Hillary Update

[Dickc]

once again, it is required to Archive all Government e-mails. using a private server does not ensure this can happen. So, WHERE IS HILLARY'S ARCHIVE to the server? Don't give a crap if it was legal or stupid or whatever, there is no ARCHIVE.

And yes Bubba, to go through several thousand e-mails looking for what is or is not, or should or should, be classified would take a full scale office of a few hundred with backup and followup.

I keep hearing "wiped the server clean". If that happened, how are we now finding information on the server? When I received a new PC, my company sent out a thing called DOD clean. It removes all files and directories and then re-writes the entire hard drive several times. Good luck if it was wiped clean with that. Also a very good natural earth Magnet and then de-Mag would really fix things.

As the ability to read magnetic data keeps improving year after year (think Moore's law) A drive wiped just a year ago could very well be readable now with newer technology. No matter how many times you overwrite a drive with random bits, a latent magnetic image is still there. Only about 98% disappears. There is software and very sensitive devices that can pick up this latent image. About the only way of "wiping" data off a hard drive is to physically shred it.

[Mister Moose]

No, the law is "knowingly" and there is the issue of retroactive reclassification, completely SOP. Also, Clinton has no control if someone fails to send classified info to her through the secured system. If such information was sent to her private account, it would have the same security issues as if it went to an unclassified .gov account

... "wiping a server clean" is not nearly as definitive as some believe.

Ah yes. It depends on what the definition of "knowingly" is.

Powell did not use his own server, did he? At the time, requests could have been made to his email provider for copies, no? Powell did not order that providers server be wiped, did he? Powell did not have the number of scandals swirling around him, did he? Powell did not have a conflict of interest with his own foundation receiving millions of dollars from foreign entities while he was Secretary of State, did he? I think the comparison is valid, but so thin as to make you wonder why anyone would bring it up.

Let me put it this way. Who would you trust your retirement savings to if you had to choose between HRC or Powell?

I think we're down to "Let's see what happens". Harder evidence needs to emerge from all this smoke, which I believe is also what you are saying. But you can't ignore the smoke.

[SnoBrdr]

No, the law is "knowingly" and there is the issue of retroactive reclassification, completely SOP. Also, Clinton has no control if someone fails to send classified info to her through the secured system. If such information was sent to her private account, it would have the same security issues as if it went to an unclassified .gov account

... "wiping a server clean" is not nearly as definitive as some believe.

Ah yes. It depends on what the definition of "knowingly" is.

Powell did not use his own server, did he? At the time, requests could have been made to his email provider for copies, no? Powell did not order that providers server be wiped, did he? Powell did not have the number of scandals swirling around him, did he? Powell did not have a conflict of interest with his own foundation receiving millions of dollars from foreign entities while he was Secretary of State, did he? I think the comparison is valid, but so thin as to make you wonder why anyone would bring it up.

Let me put it this way. Who would you trust your retirement savings to if you had to choose between HRC or Powell?

I think we're down to "Let's see what happens". Harder evidence needs to emerge from all this smoke, which I believe is also what you are saying. But you can't ignore the smoke.

That kinda reminds me of some other instances of Clinton speak.

[Coydog]

Powell did not use his own server, did he? At the time, requests could have been made to his email provider for copies, no? Powell did not order that providers server be wiped, did he?

Powell used a private server and if the server was not wiped, where are all the emails as specifically requested by the State Department? We have nada.

Let me put it this way. Who would you trust your retirement savings to if you had to choose between HRC or Powell?

Are we talking about the Colin Powell who misused intelligence and bold-faced lied to Congress, the American people and people of the world about the Iraqi government hiding WMDs, who conflated al-Qaeda with Iraq and who was uniquely instrumental in leading our country into an unjustified "preemptive" war that killed thousands of our soldiers, wounded tens of thousands and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

You want me to trust that Colin Powell?

[Dickc]

Powell did not use his own server, did he? At the time, requests could have been made to his email provider for copies, no? Powell did not order that providers server be wiped, did he?

Powell used a private server and if the server was not wiped, where are all the emails as specifically requested by the State Department? We have nada.

Let me put it this way. Who would you trust your retirement savings to if you had to choose between HRC or Powell?

