect may have tapped her email would have known her priorities and the priorities of the Obama Administration. They would have known her feelings, her decision process, and her unguarded opinions. They would have been able, in other words, to get inside her OODA Loop and out turn her at every opportunity.

Henry Hawkins | August 17, 2015 at 11:44 am

IT novice question – Since Hillary received and forwarded emails, and given the volume reported, wouldn’t the forwarded classified emails be on the receiving end’s server(s)? If so, she cannot have had all those wiped too.

Who knows who is sitting on classified emails from Hillary just waiting for her to win the WH so their blackmail price skyrockets. She’s compromised, a national security risk, and Im not sure if I can vote for her or not.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 17, 2015 at 2:19 pm

    Under at least some State government email retention rules, only the originator of an email or email thread is tasked with retaining the message(s). Under such rules, if Hillary sent an email to someone, that someone wouldn’t be required to retain the message, only Hillary would be required to do so. So if Hillary deep-sixed the message, it may not be retrievable elsewhere. (Although this does not account for technical possibilities, such as the receiver’s agency maintaining backups of all emails, even though individual users have deleted messages.)

    Now, whether or not this is the case (only the originator is tasked with archiving) at the federal level I do not know. I think not, but I am unsure.

    tom swift in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 17, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    In principle, to run her own server at home, she’d have to have an account from an ISP (Internet Service Provider) just like the rest of us, but she’d have to shell out a bit more for a static IP (Internet Protocol) address, unlike the dynamic addresses most internet users are assigned.

    The ISP would routinely log some info about her e-mails, both in- and out-bound; possibly even all the metadata. But probably not the actual contents of the messages. And ISPs don’t retain even that metadata in perpetuity; it’s a lot of data, and they usually purge it after a while. How long depends on company policy; some keep it for as long as 18 months. The US has no legal minimum requirement for retention time. The NSA keeps all the metadata it can get, but apparently only for a year max.

    So, while Hillary’s correspondents may have copies of their mails, there’s probably no way for the FBI or anyone else to determine who those correspondents are or when they sent/received e-mails.

Henry Hawkins | August 17, 2015 at 11:50 am

Blackmailer’s Choice:

Say you’ve got several illegal classified emails from Hillary’s private system. Do you:

(1) blackmail her now so she pays to protect her campaign.

(2) roll the dice and wait to see if she makes the White House and go for really big money.

Remember, if you wait and she doesn’t win the WH, the price drops to zilch and you’ve got nothing.

I hope that a friend of the USA such as Israel releases a copy of her emails as an October surprise. That these emails show she sold her office in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars. That she received email notification of the Ambassador’s pleas for security in Benghazi and rejected then for appearance sake. This would sink her presidency hopes and send her to prison. President Cruz would sick the FBI and his DOJ on Hiher.

Oops “retstricted information based”

Sammy Finkelman | August 17, 2015 at 12:26 pm

Here is something from few months ago: (maybe somebody can explain this better)

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/clintons-email-hosted-on-exchange-2010-server-now-not-in-chappaqua/

…Until October of 2010, based on historic DNS records viewed by Ars, Clinton’s e-mail server was in fact at a static IP address provided by Optimum, a Cablevision subsidiary, that corresponded to the Clintons’ Chappaqua address. The domain was registered on January 13, 2009, just days before Clinton’s confirmation as secretary of state—but it did not gain a certificate for secure client connections until March.

I think that’s right. Clintonmemail.com was a new domain. Previously, Hillary had used, I think, presidentclinton.com I made a mistake a little bit up in this thread when I said she got a new e-mail address. She got a new domain. The mail was separated. Mail was encrypted as of at least as far back as March, 2009.

But they were Bill’s techs, not Hillary’s. Bill Clinton is the one who actually lived in Chappaqua, New York, when he wasn’t traveling. Hillary just came there for family re-unions, and special occasions like Thanksgiving and Election Day, and maybe when she had to be in New York.

Since the time she was Senator Hillary Clinton she had a house in Washington, D.C., where Bill is not known to have been (except possibly for brief visits) and for the last five years of her life (2006-2011) her mother moved in with her, after previously living elsewhere in Washington. D.C. since 2001.

Sammy Finkelman | August 17, 2015 at 12:37 pm

Continuing from arstechnica site in March:

The current certificate for clintonemail.com was issued by GoDaddy in 2013 just as the original certificate was about to expire.

At some point shortly after the home server was dropped in 2010, the mail exchange record for clintonemail.com was moved to a hosted Exchange server. Currently, that server appears to be running out of a data center in Huntsville, Alabama. The server uses McAfee’s MXLogic e-mail filtering service to screen for malware and spam (though it’s not certain when the service was added).

[Update: Technical analysis of the network routing for mail.clintonemail.com places it somewhere on Internap’s network, connected via one of the company’s private network access points. That makes it difficult to resolve exactly where the server is. The server itself may be in a data center in Atlanta.]

