Hillary Clinton email scandal

vetinari

I find the verb dump a bit ambiguous actually.
If someone at work told me I need to dump my emails, I wouldn't be too sure what they meant.
Maybe it's what an older person would say instead of delete?
Without more context, it's far too vague to say it establishes some form of intent.
It might be enough for the FBI to get a warrant to view Podesta's emails.
It'd be interesting as to what legal ground the FBI would be on if they want to use stolen emails (that have no independent verification) as evidence for getting a warrant.

vetinari

jocmilt wrote: »

I wonder how people who continue to support Hillary will talk to their children and grandchildren in years to come? You know, when they try to tell their young that lying and cheating is wrong and the young ones reply, "but grandma you supported Hillary even when it was shown she was a lying cheat".

Bravo, this might be my favorite post regards the election. Top class wind up.

ancapailldorcha

Less of the sarcastic posts and one-line quips please.

26000 Elephants

vetinari wrote: »

I find the verb dump a bit ambiguous actually.
If someone at work told me I need to dump my emails, I wouldn't be too sure what they meant.

Good point. An 'email dump' would be synonymous with 'archiving to disk' in my experience. "Dump" as a verb or adjective in an IT context is quite different to delete. Dumping data from a database or just a table means you COPY it to disk for storage or processing. Dump usually means that you do it in a single, granular action.

If I wanted someone to make sure these wouldn't be seen again I would be instructing them to delete, burn, scrape or simply "make a backup using a Microsoft product".

Not that it matters anyway, as the subpoena dates quoted above were after his alledged comment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Good point. An 'email dump' would be synonymous with 'archiving to disk' in my experience. "Dump" as a verb or adjective in an IT context is quite different to delete. Dumping data from a database or just a table means you COPY it to disk for storage or processing. Dump usually means that you do it in a single, granular action.

If I wanted someone to make sure these wouldn't be seen again I would be instructing them to delete, burn, scrape or simply "make a backup using a Microsoft product".

Not that it matters anyway, as the subpoena dates quoted above were after his alledged comment.

Dump means copy, back-up or store in order to hand them over to officials? Makes no sense as they deleted over 30,000 emails and destroyed devices. So obviously dump means get rid of. Democrats are grasping straws with that load. There's an old saying... Actions speak louder than words. And their action was to destroy the emails in such a manner that they could never be recovered, and destroy, sometimes with a hammer, numerous devices.

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

Dump means copy, back-up or store in order to hand them over to officials? Makes no sense as they deleted over 30,000 emails and destroyed devices. So obviously dump means get rid of. Democrats are grasping straws with that load. There's an old saying... Actions speak louder than words. And their action was to destroy the emails in such a manner that they could never be recovered, and destroy, sometimes with a hammer, numerous devices.

I'm not a democrat. I'm not even american. Just a neutral observer making the point that this email 'evidence' is so flimsy that it is laughable. There is no context in that mail. No chain of events linking it to any specific actions. Only the very deluded would believe that this would form the basis of any prosecution - as much as if he said "I could kill for a hamburger right now" would lead to conspiracy to murder charges.

But as a piece of FUD to swing an election its pretty good. Putin would be proud of you.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Dump means copy, back-up or store in order to hand them over to officials? Makes no sense as they deleted over 30,000 emails and destroyed devices. So obviously dump means get rid of. Democrats are grasping straws with that load. There's an old saying... Actions speak louder than words. And their action was to destroy the emails in such a manner that they could never be recovered, and destroy, sometimes with a hammer, numerous devices.

Except that, if you take the Clinton and PRN staff at their word, they had already instructed that the old email archive be wiped from the server 3 months before the subpoena was issued. How are they (Clinton staffers) supposed to know that PRN didn't follow up on their instruction?