Are we talking about the Colin Powell who misused intelligence and bold-faced lied to Congress, the American people and people of the world about the Iraqi government hiding WMDs, who conflated al-Qaeda with Iraq and who was uniquely instrumental in leading our country into an unjustified "preemptive" war that killed thousands of our soldiers, wounded tens of thousands and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

You want me to trust that Colin Powell?

Powell used the SAME intelligence that Hillary Clinton used when she voted FOR the war in Iraq, as well as the intelligence that many in the military used when sending out troops into battle with all that hot chemical weapons gear. By the way, we DID find those chemical weapons. Funny how it got downplayed in the press. http://news.yahoo.com/chemical-weapons- ... 7507.html#

[Coydog]

Powell used the SAME intelligence that Hillary Clinton used when she voted FOR the war in Iraq, as well as the intelligence that many in the military used when sending out troops into battle with all that hot chemical weapons gear.

Powell deliberately ignored stark CIA warnings of weak and unreliable intel, ignored evidence that showed there were no WMDs and obscured the facts at every turn. Congress, the American people and the UN relied on the truthfulness of Powell and the Bush administration and we know how that turned out.

By the way, we DID find those chemical weapons. Funny how it got downplayed in the press. http://news.yahoo.com/chemical-weapons- ... 7507.html#

Yep, abandoned chemical weapons from the 1980's. Here's an excerpt from the article:

Among the reasons for the secrecy? "The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale," Chivers writes. "After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, [President George W.] Bush insisted that [Iraqi leader Saddam] Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims."

The discovery of pre-Gulf War chemical weapons — most of them "filthy, rusty or corroded" — did not fit the narrative.

“They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”

[Dickc]

Powell used the SAME intelligence that Hillary Clinton used when she voted FOR the war in Iraq, as well as the intelligence that many in the military used when sending out troops into battle with all that hot chemical weapons gear.

Powell deliberately ignored stark CIA warnings of weak and unreliable intel, ignored evidence that showed there were no WMDs and obscured the facts at every turn. Congress, the American people and the UN relied on the truthfulness of Powell and the Bush administration and we know how that turned out.

By the way, we DID find those chemical weapons. Funny how it got downplayed in the press. http://news.yahoo.com/chemical-weapons- ... 7507.html#

Yep, abandoned chemical weapons from the 1980's. Here's an excerpt from the article:

Among the reasons for the secrecy? "The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale," Chivers writes. "After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, [President George W.] Bush insisted that [Iraqi leader Saddam] Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims."

The discovery of pre-Gulf War chemical weapons — most of them "filthy, rusty or corroded" — did not fit the narrative.

“They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”

Coydog, Spin it anyway you want, the fact is they found WMD's and they were from Sadam. Those are the weapons that Hans Blix was supposed to be digging up and was not. They might have been old and corroded, but hey, when you bury something, its going to degrade. Sadam did this so he could be WMD "free". If he had been SMART, he would have just turned this stuff over to Blix while Clinton was in office and been done with it. If he had done that, then there would NOT have been the grounds for an invasion.

[Coydog]

Coydog, Spin it anyway you want, the fact is they found WMD's and they were from Sadam. Those are the weapons that Hans Blix was supposed to be digging up and was not. They might have been old and corroded, but hey, when you bury something, its going to degrade. Sadam did this so he could be WMD "free". If he had been SMART, he would have just turned this stuff over to Blix while Clinton was in office and been done with it. If he had done that, then there would NOT have been the grounds for an invasion.

Powell and the Bush administration did all the spinning. These weapons were remnants from the Iran-Iraq war, not part of an active arsenal and certainly no grounds for an invasion. Does anybody think Congress and the American people would have supported the war if the justification for WMDs was "we believe Iraq possesses a small cache of old abandoned deteriorating left-over chemical weapons buried in the sand somewhere?"

Doesn't seem particularly compelling to me, but then I was not a member of the Bush administration.

[freeski]

I'm with Coydog on the Bush/Iraq posts. A very sad period in American history.

[steamboat1]

How many times have we been told that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq? I’m pretty sure I’ve heard it millions of times. I’ve read stories here and there over the last several years about WMDs being found, but of course it never got much news coverage – until now.


