Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton emails

Hamlet at the Bureau, by The Zman

James Comey finds himself in a most uncomfortable position. From The Zman on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

Thinking about what comes next in this most bizarre of campaign seasons, it occurs to me that this is a good lesson in how nothing exists in isolation. Every decision has consequences. Those consequences may not be obvious and they may not show up until much later, but no action exists without a reaction. It’s the old gag about the time traveler going into the past, stepping on a spider, only to return to a world ruled by super intelligent insects. It is formally known as the Butterfly Effect.

In the early days of the Clinton administration, Team Clinton hoped to put a fellow crook in the job of attorney general. That way, they could make sure they had a member of the family blocking the inevitable criminal probes that follow the Clintons around like an odor.They tried Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, but both failed to get confirmed. They settled on Janet Reno, a dull-witted bureaucrat just happy to have the work. They put her in the job for the same reason crooked southern politicians install their retarded brother in-law as sheriff. She was too dumb to get curious.

It mostly worked, but her stupidity also kept her from blocking cases that would prove to be embarrassing to the family. A real pro in the job would have headed off the intern problem, for example, before that got to Ken Starr. In fact, Kimba Wood is clever enough to have quashed the whole special prosecutor thing entirely. In other words, putting a stupid person in the job worked up until they needed a clever person in the job. You can be sure that Janet Reno does not get Solstice cards from the Clinton family.

Team Obama tabbed James Comey to the job of Director of the FBI primarily because he was harmless. Republicans had no problems with him and Democrats were not afraid of him. That’s not to say he is a crook. He’s just one of those careerists, who make a point of doing no more than the job requires. You run into thee guys all over government because they never get curious and ask too many questions. Politicians love these guys because they look like Boy Scouts, but they never cause any trouble.

For most of what the FBI does, having a straitlaced guy like Comey at the top works just fine. He’s an able administrator, who will be respected by his staff for being fair and sticking to the rules. His lack of political ambition means he can get along with the rank and file. So much of what the FBI does is just process, they need process guys to make sure the processes are followed. The Bureau has not been the swashbuckling crime fighters we see in TV for generations. It’s mostly bureaucrats processing paper.

To continue reading: Hamlet at the Bureau

 

Hillary’s emails matter: A retired CIA officer explains why, by Tyler Durden

The bottom line: had anybody not named Clinton done what Hillary has done concerning her email system, they’d be, without question, in jail. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Authored by Charles Faddis (a former CIA operations officer with 20 years of experience in intelligence operations), originally posted at TheHill.com,

The 2016 presidential election, already one of the wildest in American history, has been rocked by the announcement that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while Secretary of State.

Apparently while investigating disgraced ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner’s transmission of sexually explicit images to a fifteen-year-old girl, the FBI discovered more emails relevant to Hillary Clinton’s own infamous case.

At the time, Weiner was married to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s personal aide, perhaps best known for her alleged family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The emails appear to have been found on a computer used by both Abedin and Weiner.

Where all this goes from here remains unclear. That said, in the interest of helping a scandal-weary electorate put these new developments in context, shall we review a few things?

I have worked in national security my entire life. Most of that has been in the intelligence community surrounded by classified information. For twenty years, I worked undercover in the Central Intelligence Agency, recruiting sources, producing intelligence and running operations. I have a pretty concrete understanding of how classified information is handled and how government communications systems work.

Nobody uses a private email server for official business. Period. Full stop.

The entire notion is, to borrow a phrase from a Clinton campaign official, “insane.” That anyone would presume to be allowed to do so is mind-boggling. That government officials allowed Hillary Clinton to do so is nauseating.

Classified and unclassified information do not mix. They don’t travel in the same streams through the same pipes. They move in clearly well defined channels so that never the twain shall meet. Mixing them together is unheard of and a major criminal offense.

If you end up with classified information in an unclassified channel, you have done something very wrong and very serious.

Accidentally removing a single classified message from controlled spaces, without any evidence of intent or exposure to hostile forces, can get you fired and cost you your clearance. Repeated instances will land you in prison.

Every hostile intelligence agency on the planet targets senior American officials for collection. The Secretary of State tops the list. Almost anything the Secretary of State had to say about her official duties, her schedule, her mood, her plans for the weekend, would be prized information to adversaries.

It is very difficult, in fact, to think of much of anything that the Secretary of State could be saying in email that we would want hostile forces to know.

To continue reading: Hillary’s emails matter: A retired CIA officer explains why

James Comey – As seen through the Persuasion Filter, by Scott Adams

Speculation is rampant about why FBI Director James Comey has done the things he’s done. Scott Adams offers an explanation that puts him a good light. Many other explanations have been less charitable. From Adams at blog.dilbert.com:

If you’re following the news, you know FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI found a bunch of emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

Wait…hold on…the Gods of Humor demand that I pause here to insert a few Weiner jokes before I get to my point about Comey.

http://66.media.tumblr.com/bb4c1a859cbc78bb2eb6af433bf37767/tumblr_inline_ofvsveThGi1t63ajm_500.png

http://66.media.tumblr.com/bb4c1a859cbc78bb2eb6af433bf37767/tumblr_inline_ofvsveThGi1t63ajm_500.png

image

Okay, I got that out of my system.

Back to Comey.

As my regular readers know, the Persuasion Filter is related to the idea that the human brain never evolved to accurately comprehend reality. In order for us to be here today, our predecessors only needed to survive and procreate. They had no need to understand reality at any basic level. And we have no such need either. That’s why you might believe you are reincarnated from a monk and I might believe my prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse but we can both get through the day just fine. Many different interpretations of reality are good enough for survival. I like to describe reality as each person living their own movie, which works well unless our scripts conflict. When that happens, one of us goes into cognitive dissonance and rewrites our past to make the movies consistent.

That’s how I see the world.

Last year in this blog I suggested that the most productive and predictive way to view reality is through what I call the Persuasion Filter. That’s what I have been using to make spooky-good predictions about the election so far. And that’s what I’ll use today to give you an alternate movie about James Comey. Compare it to the movie you are running in your head and see which one better predicts the future.

The base assumption of the Persuasion Filter is that people are irrational 90% of the time and only rarely – when no emotions are involved – truly rational. This is the reverse of the common filter for reality, in which people are assumed to be rational 90% of the time and a bit crazy 10% of the time. That’s some background for context.

Back to Comey.

I’m hearing several interpretations for these two observations:

1. Comey seemed pro-Clinton when he dropped the initial email case.

2. Comey seems anti-Clinton this week because he announced a new round of investigations right before the election.

How can both behaviors be explained? Or, as I like to ask, which movie does the best job of explaining our observations and also predicting the future?

Some say Comey is a political pawn in a rigged system. By that movie script we can explain why he dropped the initial email case. But we can’t explain why he’s acting against Clinton’s interests now. What changed?

Well, some say Comey had to reopen the case against Clinton after discovering the Weiner laptop emails. If he failed to act, there might be a revolt at the FBI and maybe a whistleblower would come forward. But that leaves unexplained why Comey detailed to Congress how Clinton appeared to be guilty of crimes at the same time he said the FBI was dropping the case. If Comey had been protecting Clinton on the first round, he would have softened his description of her misdeeds, wouldn’t he? But he didn’t seem to hold back anything.

To continue reading: James Comey – As seen through the Persuasion Filter

Internal Anger at the FBI Over Clinton Investigation Continues to Grow, by Michael Krieger

FBI agents know the fix was in on Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend prosecution of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

This is a story that refuses to go away. Recall the post from earlier this month, Backlash Grows Months After the FBI’s Sham Investigation Into Hillary Clinton, in which we learned:

Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, “So if I blew it, they blew it, too.”

But agents say Comey tied investigators’ hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

“In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews,” said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit.

Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets.

What’s more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a “voluntary” witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation.

Agreed retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello: “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”

Comey made the 25 agents who worked on the case sign nondisclosure agreements. But others say morale has sunk inside the bureau.

“The director is giving the bureau a bad rap with all the gaps in the investigation,” one agent in the Washington field office said. “There’s a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country.”

While the above article focused on the opinions of retired agents, today’s article zeros in on the growing frustrations of current agency employees.

The Daily Caller reports:

FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey deciding not to suggest that the Justice Department prosecute Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.

According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey’s leadership.

“This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not. That is appalling,” an FBI special agent who has worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. “We talk about it in the office and don’t know how Comey can keep going.”

Another special agent for the bureau that worked counter-terrorism and criminal cases said he is offended by Comey’s saying: “we” and “I’ve been an investigator.”

After graduating from law school, Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate in a law firm in the city. After becoming a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Comey’s career moved through the U.S. Attorney’s Office until he became Deputy Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration.

After Bush left office, Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed Martin, among other private sector posts. President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director Robert Mueller.

“Comey was never an investigator or special agent. The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that Comey included them in ‘collective we’ statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to prosecute,” the second agent said. “All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to prosecuted but he stood in the way.”

To continue reading: Internal Anger at the FBI Over Clinton Investigation Continues to Grow

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider, by Malia Zimmerman and Adam Housley

By now it’s a foregone conclusion: FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to proceed against Hillary Clinton was politically motivated. From Malia Zimmerman and Adam Housley at foxnews.com:

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

The FBI declined to comment directly, but instead referred Fox News to multiple public statements Comey has made in which he has thrown water on the idea that politics played a role in the agency’s decision not to recommend charges.

“I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation – including people in government – but none of that mattered to us,” Comey said July 5 in announcing the FBI’s decision on the Clinton emails. “Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way.”

Andrew Napolitano, former judge and senior judicial analyst for Fox News Channel, said many law enforcement agents involved with the Clinton email investigation have similar beliefs.

“It is well known that the FBI agents on the ground, the human beings who did the investigative work, had built an extremely strong case against Hillary Clinton and were furious when the case did not move forward,” said Napolitano. “They believe the decision not to prosecute came from The White House.”

The claim also is backed up by a report in the New York Post this week, which quotes a number of veteran FBI agents saying FBI Director James Comey “has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his cowardly whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server.”

To continue reading: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

Backlash Grows Months After the FBI’s Sham Investigation Into Hillary Clinton, by Michael Krieger

Almost every passing day there’s a new revelation that in turn reveals just how phony the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton actually was. From Micheal Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

“What Difference Does It Make.” Those simple words offer a perfect glimpse into the life and times of Hillary Clinton. A woman who gets away with everything and anything, and who now wants to be President of these United States.

From her earliest days as a public figure, an aura of shadiness and lack of accountability permeates. For starters, there’s the infamous 1978 case of her turning $1,000 into $100,000 by trading cattle futures, an endeavor in which she had no expertise.

Naturally, nothing ever came of the cattle trading incident, kicking off a pattern that has continued to play out throughout her career. It’s this reality that has made her increasingly bold — and dangerous.

– From July’s post: “What Difference Does It Make” – Thoughts on the Non-Indictment of Hillary Clinton

The FBI’s sham investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server represents the latest corrosive nail in the coffin of the faith the American public once held in its “esteemed” institutions to do what’s right and just by the people.

Months after James Comey cleared her in an utterly embarrassing press conference, many additional revelations have emerged, and outrage about how the investigation was conducted continues to grow.

For example, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions recently had the following to say according to the Daily Caller:

Jeff Sessions thinks the United States Senate should investigate the FBI for its handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton’s email server, specifically the way the bureau granted Cheryl Mills immunity and appeared to destroy evidence pertinent to the investigation.

“This is scary to me,” Sessions added. “I tried not to be critical of Comey at first.”

“I really don’t see how Congress can issue a subpoena for records and they then destroy those records,” Sessions wondered aloud. “I am telling you that every business knows that if they get a subpoena for business records, and they destroy those records, they are subject to criminal prosecution and will be prosecuted.”

Those are pretty strong words, but it’s not just Republican politicians who are outraged. There appears to be growing anger within the FBI itself, as agency veterans explained to the New York Post:

Veteran FBI agents say FBI Director James Comey has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his “cowardly” whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server.

Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, “So if I blew it, they blew it, too.”

But agents say Comey tied investigators’ hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

“In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews,” said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit.

To continue reading: Backlash Grows Months After the FBI’s Sham Investigation Into Hillary Clinton

Madness Swirls at House Judiciary Committee as Comey Attempts to Justify Hillary Innocence, by the staff of The Daily Bell

FBI Director James  Comey’s justification for not recommending an indictment of Hillary Clinton in the matter of her emails grows flimsier and flimsier the more it is probed. From the staff at thedailybell.com:

Comey on Clinton email probe: ‘Don’t call us weasels’ … The normally-stoic FBI chief grew emotional as he rejected claims that the FBI was in the tank for Clinton. -Politico

James Comey appeared today before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the FBI’s decision not to recommend prosecution of Hillary Clinton regarding misuse of classified emails – and in the process told members that once the politics stopped circulating, the FBI would again be seen as the institution “you know and love.”

This hyperbolic statement certainly set the tone for the larger hearing which saw Comey testifying with unusual emotionalism, adding at one point that people ought not to see those involved in the decision as “weasels.”

“You can call us wrong, but don’t call us weasels. We are not weasels,” he said. “We are honest people and….whether or not you agree with the result, this was done the way you want it to be done.”

Despite Hillary’s destruction of various phones with hammers (to mention only one issue), he spent several hours insisting, often querulously, that there was no evidence that she intended to obstruct justice or to hide evidence. His statements were mostly a repetition of already presented justifications. As they made little sense previously, they added neither clarity nor insight.

Republican congressmen – many of whom were increasingly incredulous – pressed him in startling ways. Several virtually demanded he reopen the case and others told him bluntly that “you blew it.”

“I would be in big trouble and I should be in big trouble if I did something like that,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). “There seems to be different strokes for different folks. I think there’s a heavy hand coming from someplace else.”

Comey was confronted with new evidence including a Reddit post from July 2014 probably authored by Platte River Networks specialist Paul Combetta seeking information on how to delete a “VIP” email address. (Platte River provided Clinton server support.) Republican Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte said, “This clearly demonstrates an action to destroy evidence by people operating Clinton’s private server and her staff.”

Comey’s response: It seemed to him to be merely an effort to deal with privacy considerations.

At every turn, Comey simply explained and re-explained the logic of determining that there was no evidence to move forward with prosecution of Hillary Clinton for mishandling emails of the most sensitive kind – and with little new information to bolster his perspective.

Now, following this hearing, the public accusation stands front and center: The director of the FBI, James Comey, himself allowed the FBI to be influenced by political considerations.

We previously published an article here anticipating Comey’s eventual resignation based on his inability to muster further evidence to justify the FBI’s decision. We continue to believe this may be the only feasible outcome. He made few new points and his testimony today was directly confronted by a series of Republican Congressmen who were neither convinced by his further elaborations nor apparently cowed by his power and position.

To continue reading: Madness Swirls at House Judiciary Committee as Comey Attempts to Justify Hillary Innocence

Why Did Cheryl Mills Require Criminal Immunity? by Tyler Durden

The title asks a question that blows a hole in the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

If there was no evidence of criminal activity, why all the immunity?

That is the awkward question that William McGurn asks in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today…

Why did Cheryl Mills require criminal immunity?

This is the irksome question hanging over the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s home-brew server in the wake of news that Ms. Mills was granted immunity for her laptop’s contents.

Ms. Mills was a top Clinton aide at the State Department who became Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer when she left. She was also a witness, as well as a potential target, in the same FBI investigation into her boss’s emails. The laptop the bureau wanted was one Ms. Mills used in 2014 to sort Clinton emails before deciding which would be turned over to State.