26000 Elephants

Another example of misinformation peddled by Trump followers on this thread - the michelle obama deleted clinton tweets wheeze:

http://www.snopes.com/michelle-obama-scrubs-twitter/

Amerika

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Another example of misinformation peddled by Trump followers on this thread - the michelle obama deleted clinton tweets wheeze:

http://www.snopes.com/michelle-obama-scrubs-twitter/

Who here has brought this up?

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

Who here has brought this up?

Amazingfun. The guy who thanks you in your posts.

Amerika

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Amazingfun. The guy who thanks you in your posts.

Thanks. I must have missed it. Perhaps she meant Michelle scrubbed it with a cloth... sorta like what Hillary Clinton did.

Amazingfun

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Amazingfun. The guy who thanks you in your posts.

I am not a guy, and it's hardly a hanging offense :rolleyes:.
Although given the trouble Hillary is in on a number of fronts at present, I get the need to build some hysteria around it to divert from her woes.

26000 Elephants

Amazingfun wrote: »

I am not a guy, and it's hardly a hanging offense :rolleyes:.
.

Under Trump it probably will be.

Rule #30 notwithstanding, 'guy' is a gender neutral term at this stage.

Akrasia

Hillary was tipped off about the investigation by her friends in the justice dept and then they decided to destroy tens of thousands of emails and devices....

It's as suspicious as multiple toilet flushes just as the DEA arrive at a drugs bust.

Overheal

Akrasia wrote: »

Hillary was tipped off about the investigation by her friends in the justice dept and then they decided to destroy tens of thousands of emails and devices....

It's as suspicious as multiple toilet flushes just as the DEA arrive at a drugs bust.

True, but ultimately you can't charge anyone with drug possession if it all went down the toilet without confirmation.

So it becomes relatively simple: they probably won't bring charges against her and if they try I think she has a good chance of evading them. As for winning a general election that's a separate matter and one in which a large number of voters are out against her.

26000 Elephants

Akrasia wrote: »

Hillary was tipped off about the investigation by her friends in the justice dept and then they decided to destroy tens of thousands of emails and devices....

Nothing of the sort. souce

26000 Elephants

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Nothing of the sort. souce

So, Google holds the answer is what i got from that article (assuming it's true)

Headline should read: "Google holds the balance of power in US Presidential Election."

26000 Elephants

Deleted User wrote: »

So, Google holds the answer is what i got from that article (assuming it's true)

Headline should read: "Google holds the balance of power in US Presidential Election."

At least if they are on a google cloud server they wont need a subpoena to get them :cool:
If you read an earlier tin-hat post about google manipulating things for Clinton, then you would think its a done deal for Hilary. But of course that too is nonsense.

There are some breathtaking absences of competence on the part of Clinton staffers ( aides forward secure mails to Yahoo??? So they can print them???? ) but overall I can see why the FBI found no case for prosecution. Nothing is really classified in the US anymore, its a matter of time before it will all land in Assange's inbox to be forwarded to the world.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

At least if they are on a google cloud server they wont need a subpoena to get them :cool:
If you read an earlier tin-hat post about google manipulating things for Clinton, then you would think its a done deal for Hilary. But of course that too is nonsense.

There are some breathtaking absences of competence on the part of Clinton staffers ( aides forward secure mails to Yahoo??? So they can print them???? ) but overall I can see why the FBI found no case for prosecution. Nothing is really classified in the US anymore, its a matter of time before it will all land in Assange's inbox to be forwarded to the world.