The New York Times shockingly admitted in an explosive front page report that thousands of WMDs were found in Iraq since the start of the war:
From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.
In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
So, now it needs to be repeated millions of times: there WERE WMDs found in Iraq! But of course The Times couldn’t admit that their discovery vindicates President Bush. Instead they claim that these WMDs don’t count and that an active WMD program was the only rationale for the Iraq War:
The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.
Oh, really? Well, it sounds to me in UN Resolution 1441, adopted November 8, 2002, that there was concern about an active WMD program, but a key point of contention with Iraq in the decade after the 1991 Gulf War was the WMDs that had been left over (the ones The Times reports as being found during the Iraq War). Iraq had repeatedly refused to disarm and destroy its WMDs, even kicking out UN inspectors between 1998 and 2002. Some key excerpts from the resolution:
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material …
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; …
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
In President Bush’s speech to the UN on September 12, 2002, a huge chunk of his case was about Iraq violating its agreement to be transparent and disarm and destroy all WMDs after the Gulf War, maintaining stockpiles (like the thousands that The New York Times reported on!), improving facilities that could be used to produce WMDs, and not complying with UN weapons inspectors:
In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.
From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
United Nations’ inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons. …
In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq’s commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq’s serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq’s clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq’s behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.
On the eve of the Iraq War, President Bush laid out his case to the American people. Again, the focus was on disarmament and Iraq’s possession of WMDs:
My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again — because we are not dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people.
For The New York Times to say, “The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale,” is ridiculous. Now that the leftist claim that no WMDs were found in Iraq has become untenable, they are moving the goalposts again. They say these pre-Gulf War era WMDs don’t count, even though Saddam’s continued possession of these older ones was clearly used as a justification for war.
When Saddam said he destroyed all his WMDs from the Gulf War, we knew he was lying and still had stockpiles, and we were proven right when we found the thousands The New York Times reported. The left has now conveniently changed to saying that no NEW WMDs were found. As if the “old” chemical weapons that were found couldn’t have been put into the wrong hands by Saddam and used in a terrorist attack!
The bottom line is: Weapons of mass destruction WERE found in Iraq. Debate the Iraq War all you want, but this should no longer be a point of contention.
( Unless you are a brain dead, mindless, obamabot of course )

[XtremeJibber2001]

WTF?

Tech company: No indication that Clinton’s e-mail server was ‘wiped’
By Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Carol D. Leonnig September 12 at 5:01 PM

The company that managed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail server said it has “no knowledge of the server being wiped,” the strongest indication to date that tens of thousands of e-mails that Clinton has said were deleted could be recovered.

Clinton and her advisers have said for months that she deleted her personal correspondence from her time as secretary of state, creating the impression that 31,000 e-mails were gone forever.

There is a distinction between e-mails being deleted and a server being wiped. If e-mails are deleted or moved from a server, they appear to no longer exist on the device. But experts say, depending on the condition of the server, underlying data can remain on the device and the e-mails can often be restored.

To make the information go away permanently, a server must be wiped — a process that includes overwriting the underlying data with gibberish, possibly several times.

That process, according to Platte River Networks, the Denver-based firm that has managed the system since 2013, apparently did not happen.

During an interview with ABC News, Hillary Clinton apologized for using a private e-mail server during her time as secretary or state. Here are past statements where the presidential hopeful neglected to take personal responsibility for the controversy.

“Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped,” company spokesman Andy Boian told The Washington Post. “All the information we have is that the server wasn’t wiped.”

Clinton and her staff have avoided directly answering whether the server was ever wiped.

In a memorable exchange at a campaign event in Las Vegas last month, Clinton turned aside a question about whether the server had been wiped with a joke: “Like what, with a cloth?” she said, adding, “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”

Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon gave a similar answer this month, telling CNN: “I don’t know what wiped means. Literally the e-mails were deleted off of the server, that’s true.”

The server Clinton used as secretary of state was stored at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and was shared with her husband, former president Bill Clinton, and his staff. The device was managed during that time by a State Department staffer who was paid personally by the Clintons for his work on their private system.


All the e-mails from Clinton’s tenure at the State Department were on the server when the device was taken over in June 2013 by Platte River Networks, four months after Clinton left office.

A company attorney has said that all of Clinton’s e-mails were then migrated to a new server.

