Senate committee seeks email facts from Clinton’s tech company
Source: McClatchy
The chairman of the Senate’s homeland security committee has asked a small, 13-year-old Denver technology company that managed tens of thousands of emails for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to describe what measures it took to safeguard national security information.
The FBI, which has embarked on its own scrutiny of Clinton’s private server, also has shown interest in the company, Platte River Networks, which began managing Clinton’s emails in 2013, according to published reports.
The Colorado firm’s hiring coincided with the discovery that an email account for Clinton’s longtime confidant, private consultant Sidney Blumenthal, had been hacked by a Romanian national Marcel Lazar Lehel, known as Guccifer.
Brian Reid, a cybersecurity expert with Internet Systems Consortium, said Clinton’s use of a reputable company to manage her server means it was less likely to be vulnerable to hackers.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article30964044.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Roy Rolling
(6,908 posts)Morons who deny climate change from scientists are now high-tech experts.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Most of those "morons" know perfectly well that climate change is human caused and real. But their money comes from King CONG (coal, oil, natural gas) so they pretend they're ignorant in order to keep the cash rolling in. (Many of their constituents, alas, truly are that ignorant.)
Also, McClatchy is distinguished for being one of the few news services that reported the fraud behind the illegal Iraq invasion while the rest of the media were beating the drums for war.
Botany
(70,447 posts)that covered the 2004 election and the war in Iraq all have "gone missing" and not word one
from the republicans.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Are you putting Hillary in the same category as Cheney and Karl Rove? What's OK for them is OK for her? Is that what you're saying?
Sancho
(9,067 posts)in fact, the State Dept. reported that there were hundreds of personal emails in what she provided that didn't even need to be provided. She's the ONLY S0S (of 4) who provided emails.
She deleted personal emails from years ago. She likely has copies of the personal emails (or her lawyers have them), which is why the RW and FBI are desperately trying to dig up dirt where none exists.
Frankly, it's good to give the Hillary "bash and trash" folks something to do so that they will waste time and energy on things other than organizing for some other candidate.
candelista
(1,986 posts)But her trustworthiness is exactly what is in question. She said she neither sent nor received any top secret documents by email. But this has been shown to be false. Why believe her other claims, except out of blind loyalty?
Sancho
(9,067 posts)over 90%.
The only ones that weren't were noted and captured while traveling. Most were read on paper (as hard copy).
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
Updated: The Facts About Hillary Clinton’s Emails
We’ve put all of the information about Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails here. Just the facts, all in one place.
As she has stated, Clinton's practice was to email government officials on their ".gov" accounts, so her work emails were immediately captured and preserved. In fact, more than 90% of those emails should have already been captured in the State Department’s email system before she provided them with paper copies.
A Politifact analysis also confirmed that Clinton's practices complied with laws and regulations, including support from the former director of a prominent government accountability organization: "In Clinton's defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it).
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Sancho
(9,067 posts)It's a myth that anything is "missing".
Hillary had professional services (Google, McAfee) backing up the server. Her lawyers have copies of all the emails. The only thing they have turned over to the government is the government stuff.
Most government stuff was captured anyway. There is no law that compels anyone to reveal personal information, medical records, etc.
She simply won't let the personal emails be made into a public spectacle, so she removed them from the server.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)You can't get any more 'because she said so' than that. You have no idea what she deleted. No one does except the people that deleted the emails. Also, you claim that some companies and her lawyers have backups of all the emails. Where is your proof for this? Hillary has said the emails were deleted and has never mentioned a complete backup of all the emails.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)the AP described the backups over a year ago in published news reports. And yes, lawyers and staff have specifically described what was deleted from the sever. They have never confessed where or what backups are still in their possession, but it seems obvious that some were retained - likely encrypted - and likely under the guise of attorney control. That makes it difficult or impossible to make the personal stuff public. Great job Hillary!!
I don't have time for all the CT's, and frankly the "bash and trash" without any knowledge is pretty silly.
At least some of you need to check things out before spouting off....
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-email-server-traced-to-home-based-service-ap/
In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton's private email account was reconfigured to use Google's servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to Internet records. That is significant because Clinton publicly supported Google's accusations in June 2011 that China's government had tried to break into the Google mail accounts of senior U.S. government officials. It was one of the first instances of a major American corporation openly accusing a foreign government of hacking.
Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton's private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)How did the AP report over a year ago about backups when the New York Times story came out in March of this year? Why do you assume that there is an offsite backup when it has never been verified at all? You also assume that her lawyers have a backup based on... nothing! Her lawyer has said all the emails on the server were deleted and there is no backup. You're basically just making shit up.
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2015/08/12/Clinton-s-lawyer-hands-over-private-email-server-to-FBI/stories/201508120122
If she actually has a backup there is no reason whatsoever to not hand it over to the FBI.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)All the backups were created, the server was wiped. The backups are not (of course) on the original server.
Look, if you want to Google or whatever, go for it. Just because you don't know the story and you believe the RW spin is your problem.
If you don't know the timeline, that's your problem too.
Think about it, Hillary staff and lawyer (who has security clearance) has turned over a thumb drive with a copy of .gov email - so that the FBI is "happy" that it is secure. The State Dept. doesn't care, because they don't think there's anything worth wasting time on in the emails anyway. The FBI are some RW shills looking for a scandal.
If the staff-lawyers have a copy of the .gov emails, and they are the ones who sorted the business from personal email, do you actually think that they DON'T have the personal ones? There is no requirement or security issue, so no one will ask and they will not admit what they have...other than to turn over yet another copy of the .gov emails.
Meanwhile, Google and McAfee were making back ups and providing encryption during and at the end of the server's use.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)You're a Hillary apologist that isn't interested in the truth. Got it. I think were done here.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)I've given you the links.
You agree with the RW, repub, attack artists. Got it.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Please provide proof there is an off site backup.
Please provide proof that the lawyers have complete backups.
Please provide proof that everything that was deleted was personal email.
You haven't provided proof for ANY of these. You're 100% BS, 0% facts.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)The companies involved stated that they were employed to create backups (years ago).
The lawyers have agreed to provide backup emails, but have openly stated that for security reasons, they won't describe what they have or how they have it. When asked about specific emails, they have produced them. The State Dept. has already "returned" several hundred "personal emails" that were included in the .gov files.
State Dept. staff and lawyers described the process they used to determine that email was saved and sorted from personal - but over 90% was already captured on .gov computers (so the record of completeness is easy to check), plus even the few times email came in from non .gov sites, staff printed them. There are many, many witnesses that no personal email was ever "deleted".
All of this has been proof enough for the State Dept., for the White House administration, and for all the security folks. The ONLY people who are making a deal out of this are RW idiots (same ones who wanted birth certificates) and Hillary haters - both who don't want to accept the truth: nothing is missing, and there's no conspiracy theory that applies.
If you believe the CTs, then you aren't paying attention. Heck, YOU need to provide PROOF that some secret deal between Hillary and Putin or whatever EXISTS. No one can prove a negative. It's like saying, "prove you didn't beat your wife".
Your logic, fact finding, and conclusions are simply incorrect.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Provide facts only please. Your BS doesn't work on me. I want only the facts which you obviously can't provide.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)The only BS is your continuing to make irrational accusations.
You asked for the evidence and sources. It's all out there for anyone who wants to look. I gave you a few links to get started. That is PROOF. Even if there was a videotape of every second of Hillary's life showing every keystroke, some people would say the tape was bogus, just like people claimed that Obama's birth certificate was "fake". It's not possible to convince irrational people who don't accept the evidence.
You simply want to bash and trash, but are just as off base as people claiming that Obama is a muslim who was born in Kenya. It is not true, doesn't make sense, and there is no evidence to support it.
There is no stash of GOVERNMENT emails that you can't see, except ones that the State Dept. says are not suitable for public release. Those are held back or redacted.
I've read a bunch of Hillary's emails. Have you read any of them? It's easy to see the ones released so far.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)You seem to not be aware of what actual proof consists of. It's far more than the word of the people involved. Here is what you need to provide:
Please provide proof there is an off site backup.
-The company stating they have a complete backup of the emails. Also acceptable would be another independent party (e.g. FBI) that has seen the backup stating that there is a backup
Please provide proof that the lawyers have complete backups.
-All you need is a statement from one of Hillary's lawyers stating that they have a complete backup of her emails.
Please provide proof that everything that was deleted was personal email.
-Here you need to provide a statement from an independent party (e.g. FBI) comparison of her full set of email (seeing she deleted them it would have to be from a complete backup) with the 50,000 emails she turned in. That is the ONLY way to provide proof. Saying that the people that deleted the emails made sure to only delete personal email is not proof of anything.
Anything less than that is just more BS. I'm not interested in anymore of your BS.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)What about emails NOT going to state, but to foreign governments or business people?
Not to mention we already KNOW that some work related messages were NOT included in what she gave the SD. Some of those provided by Blumenhal were missing.
you haven't been paying attention.
The aides and Hillary regularly COPIED emails to the small number of governments or people when they were unable to access the typical email. In fact, they usually PRINTED copies and looked at them on paper too.
Blumenthal was NOT a gov employee, so technically everything he sent was personal. Hillary choose to forward many things to the State Dept. anyway. A few things were those "reply to a reply to a reply" and weren't always captured or printed - do you remember the emails from a decade ago where the original might be lost in a "reply".
It didn't matter. When they asked, Blumenthal produced the parts of the emails they couldn't read on the paper copies that didn't capture or print everything. None of it was secret or anything but advisory. You could send Hillary an email, tweet, text, or FB message today - or you could send something to any other politician. Whether they see it or save it or even if it ends up in a span folder is almost random and purely the choice of Hillary to call it "work" or "personal". If anything, Hillary erred on the side of too much stuff in the "work" file.
Blumenthal was an advisor under Bill Clinton, and Hillary already explained his relationship. He was not a .gov employee. OTOH, there were a number of White House aides, ex-gov employees, and non-state employees who were not obliged to reveal their emails, and they haven't done so...it was Hillary's choice to decide if Blumenthal was sending something that was State Dept. business and copy it to them.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/01/hillary-clinton-email-highlights-broken-fax-machines-blumenthal-leak-and-nixon/
Others who had Hillary's email were:
Among those in possession of the private address: Democratic pollster Mark Penn, Washington spinmeister Lanny Davis, Tony Blair’s wife Cherie, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, retired Gen. Wes Clark, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (though he, along with White House adviser David Axelrod, had to ask permission). Also trading emails with Clinton: Ambassador Scott Gration (later ousted from his post by Clinton’s team), Clinton childhood friend Voda Ebeling, Bill Clinton college roommate and newspaper publisher Brian Greenspun, education activist and philanthropist political donor Jill Iscol and former Hillary Clinton Senate chief of staff Tamera Luzzatto.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/state-dept-releases-new-tranche-of-hillary-clintons-emails-119624.html#ixzz3ikF64BZE
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)From your link.
At a State Department briefing Wednesday, Mark Toner, a spokesman, said the two emails designated as Top Secret “weren’t sent by her.”
Now even if they weren't sent by her, but she either received them to a lower classified or had them saved on that computer then it's considered spillage & must be reported immediately. But at this point I don't see what email facts they'd be looking for if they already know who sent the emails.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Hillary Rodham Clinton repeatedly contended Saturday that she did not send or receive classified information through her personal email.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hillary-clinton-emails-20150725-story.html
Sancho
(9,067 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)And, while you're at it, please explain why Mexicans say "Sancho!" when someone sneezes.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)Not just numerous investigators, but Hillary's camp knows there are backups of the server and emails: Google, McAfee were commercial backups; plus her lawyers have copies. The State Dept. knows what's there.
The Clintons simply don't want the GOP hacks to do a wild goose hunt for donors, personal trash (like medical records), and even security risks for Bill Clinton (same server) which is NOT required to be public.
The State Dept. is happy. The GOP operatives in the government (many in the FBI or security fields) are simply trying to figure out how to get their hands on anything they can that would trash Hillary.
There's really nothing "missing". If the Senate committee or FBI want to hunt through the server they are welcome to do so. Mostly an inconvenience, and won't make any difference.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Not the other 30,000 she destroyed. But it turns out that even the ones she turned over contained above top secret information. Her staff was looking to delete emails about her private business dealings, and forgot to delete the national security stuff. Very unprofessional crookery.
And by the way, Mexican guys say "Sancho" when another guy sneezes because of the superstition that sneezing means that your wife is being unfaithful to you with some guy generically known as "Sancho."
Sancho
(9,067 posts)She actually has copies of ALL emails. She does NOT have to reveal them. She deleted the copy on the server (probably knowing that the GOP would go after the server).