I particularly love the notion that Hillary had a bevy of blackberrys and laptops to hand, that were being trashed as soon as the subpoena came through (with the famous hammer of course). The reality is that she went through a number of phones and laptops over a few years - she's clearly not exactly a technophile, and her response to techie problems seems to have been to just replace the phone with a new one, and the old/new ones just got trashed as the problems were/weren't resolved. She's not exactly short of a few bob after all. The 'multiple devices' Comey mentioned were over a number of years, not concurrent to the subpoena. A relay, not a team game.

alastair

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Weiner laptop can contains loads of copies of deleted emails and not incriminate Hillary at all. It's already been established that the probability is that the filtering approach between personal and work emails that took place in 2014 was not ideal, and work emails were mistakenly deleted in the process, but that there was no attempt to maliciously delete those work emails. If they accidently ended up being archived on Weiner's laptop it's interesting, but makes not a tot of difference to the FBI's determination on criminality. It would require a bunch of marked classified emails on Weiner's laptop to shift the determination of the FBI (on the back of one single marked actual classified material email to date) from 'carelessness' to 'gross negligence' in the handling of the emails, and therefore push it into criminal territory. There would still be no evidence of intent to erase work emails, as the already accepted poor filtering system would account for oversights in that regard.

And the ongoing FBI investigation is nothing to do with lending substance to the allegations - it's about investigating additional evidence, but evidence that could either support or undermine their determination of there being no case of criminality. Even if it seems highly unlikely to them that it would change their determination, they still have to make sure.

FISMA.

Reports now are saying that the FBI is 99% certain that Clinton's illegal server was hacked by agencies of foreign governments.

Up to 5 different countries identified so far in hacking Clinton's illegal server.

Gross negligence has been established.

26000 Elephants

FISMA. wrote: »

Gross negligence has been established.

In your head, perhaps.

FISMA.

FISMA. wrote: »

Reports now are saying that the FBI is 99% certain that Clinton's illegal server was hacked by agencies of foreign governments.

Up to 5 different countries identified so far in hacking Clinton's illegal server.

Gross negligence has been established.

Any link for that?

26000 Elephants

Deleted User wrote: »

Any link for that?

Whats the point? You will just get some tinfoil website like Amazingfun's.

Amerika

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Any link for that?

Whats the point? You will just get some tinfoil website like Amazingfun's.

If you can't be bothered to provide sources you shouldn't bother to post.

K-9

@26000 Elephants (great username btw) up the standard of posts please.

I'm sure FISMA will provide a link as they usually do so no need for that.

FISMA.

K-9 wrote: »

I'm sure FISMA will provide a link as they usually do so no need for that.

Thanks lad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47XG_r0gUF8

Lastly, pure speculation on my behalf. Does anyone wonder if Clinton isn't the big fish? Could the big fish be Obama?

Didn't he state he never knew Clinton had a private server?

Well......

It appears that Huma was run off her feet trying to keep Obama up to date with Clinton's email accounts.

Obama was emailing Clinton under an alias and was using a highly secure blackberry which did not allow just any email in and out. Emails had to be cleared. Ms Huma was getting annoyed at having to do the back and forth.

Thus, President Obama is going to have a difficult time walking back his original assertion.

Can't wait to see what tomorrow brings!

alastair

I have to say that Lou Dobbs isn't particularly convincing on this.
Un-named 'sources' make a claim entirely at odds with the FBI director's testimony, in a case that's had nothing to report beyond the Weiner laptop since the summer, and it get's leaked to Fox Business ahead of a public statement? Never mind the '99% certain', and 'at least 5' nonsense that no-one credible would entertain. Just doesn't pass the plausibility test.

I reckon he's been tangoed (or more likely, just shilling bull**** for Trump again)

alastair

FISMA. wrote: »

Reports now are saying that the FBI is 99% certain that Clinton's illegal server was hacked by agencies of foreign governments.

Up to 5 different countries identified so far in hacking Clinton's illegal server.

Gross negligence has been established.

Nope. A single unsubstantiated report from a partisan Trump supporting comedy op-ed act on Fox Business News. Gross gullibility has been established.

FISMA.

alastair wrote: »

Nope. A single unsubstantiated report from a partisan Trump supporting comedy op-ed act on Fox Business News. Gross gullibility has been established.

Clinton's got bigger problems than your dislike of a source. The UBS case for one.

Any Federal Prosecutor could indict her on bribery charges.

Any Federal Prosecutor could convict her on bribery charges.

If the FBI has an email therein. She's done.

Who knows what tomorrow brings - a Rico charge!

650,000 emails - search UBS, IRS, Switzerland, ...

Clinton surrogates have overlooked a serious problem - a three front war. The Clinton Email scandal, Clinton corruption scandal, and WikiLeaks.

The FBI has the NSB on the job. If you have never heard of them, you soon will. The DOJ can push a lot of people around, just not them.

There's indictments to be had now on two fronts, not just one.

alastair

FISMA. wrote: »

Clinton's got bigger problems than your dislike of a source. The UBS case for one.

Any Federal Prosecutor could indict her on bribery charges.

Any Federal Prosecutor could convict her on bribery charges.

If the FBI has an email therein. She's done.

Who knows what tomorrow brings - a Rico charge!

650,000 emails - search UBS, IRS, Switzerland, ...

Clinton surrogates have overlooked a serious problem - a three front war. The Clinton Email scandal, Clinton corruption scandal, and WikiLeaks.

The FBI has the NSB on the job. If you have never heard of them, you soon will. The DOJ can push a lot of people around, just not them.

There's indictments to be had now on two fronts, not just one.

It's nothing to do with my 'dislike' for the source. It's the plausibility of the source. He's a hack for Trump, and the nature of the claim is laughable in terms of it's credibility. Doesn't pass any sniff test, even if you Love the source.

I'd just note that nobody's been indicting or convicting Hillary on bribery, or any other charges.

There is no Clinton corruption scandal btw - other than in certain people's fevered imagination. The email 'scandal' is overblown tut tutting about office bureaucracy, and Wikileaks has proven to be an almighty damp squib, after big empty promises. I'm sure Hillary will have a good old cackle about these as she takes up the office in the new year.

Amerika

Not much as been said by our lovely biased mainstream media regarding the WikiLeaks emails that strongly suggested there was collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DOJ. The email showed a Clinton mole (as he is now being referred to) in the DOJ gave a heads-up to the campaign about an important hearing that was happening on Capitol Hill that was going to happen that day. The email came from DOJ assistant attorney general Peter Kadzik to John Podesta, and from a private email account and not his official DOJ account. Peter Kadzik, Peter Kadzik... were have we heard that name before? Oh yeah, he’s the guy the DOJ has decided give a key role in their investigation into the reopened Clinton email probe. Democrats... Corruption be thy friend?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/02/wikileaks-podestas-friend-at-the-doj-caught-colluding-with-clinton-campaign/

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Not much as been said by our lovely biased mainstream media regarding the WikiLeaks emails that strongly suggested there was collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DOJ. The email showed a Clinton mole (as he is now being referred to) in the DOJ gave a heads-up to the campaign about an important hearing that was happening on Capitol Hill that was going to happen that day. The email came from DOJ assistant attorney general Peter Kadzik to John Podesta, and from a private email account and not his official DOJ account. Peter Kadzik, Peter Kadzik... were have we heard that name before? Oh yeah, he’s the guy the DOJ has decided give a key role in their investigation into the reopened Clinton email probe. Democrats... Corruption be thy friend?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/02/wikileaks-podestas-friend-at-the-doj-caught-colluding-with-clinton-campaign/

I'm not sure how this could be considered as a 'mole'. The subcommittee publishes who's testifying at their hearings in a public forum ahead of the hearings. It's entirely public information.

aloyisious

There's possibly one industry that'll gain out of this hacking, the private IT security industry. The NSA and friends will probably get a budget boost to "try" snare or attack the hackers cos of the harm done to the States. Both major parties have probably taken heed of their IT security by now. I just can't imagine how much has been spent on document shredding destruction, deleting and wiping of inconvenient party records by them.