The e-mails were removed from the second server in 2014, with Clinton’s lawyers storing those they deemed work-related on a thumb drive and discarding those that they determined were entirely personal. Copies of 30,000 work e-mails were turned over to the State Department in December and are being released to the public in batches under the terms of a court order.

The original server remained under Platte River’s control in a secure data center in New Jersey until the company turned it over to the FBI last month. A company attorney has said that the device was “blank” when it was given to investigators but had not specifically said it had been wiped.

The FBI is examining the security of Clinton’s e-mail setup. Officials have said she is not a target. An FBI spokeswoman declined to comment on the status of the inquiry.

A Clinton campaign spokesman declined to comment for this article.

Even if the e-mails could be restored, it’s unclear whether anyone would have the authority to do so.

Conservative groups have already been pressing in court for access to those e-mails, if they exist.

On Saturday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairmen of the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, respectively, said they would push for the deleted e-mails to be reviewed if they can be recovered.

Politically, even the possibility that the e-mails could be retrieved is likely to further inflame an issue that has already hampered the campaign of the Democratic presidential front-runner. She has been trying to move past the issue for months and on Tuesday said she was “sorry” she had not used separate e-mail accounts for public and private matters.

In terms of data recovery, the difference between a server from which data has been merely deleted or removed compared with one that has been wiped is “night and day,” said Joseph Lorenzo Hall, the chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonpartisan group that advocates for Internet privacy.

“Wiping is designed to make the material that was underneath not recoverable. That’s the whole point,” he said. “The probability of recovering material is very, very much higher if you haven’t wiped it.”

Experts generally recommend wiping or overwriting a server more than once to ensure it is fully erased.

Still, Hall said, other considerations could affect whether deleted data could be pulled from a server, even if it hasn’t been wiped. For instance, traces of data remaining on a server that has sat without electrical power can degrade over time, he said.

The conservative group Judicial Watch asked a federal judge on Sept. 4 to order the State Department to take steps to determine whether those personal e-mails still exist. The group has said that Clinton’s e-mails were essentially government property that she should not have been allowed to take upon her departure from the State Department.

Justice Department lawyers, on behalf of the State Department, have opposed the request, arguing that personal e-mails are not federal records and that the court lacks jurisdiction to demand their preservation. Government lawyers offered a robust defense of Clinton’s e-mail practices on Wednesday in a court filing, arguing that federal employees, including Clinton, are allowed to discard personal e-mails provided they preserve those that deal with public business.

“There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal e-mails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” the lawyers wrote.

The State Department has determined that 1,250 of the e-mails she submitted were entirely personal, and the agency returned them to her. Clinton has said this indicated that she erred on the side of turning over more than was necessary.


But Republican lawmakers have questioned the credibility of Clinton’s process for dividing her public and personal e-mail correspondence.

Lawmakers have repeatedly noted that all or part of 15 e-mails to Clinton from longtime adviser Sidney Blumenthal that appeared to be work-related were missing from the State Department’s file of official e-mails. Blumenthal had provided those e-mails to the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

The chair of that panel, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), said at the time that the missing Blumenthal e-mails confirmed “doubts about the completeness of Clinton’s self-selected public record and raises questions about her decision to erase her personal server . . . before it could be analyzed by an independent, neutral third party.”

On Saturday, Grassley called for “independent authorities” to review any deleted e-mails that might be recovered. Johnson, in his statement on Saturday, said that his committee is concerned about whether Clinton’s e-mail system compromised national security and that any messages “the FBI is able to recover would obviously be important to the committee’s work.”

The revelation that Clinton never ordered the server wiped could bolster her statements that her actions have been aboveboard, suggesting that she did not take active steps to hide her e-mails.

Still, the new information could highlight the carefully worded answers Clinton and her advisers have provided on the matter.

In a March news conference shortly after her e-mail practices were disclosed, Clinton described her decision not to keep e-mails that dealt with the sorts of private issues that nobody would want revealed in public.

“I chose not to keep my private personal e-mails — e-mails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in in­boxes,” she said. “No one wants their personal e-mails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.”

In a letter that month, Clinton’s attorney David Kendall told a House investigative committee that no e-mails from Clinton’s time as secretary “reside on the server or any backup systems associated with the server.”

In her Sept. 4 interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Clinton said that the personal e-mails had been deleted after the painstaking process of weeding out the work-related correspondence that was sent to the State Department.

“I was asked, ‘Do you need to keep your personal e-mails?’ ” Clinton said. “And I said, ‘No, I don’t. You can delete those.’ And they were.”

[XtremeJibber2001]

NEW BOMBSHELL: 5-MONTH GAP IN HILLARY EMAILS
Compared to missing 18 minutes in Nixon Watergate tapes
Published: 19 hours ago. Updated: 09/14/2015 at 10:50 PM

WASHINGTON – There are gaps totaling five months in the Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department, the watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Monday morning.

The revelation emerged after a court ordered the release of State Department documents as part of Judicial Watch’s effort to obtain Clinton emails under the Freedom of Information Act.

Emails sent and received by Clinton on her private server are missing over periods totaling five months, beginning when she took office as secretary of state in 2009.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the gaps indicate Clinton lied under oath when she said all her emails had been turned over, and it suggested government officials had not turned over everything they were required to deliver.

Fitton said other State Department officials, including the one in charge of email production, Patrick Kennedy, previously had been informed of the five-month gap.

The gap in emails received by Clinton run from Jan. 21, 2009, when she became secretary of state, to March 17, 2009. The gaps in emails sent by Clinton from from Jan. 21, 2009, to April 12, 2009, and from Dec. 30, 2012, to Feb. 1, 2013.

Judicial Watch said the revelation of the email gap casts doubt on whether Clinton told the truth when she declared under oath last month, “I have directed that all of my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State.”

Judicial Watch obtained that statement, made in response to a court order, in separate FOIA litigation.

The announcement of the email gap was made at an event in which many of the best minds in Washington came together to discuss what to do about the many crises plaguing the country during the Obama era.

Judicial Watch has been in the forefront of the legal battle to obtain Clinton’s emails and State Department documents concerning the former secretary of state’s use of a private server to conduct all of her official business.

Contrary to her denials, government inspectors revealed Clinton did have classified information on her private server, which security experts say was especially vulnerable to hacking by foreign intelligence agencies.

The FBI is investigating Clinton's use of the server and trying to retrieve 30,000 emails she deleted after her own staff deemed them personal correspondence.

The State Department said it had received approximately "60,00-70,000 pages of email correspondence printed to paper and stored in twelve bankers boxes," which are "the only comprehensive set of Secretary Clinton's email correspondence."

But the department was concerned there were other Clinton emails that would not be found.

"However, of the sample examined, many of the emails were from Secretary Clinton's personal email account to official Department email accounts of her staff. Emails originating from Secretary Clinton's personal email account would only be captured by Department systems when they came to an official Department email account, i.e., they would be captured only in the email accounts of those recipients. Secretary Clinton's staff no longer work at the Department, and the status of the email accounts of Secretary Clinton's staff (and other Department recipients) is unknown at this time."

Fitton said one State Department official indicated she did not want a written record of the inquiry into Clinton's emails, noting an email in which she said she preferred to discuss the matter on the phone.

Every email should have been turned over

Fitton also said that among the newly obtained documents is an internal appraisal by the State Department that determined none of Clinton's emails should have been excluded for examination as to whether they were personal or government business.

The document, titled "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Email Appraisal Report," dated Feb. 9, 2015, concluded: "As the person holding the highest level job in the Department, any email message maintained by or for the immediate use of the secretary of state is 'appropriate for preservation.' This record series cannot be considered personal papers based on the definition of a record in 44 U.S.C. 3301 or Department policy found in 5 FAM 443."

All of Clinton's emails should have been turned over to the government for review, Fitton said.

That determination by the State Department is significant, because Clinton said she deleted more than 30,000 emails that her own staff had determined were personal.

Fitton emphasized that none of the Clinton emails were made public voluntarily but were disclosed as the result of litigation.

He compared the five-month Clinton email gap to the infamous 18-minute gap in the audio tapes turned over to Watergate investigators by President Nixon.

The email gap was revealed in documents obtained under court order in the FOIA lawsuit against the Department of State originally filed by Judicial Watch on May 6, 2013.

The documents also revealed for the first time the private email account that top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills apparently used to conduct government business,

The documents also show the State Department had concerns months ago about classified information in Clinton's emails.

A letter on March 3, 2015, to longtime Clinton attorney David Kendall said, "Please note that if Secretary Clinton wishes to release any document or portion thereof, the Department must approve such release and first review the document for information that may be protected from disclosure for privilege, privacy or other reasons."

Just last week, Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge they had no reason to suspect Clinton had failed to produce any emails requested by Congress or watchdog groups.

Monday's revelation of the five-month gaps in emails turned over by Clinton would appear to cast doubt on the Justice Department's assurance.

The State Department appraisal report that said Clinton should have turned over all emails, including the 30,000 she deleted, because they were deemed personal, also seemed to contradict the Justice Department.

Top Justice Department lawyers Benjamin Mizer and Elizabeth Shapiro said in papers filed in federal court Wednesday: "Because personal records are not subject to [the Freedom of Information Act], and State Department employees may delete messages they deem in their own discretion to be personal, plaintiff's preservation argument reduces to an unsupported allegation that former Secretary Clinton might have mistakenly or intentionally deleted responsive agency records rather than personal records."

'Unprecedented assault'

The group contended the nation is "in the midst of an unprecedented assault on its open records laws by the corrupt and secretive Obama administration and corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton, an assault that we believe poses a serious threat to our country’s future."

The event was divided into three sessions, with closing remarks and a question-and-answer period. The first session was "Clinton Corruption Challenge from Benghazi to Clinton Cash."

[steamboat1]

While campaigning in Iowa, Hillary Clinton pledged that she would push for policies to deal with sexual assault on college campuses by making government programs for victims "comprehensive, confidential and coordinated." Don't be fooled. She's positioning herself to capitalize on the Left's witch hunt in the supposed "epidemic" of rape on college campuses. "I want to send a message to all of the survivors," Clinton said. "Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard, the right to be believed, and we are with you as you go forward." Say, does that apply to the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault? Juanita Broaddrick says Hillary threatened her into keeping quiet. Kathleen Willey says the former first lady goes after the women who have accused her husband "to ruin them again and again." When Paula Jones accused the playboy in chief of sexual harassment in the late '90s, it was "scorched-earth legal warfare," The Washington Post said at the time. And let's not forget Monica Lewinsky, the low-level intern abused by her superior. Hillary famously blamed that one on a "vast right-wing conspiracy." But just whose side is Clinton on in the "war on women"?

[Bubba]

NEW BOMBSHELL: 5-MONTH GAP IN HILLARY EMAILS
Compared to missing 18 minutes in Nixon Watergate tapes
Published: 19 hours ago. Updated: 09/14/2015 at 10:50 PM

WASHINGTON – There are gaps totaling five months in the Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department, the watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Monday morning.

The revelation emerged after a court ordered the release of State Department documents as part of Judicial Watch’s effort to obtain Clinton emails under the Freedom of Information Act.

Emails sent and received by Clinton on her private server are missing over periods totaling five months, beginning when she took office as secretary of state in 2009.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the gaps indicate Clinton lied under oath when she said all her emails had been turned over, and it suggested government officials had not turned over everything they were required to deliver.

Fitton said other State Department officials, including the one in charge of email production, Patrick Kennedy, previously had been informed of the five-month gap.

The gap in emails received by Clinton run from Jan. 21, 2009, when she became secretary of state, to March 17, 2009. The gaps in emails sent by Clinton from from Jan. 21, 2009, to April 12, 2009, and from Dec. 30, 2012, to Feb. 1, 2013.

Judicial Watch said the revelation of the email gap casts doubt on whether Clinton told the truth when she declared under oath last month, “I have directed that all of my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State.”

Judicial Watch obtained that statement, made in response to a court order, in separate FOIA litigation.

The announcement of the email gap was made at an event in which many of the best minds in Washington came together to discuss what to do about the many crises plaguing the country during the Obama era.

Judicial Watch has been in the forefront of the legal battle to obtain Clinton’s emails and State Department documents concerning the former secretary of state’s use of a private server to conduct all of her official business.

Contrary to her denials, government inspectors revealed Clinton did have classified information on her private server, which security experts say was especially vulnerable to hacking by foreign intelligence agencies.