I don’t know what later information about this is.

On March 12, Fox News said that the last hop before the mail server’s own IP address was the one for Internap’s aggregator in Manhattan on lower Broadway at the intersection of Chambers street, two blocks north of City Hall.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/12/hackers-probing-clinton-server-cite-security-lapses/

That could place the server in Manhattan (Bill Clinton’s 125 St office in Harlem?)

The server was using the 14.2.390.1 version of Microsoft Outlook’s Web Application,not the most recent version 14.3.224.2. It was also running version 7.5 of Microsoft Internet Information Services.

Sammy Finkelman | August 17, 2015 at 12:44 pm

Fromteh ars techica web site:

There are a couple of potential hazards posed by the Clintons’ hosted mail server. First, Outlook Web App is enabled, and that offers an avenue for attackers to attempt to brute-force their way into mail accounts by guessing passwords. Exchange server offers some policies to block these sorts of password attacks, but using them runs the risk of denying users access at all—all someone has to do to basically shut down a user’s e-mail is enter bad passwords a few times to activate the lockout.

Note: There is evidence that this may have actually happened.

There is an e-mail from Huma on her state.gov address noting that clintonemail.com was down, so she has to use this.

http://thehillarydaily.com/citizens-union-huma-abidens-email-account-on-clinton-private-server-confirmed-and-shows-vulnerability-of-the-system/

Citizen Union President Dave Bossie has disclosed an October 10, 2012 email from Huma Abedin to the Executive Director of the Clinton Foundation that tells of her difficulty in accessing her private Clinton account. Abedin wrote

“My bigger problem right now is that I can’t even get into my Clinton email”

The email was provided to Bossie by the State Department in a Freedom of Information lawsuit.

Ars technica also wrote:

On the bright side, since it’s Windows, it wasn’t vulnerable to Heartbleed or Shellshock.

Redundancy: “The Good, The Bad and The Clintons”

A bellicose Hillary Clinton finally surrendered her infamous but now worthless network server to the FBI; it had been professionally “wiped clean.” Hillary has a history of wiping things clean, as in the curious case of Vince Foster. Foster was a Deputy White House Counsel the initial months of the Clinton administration, and incidentally Hillary’s mentor at the Rose Law Firm. In an early May 1993 commencement address at the University of Arkansas Law School he pleaded:

“The reputation you develop for intellectual and ethical integrity will be your greatest asset or your worst enemy. You will be judged by your judgment. … There is no victory, no advantage, no fee, no favor, which is worth even a blemish on your reputation for intellect and integrity. … Dents to [your] reputation are irreparable” (Ronald W. Maris; Alan L. Berman; Morton M. Silverman (2000).Comprehensive Textbook of Suicidology).

Foster was conspicuously out of place in the Clinton administration, but not for long as documented in this abbreviated chronology:

March 23, 1993: Clinton Attorney General, Janet Reno during her first news conference demanded the resignations of all U.S. Attorneys, in order to replace them with Clinton appointees.
June 21, 1993: Vince Foster completes and delivers Whitewater corporate tax returns (1989 through 1991)

July 19, 1993: “… he [Foster] arrived at his Georgetown home at about 8, and the phone rang shortly thereafter. It was President Clinton. Mr. Foster took the call alone, upstairs. White House officials have given only vague accounts of the phone call. ‘They talked for 15 or 20 minutes'” (Jason DeParel, “A Life Undone,” August 22, 1993).

July 20, 1993: The FBI obtains a search warrant for the office of David Hale, a banker who later implicates the Clintons in the Whitewater scandal. Concurrently White House Counsel Vincent Foster allegedly drives to Ft. Marcy Park and commits suicide. Later that evening Hillary’s chief of staff selectively purges Foster’s office removing “an armful of folders.”

May, 1994: Independent Counsel Robert Fiske issued a subpoena for all documents pertaining to Whitewater; documents the Clintons insisted are missing.

August, 1994, Kenneth Starr was chosen to replace the Clinton administration appointed Fiske due to conflict of interest.

January, 1996 A staffer discovered the previously subpoenaed Whitewater documents in the Clintons’ private residence in the White House.

All too soon the world will be enveloped in the darkness of a kingdom whose foremost commodity will be the “souls of men.”

“And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves and… THE SOULS OF MEN” (Revelation 18:11-13; emphasis added).

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to C Smith. | August 18, 2015 at 9:49 am

    June 21, 1993: Vince Foster completes and delivers Whitewater corporate tax returns (1989 through 1991) …

    January, 1996 A staffer discovered the previously subpoenaed Whitewater documents in the Clintons’ private residence in the White House. …

    The Clintons tried to make it appear that the secret documents Hillary Clinton and her top aides removed from Voncent Foster’s office in order top prevent Voncent Foster’s boss, White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum from seeing them (what else do you imagine could have been the motive? The Park Police would not have had access to a lawyer’s files) concerned Whitewater.