Here’s the problem. There are two ways a witness can get immunity: Either she invokes the Fifth Amendment on the grounds she might incriminate herself, or, worried something on the laptop might expose her to criminal liability, her lawyers reveal what this might be before prosecutors agree to an immunity deal.

As with so much else in this investigation, the way the laptop was handled was out of the ordinary. Normally, immunity is granted for testimony and interviews. The laptop was evidence. Standard practice would have been for the FBI to get a grand-jury subpoena to compel Ms. Mills to produce it.

Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. attorney, puts it this way: “It’s like telling a bank robbery suspect, ‘If you turn over that bag, I’ll give you immunity as to the contents’—which means if the money you robbed is in there, I can’t use it against you.”

The Mills immunity, which we learned of on Friday, has unfortunately been overwhelmed by the first Trump-Clinton debate. But the week is still young. On Wednesday, Congress will have an opportunity to put the Mills questions to FBI director James Comey when he appears before the House Judiciary Committee.

Back in July, Mr. Comey must have thought he’d settled the issue of Mrs. Clinton’s emails with a grandstanding press conference in which he asserted “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against her based on what the FBI had found. In so doing, he effectively wrested the indictment decision (and any hope for political accountability) from the Justice Department. Plainly even his own agents weren’t buying, given that Mr. Comey later felt the need to issue an internal memo whining that he wasn’t being political.

Now we learn about the multiple immunity deals. Immunity in exchange for information that will help make the case against higher-ups is not unusual. Even so, the Mills deal carries a special stink.

To begin with, Ms. Mills was pretty high up herself. As Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, she was in the thick of operations. In 2012, while working at State, she traveled to New York to interview candidates for a top job at the Clinton Foundation.

More disturbing still, not only was Ms. Mills granted immunity for the content on her laptop, she was permitted to act as Mrs. Clinton’s attorney even though she herself was also a witness in the investigation.

To continue reading: Why Did Cheryl Mills Require Criminal Immunity?

 

 

The FBI Investigation of EmailGate Was a Sham, by John R. Shindler

The fix for Hillary Clinton was in from the get-go with the FBI. From John R. Shindler at observer.com:

NSA Analyst: We now have incontrovertible proof the Bureau never had any intention of prosecuting Hillary Clinton

From the moment the EmailGate scandal went public more than a year ago, it was obvious that the Federal Bureau of Investigation never had much enthusiasm for prosecuting Hillary Clinton or her friends. Under President Obama, the FBI grew so politicized that it became impossible for the Bureau to do its job – at least where high-ranking Democrats are concerned.

As I observed in early July, when Director James Comey announced that the FBI would not be seeking prosecution of anyone on Team Clinton over EmailGate, the Bureau had turned its back on its own traditions of floating above partisan politics in the pursuit of justice. “Malfeasance by the FBI, its bending to political winds, is a matter that should concern all Americans, regardless of their politics,” I stated, noting that it’s never a healthy turn of events in a democracy when your secret police force gets tarnished by politics.

Just how much Comey and his Bureau punted on EmailGate has become painfully obvious since then. Redacted FBI documents from that investigation, dumped on the Friday afternoon before the long Labor Day weekend, revealed that Hillary Clinton either willfully lied to the Bureau, repeatedly, about her email habits as secretary of state, or she is far too dumb to be our commander-in-chief.

Worse, the FBI completely ignored the appearance of highly classified signals intelligence in Hillary’s email, including information lifted verbatim from above-Top Secret NSA reports back in 2011. This crime, representing the worst compromise of classified information in EmailGate – that the public knows of, at least – was somehow deemed so uninteresting that nobody at the FBI bothered to ask anybody on Team Clinton about it.

This stunning omission appears highly curious to anybody versed in counterintelligence matters, not least since during Obama’s presidency, the FBI has prosecuted Americans for compromising information far less classified than what Clinton and her staff exposed on Hillary “unclassified” email server of bathroom infamy.