The FBI is investigating Clinton's use of the server and trying to retrieve 30,000 emails she deleted after her own staff deemed them personal correspondence.

The State Department said it had received approximately "60,00-70,000 pages of email correspondence printed to paper and stored in twelve bankers boxes," which are "the only comprehensive set of Secretary Clinton's email correspondence."

But the department was concerned there were other Clinton emails that would not be found.

"However, of the sample examined, many of the emails were from Secretary Clinton's personal email account to official Department email accounts of her staff. Emails originating from Secretary Clinton's personal email account would only be captured by Department systems when they came to an official Department email account, i.e., they would be captured only in the email accounts of those recipients. Secretary Clinton's staff no longer work at the Department, and the status of the email accounts of Secretary Clinton's staff (and other Department recipients) is unknown at this time."

Fitton said one State Department official indicated she did not want a written record of the inquiry into Clinton's emails, noting an email in which she said she preferred to discuss the matter on the phone.

Every email should have been turned over

Fitton also said that among the newly obtained documents is an internal appraisal by the State Department that determined none of Clinton's emails should have been excluded for examination as to whether they were personal or government business.

The document, titled "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Email Appraisal Report," dated Feb. 9, 2015, concluded: "As the person holding the highest level job in the Department, any email message maintained by or for the immediate use of the secretary of state is 'appropriate for preservation.' This record series cannot be considered personal papers based on the definition of a record in 44 U.S.C. 3301 or Department policy found in 5 FAM 443."

All of Clinton's emails should have been turned over to the government for review, Fitton said.

That determination by the State Department is significant, because Clinton said she deleted more than 30,000 emails that her own staff had determined were personal.

Fitton emphasized that none of the Clinton emails were made public voluntarily but were disclosed as the result of litigation.

He compared the five-month Clinton email gap to the infamous 18-minute gap in the audio tapes turned over to Watergate investigators by President Nixon.

The email gap was revealed in documents obtained under court order in the FOIA lawsuit against the Department of State originally filed by Judicial Watch on May 6, 2013.

The documents also revealed for the first time the private email account that top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills apparently used to conduct government business,

The documents also show the State Department had concerns months ago about classified information in Clinton's emails.

A letter on March 3, 2015, to longtime Clinton attorney David Kendall said, "Please note that if Secretary Clinton wishes to release any document or portion thereof, the Department must approve such release and first review the document for information that may be protected from disclosure for privilege, privacy or other reasons."

Just last week, Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge they had no reason to suspect Clinton had failed to produce any emails requested by Congress or watchdog groups.

Monday's revelation of the five-month gaps in emails turned over by Clinton would appear to cast doubt on the Justice Department's assurance.

The State Department appraisal report that said Clinton should have turned over all emails, including the 30,000 she deleted, because they were deemed personal, also seemed to contradict the Justice Department.

Top Justice Department lawyers Benjamin Mizer and Elizabeth Shapiro said in papers filed in federal court Wednesday: "Because personal records are not subject to [the Freedom of Information Act], and State Department employees may delete messages they deem in their own discretion to be personal, plaintiff's preservation argument reduces to an unsupported allegation that former Secretary Clinton might have mistakenly or intentionally deleted responsive agency records rather than personal records."

'Unprecedented assault'

The group contended the nation is "in the midst of an unprecedented assault on its open records laws by the corrupt and secretive Obama administration and corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton, an assault that we believe poses a serious threat to our country’s future."

The event was divided into three sessions, with closing remarks and a question-and-answer period. The first session was "Clinton Corruption Challenge from Benghazi to Clinton Cash."

A trifle misleading but potentially important nonetheless. There was NOT a five month gap. There were several gaps that totaled five months.

[Mister Moose]

NEW BOMBSHELL: 5-MONTH GAP IN HILLARY EMAILS
Compared to missing 18 minutes in Nixon Watergate tapes
Published: 19 hours ago. Updated: 09/14/2015 at 10:50 PM

WASHINGTON – There are gaps totaling five months in the Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department, the watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Monday morning."

A trifle misleading but potentially important nonetheless. There was NOT a five month gap. There were several gaps that totaled five months.

The first line in the article seemed pretty clear to me. What's left is press sensationalism in the headline.... <gasp> What's the world coming to?????