    There actually were no Whiotewater files in the Whote House, I believe.

    What happened was, whatever was snt from the whote House, or elsewhere, was sent to Litte Rock, and mixed up with other papers, and the whole thing was submitted in answer to the subpoena.

    The real secrets concerned much more damaging things – legally damaging things, including about Waco, and politically damaging things, such as a secret alliance with New York Republican Senator Al D’Amato.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to C Smith. | August 18, 2015 at 10:27 am

    July 19, 1993: “… he [Foster] arrived at his Georgetown home at about 8, and the phone rang shortly thereafter. It was President Clinton. Mr. Foster took the call alone, upstairs. White House officials have given only vague accounts of the phone call. ‘They talked for 15 or 20 minutes’” (Jason DeParel, “A Life Undone,” August 22, 1993).

    There may be nothing truly special about that. It just indicates that Bill Clinton dealt directly with Vincent Foster.

    There was an issue on Vincent Foster’s mind that week. Bill Clinton was planning to fire the FBI Director, William Sessions, on trumped up ethics charges. (In fact he had fired him but not yet announced his replacement.)

    The call may have bene something about how things weer working out all right.

    President Clinton could not fire the FVI Director except for cause, but a cabal of agents below him had contrived some ethics charges, and timed its release to just when President Bush left office.

    Vincent Foster wanted the FBI Director to voluntarily resign, even offering some kind of compensation, but William Sessions was refusing to do so. Even his tripping on the steps right after a meeting woth Janet Reno (which may not have been an unplanned and unforseen accident) did not change his mind.

    Bill Clinton basically had given Sessions a deadline. He and Foster may have talked about what he was going to do the next day.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/20/us/defiant-fbi-chief-removed-from-job-by-the-president.html

    Incidentally, when he fired him, Bill Clinton did not cite the grounds that gave him the legal right to do so, but cited the fact that the FBI Director and his top aides did not get along, and even that not exactly explicitly.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to C Smith. | August 18, 2015 at 11:01 am

    July 20, 1993: The FBI obtains a search warrant for the office of David Hale, a banker who later implicates the Clintons in the Whitewater scandal. Concurrently White House Counsel Vincent Foster allegedly drives to Ft. Marcy Park and commits suicide. Later that evening Hillary’s chief of staff selectively purges Foster’s office removing “an armful of folders.”

    I am nit sure about the chronology of that search warrant. It may have happened after Bill Clinton heard about Vincent Foster’s death – and the fact that was panicked about something

    It probably really was my e-mail about Waco.

    Now there was a state grand jury in Little Rock investigating Whitewater. Bill Clinton probably had a source on that grand jury. I would suspect James E. Burnett Jr., former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board in the 1980s.

    Not knowing what had panicked Vincent Foster and caused him to thik the jig might be up (and caused him, I think to try to blackmail the Saudi Arabian Ambassador for money to pay for a lawyer) Cinton assumed he had receoved word that there was a runaway grand jury in Little Rock, and contrived for the federal government to take ove rthe investigation.

    Later on, Clinton attempted to get the investigation – in fact all investigations of Clinton – into the hands of a lawyer whom he could trust: Robert B. Fiske Jr, who had successfully protected Robert E. Rubin from U.S. Atotney Rudolph Giuliani when he was investigationing insider trading.

    Giuliani had had two large targets: Michael Milken and Gldman and Sachs. Fiske contrived an imaginary criume taht Robert Freeman – whom Giuliani had in his sites, could have committed – a crime that did not lead higher up in Goldman and Sachs.

I’d have liked to be in the golf game bill and obama played the other day. I’ll bet the conversations were very interesting.

Sammy Finkelman | August 17, 2015 at 6:17 pm

the total number of her private emails identified by an ongoing State Department review as having contained classified data has ballooned to 60, officials told The Washington Times.

305 now, after about 20% of them have been gone through. It’s not clear what the nature of this is – it could be anything from quoting a newspaper article to forwarding a document after editing it to remove classification marks.

Apart from a Stalinist type censorship, this bill is counterintuitive.

Governments spend thousands of hours and billions of dollars tracking down the haters in society. Let the haters write openly. Mature people respond appropriately. I don’t have to spell that out.

When haters write openly then governments, critical thinkers and those who vote will know who hate, what they hate and why they hate. Expose evil and shed light on it. Don’t block the writing of haters with pseudo-humane laws that do nothing except make a society ever more litigious.

You must know that any censoring of anti-Muslim speech IS Sharia law and will also immediately lead to GLBT speech protectionism against the words of Christians & Orthodox Jews. Evil will do whatever it needs to do to protect its narcissistic self-whether under a black flag or a rainbow flag.

The point is now.
Hillary’s goose is pretty much cooked. But I hope she hangs in there as long as she can.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend