Clinton lawyer: No undisclosed e-mails left on server turned over to FBI

[FBaggins]

Source: Washington Post

In a letter released Wednesday, Hillary Clinton's personal lawyer once again asserted that the computer server that had housed her e-mail from her time as secretary of state "no longer contains data from Secretary Clinton's" private e-mail account.

Attorney David Kendall made the comment in a letter to the the chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee that reiterated steps Clinton's team took to preserve official e-mail communications during her time in that position, a period when mixed her private and official e-mails in a single account.

The question of what exactly is on that server, which was used to store e-mails during the period she was secretary of state, has become central to the controversy. The letter to the committee's chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), adds fresh details to remarks already made by Clinton and Kendall.

...snip...

A technology services company hired by the Clintons in 2013 to manage their e-mail turned that server over to the FBI last week from a warehouse where it had been stored since it was removed in June of that year from the Clinton home. Last week, a lawyer for the company, Platte River Networks, said the server was "blank," noting that information once contained on it had been migrated to other servers when Platte River took over management of the Clintons' e-mail system. The lawyer did not address whether the blank server had been "wiped" of data. FBI technology experts are expected to try and recover data on the server.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/19/clinton-lawyer-no-undisclosed-e-mails-left-on-server-turned-over-to-fbi/

---

"information once contained on it had been migrated to other servers when Platte River took over management of the Clintons' e-mail system."

???

[merrily]

1. Doesn't a wiped server means no emails at all left, whether disclosed or undisclosed?

[FBaggins]

3. If it was wiped, yes.

It should mean no files of any sort remain on the drive.

The part that I found interesting is the hint that the data may still be housed on other servers.

[merrily]

5. I noted that as well as noting the dodgy language designed to imply full disclosure.

Seems an odd thing to volunteer.

I would bet my life something is missing somewhere or all of this is pointless. So is taking two years to respond to an FOIA request, oddly reminiscent of taking two years to comply with a subpoena.

[still_one]

7. not necessarily. Also, the data should be encrypted if it was done correctly

[merrily]

9. "not necessarily" "should be"

[still_one]

38. wiping the server does not mean it isn't on another system. Those email correspondence were sent

received from other systems that do NOT get wiped when one email server gets wiped

[merrily]

42. My post was not about other systems, though, only the wiped server.

[still_one]

48. Ok

[merrily]

58. ..

"In a letter released Wednesday, Hillary Clinton's personal lawyer once again asserted that the computer server that had housed her e-mail from her time as secretary of state "no longer contains data from Secretary Clinton's" private e-mail account."

As my reply 5 suggests, that is the language from the OP to which my reply 1 pertained.

[still_one]

59. I was not questioning you

[merrily]

60. ok

[Darb]

2. Who gives a flying fuck?

Time to put this Repubic conjured piece of shit to bed.

[Laser102]

4. My sentiments exactly. Has anyone else noticed when Hillary answers a question

The media says things like she was, defensive, sarcastic, flippant, etc. no matter what she says the interpretation is bad. I honestly believe they have it in for her. I have never seen them go after anyone as much as Hillary.It makes me even more determined to vote for her.

[merrily]

6. LOL!

[Glitterati]

8. Perhaps it's time to re-think this campaign

Some of us are just tired, bone tired, of Clinton scandals!

Some of us just don't want our government, not only like it is today, but consumed with putting a Clinton, any Clinton, in jail by the republicans?

Some of us NEED GOVERNMENT TO WORK.

I don't CARE whether these are "cooked up" scandals or not.

I can't take another 8 years of a Clinton Presidency, 8 years of scandal after scandal after scandal. Manufactured or not.

[candelista]

10. "I can't take another 8 years of a Clinton Presidency"

I don't know if I can either. The very idea of being surrounded by Hillary's personality--on TV, on the internet, in the papers, all the time for 8 years--fills me with dread.

[Glitterati]

13. You and me, both

I can't imagine the likes of Larry Klayman, Drudge, all the dredges of the internet, howling for 8 long years.

I say, again, I need government to WORK.

[Metric System]

23. Yes, because God knows Drudge and the rest of the sludge have been so quiet during the Obama years.

[Glitterati]

25. From James Carville today, epitomizes the issue

Carville said. "I understand that. I’ve been dealing with this for 23 years now.”

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

41. Don't forget Bill, puttering around in the rose garden in his underwear.

[merrily]

11. Media and Republicans did not force her to take two years to reply to a subpoena or an FOIA request.

They did not hold McDougal in contempt for refusing to answer questions about Clinton.

They did not wipe the server.'

They did not steal papers of which there were no copies.

The vast right wing conspiracy didn't harass Jones or get blow jobs in the Oval office or commit perjury while a sitting President.