She did NOT have any top secret information on the emails she sent or received. She only viewed email under secure circumstances, so the secrecy was maintained while in her possession. None were marked secret while in her possession, even though they were treated with security anyway.
No one can do a thing about an email that the State Dept. says is NOT secret, but some outside agency comes in years later and says, "NOW it's secret". Since Hillary never revealed any secrets and the government gets to decide what is released, she logically cannot be guilty of anything.
Read the FAQ's. If you disagree with all the independent analyses and officials, then you simply disagree with the facts.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)The Inspector General stated 4 emails should have been classified that weren’t.
An inspector general review of 40 of Clinton’s emails found that four had information that should have been marked as classified. The Department of Justice is weighing whether to launch an investigation.
That doesn't mean shit, if she sent them unclass to another unclass then it's unclassified. If they were talking about something that was classified & never should have been discussed at that level then chances are there's a lot bigger problem up in DC.
Not to mention this article doesn't even begin to bring up the level of classification. Hell FOUO is a classification of For Official Use Only which will help with redaction issues if there's a FOIA request.
candelista
(1,986 posts)I pasted a link to that article in my post. You should read it.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)from both of your articles now. This is from the LA Times:
An inspector general review of 40 of Clinton’s emails found that four had information that should have been marked as classified. The Department of Justice is weighing whether to launch an investigation.
Key word's should have been. Yet again it doesn't even say what classification. There are classifications that can be used on an unclassified server.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Contrary to what she claimed, she did either send or receive classified emails. They included two above top secret TS/SCI messages. If you don't know that, you haven't been paying attention to the story.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Your first link says that she didn't send any emails at all & all your second link states is that there were 4 documents that should have been classified.
So just to answer your question based on just the evidence you presented. No, HRC once again did not misuse her email. I really don't understand that the in class email they keep referring to I used to access from my home computer with my ID card. It's an unclassified system, you're supposed to be able to access is securely yet remotely. Documents can be classified later, maybe that's what the IG was referring to should have been classified?
Either way you're way off base.
24601
(3,955 posts)only with certain Unclassified information. There are three levels of classified information: Confidential, Secret and Top Secret. In addition to the classification, there are endless markings that precisely indicate everything from the reason an item is classified, to Special Access Program markings, to Compartment Markings, to Declassification Dates.
Secretary Clinton was one of the officials designated by the President as an Original Classification Authority, or OCA. As such, she had additional responsibilities regarding the safeguarding of classified information. As a Department Secretary, she was responsible not only for herself, but also for the State Department.
Portions of the State Department, for example INR, are also members of the intelligence community. You can read up on the myriad IC markings is use: https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/capco_reg_v5-1.pdf
Additionally, the Secretary of State, along with Vice President and Secretary of Defense, is a statutory member of the National Security Council, which is Chaired by the President. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Yep, well aware of how markings & classifications work. If I was teaching a class I would break it down like it was worth a shit. I'm just trying to give people some insight, 6 seconds of knowledge.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)as required? The State Dept's intelligence dept. could have decided what was important, and discarded the rest. Why instead hire a new private firm to hold what amounts to federal records--some classified? They weren't legally allowed to do that. Edit to add: a private firm in Denver holding classified material, no accountability, who knows WHO had access to any of this? Another Snowden type?
jalan48
(13,842 posts)Why exactly did Hillary decide to take this route with her emails when she was Sec. of State? This is Presidential behavior?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)records and communications. In doing so, she may have compromised national security--this may rise to a criminal matter. She shouldn't be President, she shouldn't be dogcatcher. An Air Force Senior Airman should know better.
candelista
(1,986 posts)This is the kind autocratic behavior we can expect from her if she is President.
jalan48
(13,842 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)Not just the control mania, but the fakeness of her manner.
jalan48
(13,842 posts)She has little passion in her appearances in public, and the appearances all seemed so managed. It's like she's going through the motions. I can't help but feel a large part of what is driving her is the desire to avenge the great national humiliation and shame she had to endure as First Lady. Becoming President is a way to overcome this humiliation and show the world she can't be defeated.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)But we'll see.
I'm not liking the M$M reporting on this in any case.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)for the HRC camp. She's being investigated and she's not even POTUS. What exactly are the cons trying to get out of this?