The one person probably least likely to be happy with the hacked info leaks is the most unlikely, Julian Assange. There was mention about three weeks ago in one of the UK Broadsheets that a deal might be on the cards for him to be able to take an unhindered walk from the embassy he's holed up in but I reckon all this leaking has sunk that idea as it's brought hacking back into the light. JA is reportedly giving John Pilger an exclusive this Saturday...... (leak's Russia is not behind the hacking, I like Hillary) http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-03/julian-assange-ends-suspense-source-hacked-emails-not-russia


If what's rumoured about Don not being "hackable" is true, he's wise to keep on keeping away from IT servers and devices.

alastair

Donald isn't hackable because he just says the first thing that comes into his head, and then says something different the next day. There's no baseline for establishing what his actual beliefs are.

FISMA.

2009 - Clinton becomes Sec State.

Weeks later, Clinton meets in Geneva with her Swiss equivalent who informs Clinton the US is suing UBS for the names of 52,000 secret accounts.

Dilemma for the Swiss: violate their secrecy laws or face US Federal charges.

Within months, Sec Clinton announces a deal, unusual for a top diplomat, and settles with the IRS for 4,450 accounts.

By 2008, the bank had donated $600,000 to the Clinton foundation.

Thereafter, UBS joined the Clinton Foundation and made loans of $32,000,000.

UBS the paid Bill Clinton $1,500,000 for a series of speeches.

That's what is called a bribery case.

RobertKK

So if you gmail, it is far more secure than the Hillary Clinton private email server.
The latest is that it is near certain the email server was hacked and anything up to 5 foreign intelligence agencies hacked into it.

alastair

FISMA. wrote: »

2009 - Clinton becomes Sec State.

Weeks later, Clinton meets in Geneva with her Swiss equivalent who informs Clinton the US is suing UBS for the names of 52,000 secret accounts.

Dilemma for the Swiss: violate their secrecy laws or face US Federal charges.

Within months, Sec Clinton announces a deal, unusual for a top diplomat, and settles with the IRS for 4,450 accounts.

By 2008, the bank had donated $600,000 to the Clinton foundation.

Thereafter, UBS joined the Clinton Foundation and made loans of $32,000,000.

UBS the paid Bill Clinton $1,500,000 for a series of speeches.

That's what is called a bribery case.

Except that, as a conspiracy, it makes zilch sense.

Hillary didn't cut any deal with the bank, or Switzerland.

The actual deal was between the DoJ with the IRS, and not the State Dept.
It was negotiated before Hillary was appointed SoS, and only finalised a month after she took office. The bank didn't owe Hillary anything, and she had no role to play in the deal - which didn't involve a reduction in the information revealed - the IRS were only seeking accounts within a particular timeframe, as there were statute of limitations on what they could investigate. They got all the info they requested.

The IRS sent its John Doe Summons to UBS for the names of its American clients in July 2008.

Senator Carl Levin chaired Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations hearings on July 17, 2008, July 25, 2008, with witnesses from UBS and March 4, 2009. with witnesses from the IRS.

The Department of Justice announced that UBS had entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement on February 18, 2009

K-9

Less of the one liners, try and add something of value rather than just dismissing posts with a one liner.

FISMA.

alastair wrote: »

Except that, as a conspiracy, it makes zilch sense.

Hillary didn't cut any deal with the bank, or Switzerland.

The actual deal was between the DoJ with the IRS, and not the State Dept.
It was negotiated before Hillary was appointed SoS, and only finalised a month after she took office. The bank didn't owe Hillary anything, and she had no role to play in the deal - which didn't involve a reduction in the information revealed - the IRS were only seeking accounts within a particular timeframe, as there were statute of limitations on what they could investigate. They got all the info they requested.

The IRS sent its John Doe Summons to UBS for the names of its American clients in July 2008.

Senator Carl Levin chaired Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations hearings on July 17, 2008, July 25, 2008, with witnesses from UBS and March 4, 2009. with witnesses from the IRS.