At some point, the endless persecution claims seem like weak sauce.

[bigdarryl]

15. And if it's not Clinton it will be any democrat than runs and gets the nomination they go after

Look how they went after Obama over the I.R.S.The only reason there not going after him now is because he's not running it doesn't matter if it's Hillary the bottom line is it's about them(republicans) gaining more power and that's the WH.They want that White House bad and will do anything to get it weather it's knocking Hillary out of the campaign over this BS e-mail stuff.If she bows out of the race they wouldn't even bring up the e-mail shit again mark my word

[Glitterati]

24. James Carville said it best today

Carville said. "I understand that. I’ve been dealing with this for 23 years now.”

I prefer not to make it another 8.

And, if you think Obama "scandals" came NEAR what we lived through with the Clintons, you've got some memory loss or didn't live through it.

[Akicita]

22. It's not just the scandals. Hillary appears to have been bought and paid for by the corporatists and

elites(like most of her repug counterparts). What a breath of fresh air Bernie is. A politician who has served for years and is still of modest means. The mark of a honest politician. Joe Biden is another one. Bernie's working class message has all the authenticity that Hillary's "I want to be the middle class's champion until I am elected" does not.

[tularetom]

26. You're being unduly pessimistic IMO

You are making the unwarranted assumption that Clinton would be successful in seeking a second term.

Having said that, even four years is too much.

[emulatorloo]

28. I honestly don't understand your attitude. Are you going to give up when Bernie

gets the character assassination treatment from these Republican creeps? Because trust me, once he wins Iowa and NH, they are going to open their sewage pipes on him.

[Glitterati]

35. Give up?

Perhaps you need to read again - for comprehension, this time.

I want to WIN, not spend the next 8 years embroiled in scandal after scandal after scandal.

I want government to WORK FOR ME and this country.

[emulatorloo]

37. Remind me to blame you when others tell lies and slander you.

I comprehended your post just fine.

You are engaging in some kind of political "blame the victim" game.

Obama was given the same treatment Clinton was given, Sanders will receive the same.

As far as I can tell, you are capitulating to the Republican Lie Machine.

[LanternWaste]

36. Scandals will be attached to any sitting Democratic president, regardless of who it is.

Scandals will be attached to any sitting Democratic president, regardless of who it is. The GOP will ensure the government does not work, regardless of who the sitting Democratic president is.

Sanders, O'Malley, Clinton... it makes zero difference to the Scandal Manufacturing Industry. It will happen regardless of how bone tired one may be of them.

[Tommy2Tone]

54. Well then vote for another Bush

That make you happy?

[frylock]

30. Because suggesting a server was wiped with a cloth isn't at all defensive, sarcastic, flippant, etc

[Akicita]

20. Right on. It's only about national security.

Besides, everybody lies about keeping classified information on their private server. It's no big deal. And 33% of the American people have consistently stated that we should put this scandal behind us and move on with the business of coronating Hillary as the next President of the United States of America. Move on people! Move on!

[frylock]

29. This is not going away anytime soon, despite predictions that it would..

and all of this is self-inflicted, in classic Clinton form.

[ellisonz]

12. Sorry I missed this whole story, too busy reading up on Filegate.

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

[Pantagruelsmember]

21. Another exoneration but the Clinton smear campaigns live on in memory

"On November 19, 1998, Independent Counsel Starr testified before the House Judiciary Committee in connection with the Impeachment of Bill Clinton over charges related to the Lewinsky scandal. Here, for the first time, Starr exonerated both President Clinton and the First Lady of complicity in the FBI files matter, saying "while there are outstanding issues that we are attempting to resolve with respect to one individual [we] found no evidence that anyone higher [than Livingstone or Marceca] was in any way involved in ordering the files from the FBI. Second, we have found no evidence that information contained in the files of former officials was used for an improper purpose."[24] (Starr also chose this occasion to clear President Clinton in the Travelgate matter, and to say that he had not committed impeachable wrongdoing in the Whitewater matter; Democrats on the committee immediately criticized Starr for withholding all these findings until after the 1998 Congressional elections.[25])
In March 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Starr's successor, issued the office's final report on the matter, as part of a concerted effort to wrap up all Whitewater-related cases before the end of Bill Clinton's term.[26] Ray determined that there was no credible evidence of any criminal activity by any individual in the matter.[27] It attributed the improper collection of the files by Marceca due to his having an outdated Secret Service list of White House passes, as Marceca had originally claimed.[27] It stated that even though Marceca's statements were sometimes "contradictory and misleading",[2] they were "sufficiently transparent"[2] and there was insufficient evidence to prove that Anthony Marceca had made false statements to Congress during his testimony.[8] The report ascribed the FBI files matter to "a failure of process at many levels," saying that the Secret Service had provided critically erroneous data,[2] and that this was compounded by the White House's informal process of requesting sensitive information by "inexperienced, untrained, and unsupervised personnel with backgrounds as political operatives."[2]
Based on an investigation that included the prior fingerprint analysis,[27] the report further stated that:
there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background reports of former White House staff from prior administrations of President Bush and President Reagan.
—Independent Counsel Robert Ray, [8]"

[candelista]

14. So did she wipe the part of the drive with her "personal" stuff?

Or did she copy the "government" stuff onto a new hard drive, and leave out the "personal" stuff? Which would be more advantageous to her? It seems like there are upsides and downsides either way.

[murielm99]

17. "She" didn't do anything.

A technology services company transferred emails. Stop implying that she did something criminal. There are no charges against her and she did no such thing.

You are harming Democrats with your insinuations. It is my opinion that these rumors and innuendos have no place on DU.

[candelista]

19. She gave the orders.

She was the boss. She hired the tech services company. She's responsible.

It is not harming Democrats to tell the truth. On the contrary, if the Dems run Hillary, they will lose the election. Her candidacy will only hurt the Party. This scandal will destroy her politically. So pointing to the facts is actually useful. If you want to suppress all criticism of Hillary, including my comments, you can certainly try. Maybe you will succeed. But that would be really harmful to Democrats.

[murielm99]

50. The criticisms agains Hillary

are right-wing propaganda. You should not be repeating them on a Democratic board. Oh well, you support a candidate who is not a Democrat, so what can we expect.

Hillary will lose the election? Not according to all the responsible polls. Can the election be stolen? Possibly.

[tularetom]

27. Vote for Hillary - there are no charges against her

[frylock]

31. Great bumper sticker material..

would look good next to 'Condi Rice used a Private Server Too!'

[Kingofalldems]

16. Didn't Rice and Powell have private e-mail servers?

If so, when will the investigation begin?

[FBaggins]

18. I don't think so.

They had private email accounts, but I haven't seen a report of a self-hosted email account.

If so, when will the investigation begin?

As soon as someone makes a FOIA request or State asks the hosting company to turn them over.

[frylock]

32. Is that the standard with which you'd like to hold your party accountable?

[Kingofalldems]

33. I want republicans to be held to the same standards. Do you object to that?

[frylock]

34. We DID hold Republicans to the same standards ffs..

and you've been here long enough to know that. Your problem is that you don't want to hold Democrats to any standard. Full stop.

[Kingofalldems]

39. By we I mean DU and the media and Congress etc.

Quit making shit up that I did not post.

[frylock]

43. Again, DU raised holy hell about Rice and Powell..

you're profile shows you've been a member since 2004. Is it your recollection that posters here didn't care about them using their own mail servers? Moreover, I don't have to make shit up. The entire subtext of your post is 'well Republicans did it first, so meh'.

[Kingofalldems]

44. Go back and read my first response.

Here it is: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141181855#post16

It's very clear. What in the post references DU?

subtext: Things I didn't post.

[frylock]

45. By we I mean DU and the media and Congress etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1182108

[Kingofalldems]

46. Exactly. And I would state that a few of those DUers

are right wing trolls. If you are justly concerned about the emails, then go at it.

Any more insults today?

[frylock]

47. I don't know what the fuck just happened here..

I really don't. Which one of my posts did you find insulting? Was it the one where I pointed out the uncomfortable truth about you not holding Dems to any standards other than Republicans did it too?

[Kingofalldems]

49. I asked originally why there was no investigation of republicans.

If that's offensive to you I really don't give a shit.

[frylock]

51. Have you asked Nancy Pelosi why there were no investigations of republicans?

[Kingofalldems]

52. I could answer--she's not like republicans.

[frylock]

53. So what exactly has this discussion been about then?

[Kingofalldems]

55. I guess you forgot Whitewater, Benghazi!!, Ken Starr.

The list goes on and on. I will not join any GOP attack on a Democrat.

That's what this is about---In My Opinion. You differ on this? Good for you. Now go away.

[frylock]

56. ooo-kayyyyyyyyy......

[JoePhilly]

57. How did her predecessor handle email?

1) If she handled it in a similar manner, then there is no reason for any screaming.

2) What secret information was compromised?

Was a CIA operative exposed?

Did Snowden get his hands on it and leak it?

Did a foreign government get their hands on it?

[candelista]

40. If she used Gutmann, can the FBI still find anything?

Gutmann himself believed that an overwritten sector could be recovered under examination by a sophisticated microscope. But what if someone did the full 39 passes?