This week, however, we learned that there is actually no mystery at all here. The FBI was never able to get enough traction in its investigation of EmailGate to prosecute anybody since the Bureau had already granted immunity to key players in that scandal.

Granting immunity is a standard practice in investigations, and is sometimes unavoidable. Giving a pass to Bryan Pagliano, Hillary’s IT guru who set up her email and server, made some sense since he understands what happened here, technically speaking, and otherwise is a small fish. The wisdom of giving him a pass now seems debatable, though, since Pagliano has twice refused to testify before Congress about his part in EmailGate, blowing off subpoenas. Just this week the House Oversight Committee recommended that Pagliano be cited for contempt of Congress for his repeated no-shows. That vote was on strictly partisan lines, with not a single Democrat on the committee finding Pagliano’s ignoring of Congressional subpoenas to be worthy of censure.

Now it turns out the FBI granted immunity to much bigger fish in the Clinton political tank. Three more people got a pass from the Bureau in exchange for their cooperation: Hillary lawyer Heather Samuelson, State Department IT boss John Bental, and – by far the most consequential – Cheryl Mills, who has been a Clinton flunky-cum-factotum for decades.

To continue reading: The FBI Investigation of EmailGate Was a Sham

 

It Never Ends, by The Zman

A computer specialist working for Hillary Clinton solicited help on the Internet for altering classified documents. Another day, another scandal. From The Zman on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

The Interwebs brings news that Hillary Clinton’s “eraser” may have been on Reddit asking for advise about altering classified documents.

An army of reddit users believes it has found evidence that former Hillary Clinton computer specialist Paul Combetta solicited free advice regarding Clinton’s private email server from users of the popular web forum.

A collaborative investigation showed a reddit user with the username stonetear requested help in relation to retaining and purging email messages after 60 days, and requested advice on how to remove a “VERY VIP” individual’s email address from archived content.

The requests match neatly with publicly known dates related to Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state.

Stonetear has deleted the posts, but before doing so, the pages were archived by other individuals.

What’s astonishing to me is the fact Team Cankles hired the dumbest IT people they could find. How can you have a job in IT and not know that anything posted on the Internet is forever. There is no deleting stuff. Similarly, they appear to have not fully understood how e-mail works.

Hello all- I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP’s (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file. Basically, they don’t want the VIP’s email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out.

I am not sure if something like this is possible with PowerShell, or exporting all of the emails to MSG and doing find/replaces with a batch processing program of some sort.

Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?

There’s nothing wrong with going on-line for help, but if I’m hiring someone to be my super secret e-mail eraser, I want someone that answers these questions, not the guy that asks them.

Stonetear posted to reddit on Dec. 10, 2014:

Hello- I have a client who wants to push out a 60 day email retention policy for certain users. However, they also want these users to have a ‘Save Folder’ in their Exchange folder list where the users can drop items that they want to hang onto longer than the 60 day window.

All email in any other folder in the mailbox should purge anything older than 60 days (should not apply to calendar or contact items of course). How would I go about this? Some combination of retention and managed folder policy?

The FBI report says that Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton aide and attorney, requested in December 2014 that the email retention policy be shortened to 60 days. The FBI report says Mills “instructed [redacted] to modify the email retention policy on Clinton’s clintonemail.com e-mail account” but that “according to [redacted] he did not make these changes to Clinton’s clintonemail.com account until March 2015.”

The report says the person, essentiallyidentified as Combetta by The New York Times, realized in late March 2015 that he had not made the retention change and “had an ‘oh sh–‘ moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015, deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the [Platte River Networks] server and used BleachBit to deleted [sic] the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton’s emails.”

There’s little doubt at this point that members of Team Clinton should have been charged with obstruction of justice, in addition to violation of federal law with regards to classified information. If we had anything resembling the rule of law, most of Team Clinton would be in Federal prison working on deals where they roll on the old bag. Instead, there’s a very real chance she ends up in the White House.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/09/20/it-never-ends/