The Department of Justice announced that UBS had entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement on February 18, 2009

Sources/links please...

alastair

FISMA. wrote: »

Sources/links please...

Just like you provided?

Here's the UBS agreement, with parties and date for all to see:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/legacy/2009/08/19/bank-agreement-consent.pdf

Hank Scorpio

This is one of the few interviews of official nature offering some insight into what's going on currently so I thought it was worth posting. Congressman Jason Chaffetz says they've told the DOJ to preserve all available documents concerning the investigation. Confirms they have a separate investigation going on HRC for misuse of power as secretary of state. Said they have information they would take two years to get through. He goes on to say "potentially one of the largest breaches of security in the history of the state department" "We're going to expose this and shine light on it"

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

This is one of the few interviews of official nature offering some insight into what's going on currently so I thought it was worth posting. Congressman Jason Chaffetz says they've told the DOJ to preserve all available documents concerning the investigation. Confirms they have a separate investigation going on HRC for misuse of power as secretary of state. Said they have information they would take two years to get through. He goes on to say "potentially one of the largest breaches of security in the history of the state department" "We're going to expose this and shine light on it"

Partisan house panel plan on another Benghazi style waste of time in congress. Not really anything unexpected.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

We don't need any time, it's quite clear as of now that this is just more partisan Congressional game-playing.

Who's we?

Everyone has different opinions and I think it's a fair thing to say that we will find out eventually what's going to happen, one way or the other.

I'm not trying to push an agenda or state my stance as fact, perhaps you should do the same instead of replying with a rhetoric.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Who's we?

Everyone has different opinions and I think it's a fair thing to say that we will find out eventually what's going to happen, one way or the other.

I'm not trying to push an agenda or state my stance as fact, perhaps you should do the same instead of replying with a rhetoric.

Is there a current congressional investigation? No.
Is the man proposing that there should be a House panel enquiry partisan? Yes.
Does he, before starting into any said enquiry, state that he's going to expose the 'potential' 'largest breach of security in the history of the State Dept'? Yes he does.

Let's not pretend that this is anything other than what I've outlined.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

Is there a current congressional investigation? No.
Is the man proposing that there should be a House panel enquiry partisan? Yes.
Does he, before starting into any said enquiry, state that he's going to expose the 'potential' 'largest breach of security in the history of the State Dept'? Yes he does.

Let's not pretend that this is anything other than what I've outlined.

53 seconds in.

"FBI has an investigation going, but you also have an investigation going."

"Yes"

Am I missing something? If I am I'll hold my hands up.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

53 seconds in.

"FBI has an investigation going, but you also have an investigation going."

"Yes"

Am I missing something? If I am I'll hold my hands up.

Yes - that the Oversight Committee hasn't actually started any investigation yet:

SOUTH JORDAN, Utah — Jason Chaffetz, the Utah congressman wrapping up his first term atop the powerful House Oversight Committee, unendorsed Donald Trump weeks ago. That freed him up to prepare for something else: spending years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton.

“It’s a target-rich environment,” the Republican said in an interview in Salt Lake City’s suburbs. “Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-republicans-are-already-preparing-for-years-of-investigations-of-clinton/2016/10/26/e153a714-9ac3-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html

Hank Scorpio

I'm not sure what you're getting at. That's a old link, Chaffetz is voting Trump now if you watched until the end of the video, and as chairman of the oversight committee he confirmed in the video that they have a separate investigation ongoing.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're getting at. That's a old link, Chaffetz is voting Trump now if you watched until the end of the video, and as chairman of the oversight committee he confirmed in the video that they have a separate investigation ongoing.

You didn't read the link, did you?

Chaffetz re-iterated he's not endorsing Trump, but that he's voting for him. Seemingly he can look his daughter in the eye after all.
He states in the Post article that they have gathered material for an enquiry to begin in January. January is still a point in the future. There is no current investigation. That game starts in January, when President Clinton goes into office.