Hope springs eternal
Posted on 08/12/2015 9:55:31 PM PDT by Mariner
Two top aides to Hillary Clinton gave assurances to a federal judge Wednesday that they will not delete any emails or other records related to their work at the State Department during Clinton's tenure as America's top diplomat.
Lawyers for former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin told the State Department they would abide by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan's request that they not erase any copies of federal records in their possession.
In addition, Clinton lawyer David Kendall confirmed that a Colorado technology firm on Wednesday turned over to the Justice Department the private server which housed Clinton's emails while she served as secretary of state. He also said he'd produced three thumb drives with Clinton's digital copies of emails she gave State in paper form last December.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
“The 2016 Republican hopeful [Bobby Jindal], one of several bashing the latest development in the email saga, said that Clinton is one email away from going to prison, adding that she should start taking advice from her pal Martha Stewart, who served time behind bars. ‘Orange really is the new black,’ he joked.”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/12/politics/republicans-clinton-emails-investigation/
Need to know more about this tech company in Colorado,did they have clearance to look at top secret material,do they have backups of Hillarys 30,000 she deleted?
Dud they donate to the Clinton foundation?
Did Hillary have any security on her server when she asked them to start taking care of it? She only went to this company AFTER she found out Sidney blumenthals emails were hacked,need to know what security she had besides the secret service standing outside the door.
With everything that’s out there on this scandal,can someone explain why someone in Hillarys inner circle would remove top secret markings from those two emails?Isn’t Hillary cleared to read such material,why would the markings be removed?
According to the law,it does not matter if there are markings anyway,as soon as the person reads it they know its not to be disseminated when they recognize it is at least confidential
It is highly improbable that they are, or that there is any record of that, and it may be impossible to determine. If a third-party hosting service or services hosted her email on a "dedicated" server, as many claim to do, there is a very high probability that it was virtualized.
A virtual server on network attached storage [NAS] would not have used a hard-drive in the sense that you mean. The entire environment could have been imaged when clintonmail was moved [it is believed to have been moved at least once before it wound up at PRN, it may have also been imaged again when the move to PRN was made.] That means there could well be multiple copies of the clintonmail "server" in existence. It also means an unscrupulous operator [which clintonmail's second hosting service is rumored to be] could have copied virtual copies of the server and sold them.
Anyone from an owner, admin, developer, or even network technician in a lax environment might have had access to the clintonmail "server," might have made images, and those images could be sold to anyone in the world. And there would be no trace of such an operation. It's not even a hack: just getting your hands on the backup of a virtual machine image containing the "server" gives you everything. No IP addresses, no potential NSA logs of what happened.
Nothing. Only the seller and buyer would know the image was ever made.
And, a compressed virtual server image holding a relatively small operation like clintonmail could easily fit on removable media as small as 16 GB.
There is another aspect of this which makes no sense. The .pst files referred to by David Kendall are not server-side files. Those are Microsoft Outlook databases for personal email. Those .pst files were on somebody's desktop, and they could very easily have been tampered with. Any decent coder could put together a program to remove every email from, say, Giustra@UraniumOne in about an hour, and every thread of a conversation to particular recipients in an afternoon at the most.
That David Kendall has that material on removable media tells you that at least one person had access to the desktop -- the person who made the copy. And that person might well have created a very "special" copy before turning it over to the Clintons' lawyer.
Got it.
Thanks for the very lucid explanation.
So it’s pretty clear that there will be no media “SPECIAL REPORT - Hillary’s e-mails revealed” with its own theme music and graphics any time soon.
But there are likely contracts in place indicating who can initiate change and workorders on behalf of the client. And, what services were purchased.
Whether in a shared virtual environment or a dedicated server, there's an admin trail.
Were back-up part of the contract, if so, what type?
Was a request received from the client's authorized agent to permanently delete all data/files? If so, who and what date?
Does Iron Mountain have the back-up tapes?
There's not a service provider in the country that would want to be in these guy's shoes right now.
Hitler VOWS to stop the murder of Jews. /s
Or will they give them over to Hildabeast or someone else so that they are no longer “in their possession” and will then be destroyed?
First, if an unscrupulous operator at JoesHosting.com decides to copy a client's server, it is certainly possible to do that with no record of it happening whatsoever. As we say in the life "Physical Access is Total Access."
I can go into any number of my client's machine rooms or desktops as soon as I drive over there, plug a 3TB USB 3.1 portable disk into their server racks, and steal anything I want, from any server I want, and their operation's staff will not even look twice a me, except maybe to talk about our gun collections or what the weather is like when I came in.
Why?
Because I am the admin. And there is no admin trail unless the admin wants there to be one.
Second, I can do anything I want with my own account at FredsFlybyNightHosting.net, including tell them I want an image of my server to set up a redundant backup or move to a new hosting provider. While that image is in my possession there is no limit to what I can do. And I can guarantee you that when I delete emails on my hosting service, the record of that is not kept for four years. Even for very complete hosting contracts that keep backups going back over years, at some point they are rolled off into less frequent intervals, meaning, the older any two archives are, the more likely it is that there are gaps in inserted and deleted materials that cannot be detected.
Consequently the claim implied by this rhetorical question is naive:
Was a request received from the client's authorized agent to permanently delete all data/files? If so, who and what date?
In many hosting environments there are no "requests" and there are no "authorized agents." The client has a supposedly "dedicated" [usually virtualized unless specifically contracted otherwise] machine that he is the sole administrator of. No one in the hosting service does any admin except on the hypervisor side, and they know little or nothing of what is being done on the equipment in their server farm.
Finally, there is always the claim of "inadvertent" destruction of material, which can only be used in the totality of a circumstantial case. So far, that excuse has worked very well for the IRS.
Actually, there might be.
And the reason is that there are different markets for this kind of material. Foreign intelligence services are not likely to reveal they have any of it -- that is part of the intelligence game. [Although at this point I would say it is a very safe assumption that every country North of Sub Saharan Africa has all of it.]
But aside from the market of people who will not reveal they have it, there are plenty of people who have a desire to reveal that have it. News organizations will and do pay for hacked material. Wikileaks also pays for this kind of stuff. And they have a reputation for leaking it at the most damaging time...
Hope springs eternal
IIRC, Clinton and her staff made a narrow claim that the server was not used for State Depart business.
Therefore, in Clinton speak, the server was used for others purposes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.