> FBI investigation indicated the Tor user logged into ____'s email account and browsed email folders and attachments. When asked during her interview, _____ stated to the FBI she is not familiar with nor has she ever used Tor software. FBI investigation to date was unable to identify the actor(s) responsible for this login or how _____'s login credentials were compromised.
Was this info already public? This seems to me that not only did Secretary Clinton use a private email server to mask her activities from public records law but in taking it under her/her staff's responsibility, she effectively leaked state secrets. How in the world does that not make her criminally culpable?
EDIT: Sorry for the tangent -- I'm really curious: is this part new or had the press already reported it (or discovered it and decided not to report it?)
It's not so much the use of an email server that bothers me personally, it's the lack of accountability and double standard afterward.
For the purpose of staying somewhat on-topic for HN, and this is entirely speculative for entertainment purposes only, but I wonder if there were deeper motives to running a personal email server. Maybe she knows something about the intelligence agencies or the state department's official email system we don't, and was deliberately avoiding (or aiding?) them. Are there any such legitimate technical reasons for running a separate email server?
I am not a lawyer, but criminal culpability has everything to do with state of mind / mens rea. This is why "murder" is a crime but accidental homicide is not, even though in both cases the same actions might have led to the same consequences.
"State secrets" is also one thing, "classified material" is another thing.
I don't think this was reported. However there's a few points in the surrounding context that likely diminishes this as a significant detail:
1) The account belonged to a President (Bill) Clinton staffer, and not to Hillary or someone who worked at State with Hillary. Given the FBIs findings, it seems unlikely any classified information was found in their account.
2) The FBI did not identify any other successful scanning attempts on Clinton's server.
"In a follow-up FBI interview on May 3, 2016, ____ indicated he had an "oh shit" moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's e-mails."
I can't tell if you're joking or not, so I'll bite: Comey said that they didn't have the elements that normally support a case such as malicious intent or efforts to obstruct the investigation. [his words not mine]
Of course, classified information existed on the servers and it stands to reason that the investigation report itself could contain classified material.
You've just landed the job as the second most powerful person in the USA.
You work constantly, and rely on 24/7 access to email and messages through your Blackberry (or iPhone/Android now).
Your boss has a functional Blackberry.
Your predecessor had one too.
You are told you can not have a mobile device, but only use a secure computer in a secure location.
Your job requires constant travel.
Given the setup I'm unsurprised that someone as resourceful as a Secretary of State solved the problem.
Running around corporate/government IT departments that say no to everything is a long-standing tradition, and long may it continue. It is how Blackberry and Apple devices got into the hands of these organisations.
Why not? I'd much rather read and interact with the opinions of the fine people that make up this community on this topic than anywhere else on the interwebs.
[+] [-] wyldfire|9 years ago|reply
Was this info already public? This seems to me that not only did Secretary Clinton use a private email server to mask her activities from public records law but in taking it under her/her staff's responsibility, she effectively leaked state secrets. How in the world does that not make her criminally culpable?
EDIT: Sorry for the tangent -- I'm really curious: is this part new or had the press already reported it (or discovered it and decided not to report it?)
[+] [-] nitrogen|9 years ago|reply
For the purpose of staying somewhat on-topic for HN, and this is entirely speculative for entertainment purposes only, but I wonder if there were deeper motives to running a personal email server. Maybe she knows something about the intelligence agencies or the state department's official email system we don't, and was deliberately avoiding (or aiding?) them. Are there any such legitimate technical reasons for running a separate email server?
[+] [-] dietrichepp|9 years ago|reply
"State secrets" is also one thing, "classified material" is another thing.
[+] [-] jljljl|9 years ago|reply
1) The account belonged to a President (Bill) Clinton staffer, and not to Hillary or someone who worked at State with Hillary. Given the FBIs findings, it seems unlikely any classified information was found in their account.
2) The FBI did not identify any other successful scanning attempts on Clinton's server.
[+] [-] pdabbadabba|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] the_trapper|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tanderson92|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exabrial|9 years ago|reply
So, I'm confused. I thought they said she _didn't_ mishandle classified information.
[+] [-] wyldfire|9 years ago|reply
Of course, classified information existed on the servers and it stands to reason that the investigation report itself could contain classified material.
[+] [-] diggan|9 years ago|reply
Hillary R. Clinton Part 01 of 02 - 1353814-0 - LHM.PDF — PDF document, 2,568 kB (2,629,920 bytes)
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmePNKoSunyVnbye94tojqt5qhn1WVmmTrEygf9...
Hillary R. Clinton Part 02 of 02 - 1353814-0 - HRC 302 -V2.PDF — PDF document, 1,226 kB (1,255,658 bytes)
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmVfowJwBQ5LJGxMatQ8FiS89RWfyqGE6WbfoGs...
[+] [-] lancewiggs|9 years ago|reply
You are told you can not have a mobile device, but only use a secure computer in a secure location.
Your job requires constant travel.
Given the setup I'm unsurprised that someone as resourceful as a Secretary of State solved the problem.
Running around corporate/government IT departments that say no to everything is a long-standing tradition, and long may it continue. It is how Blackberry and Apple devices got into the hands of these organisations.
[+] [-] ljk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mizza|9 years ago|reply
On the vault, I just get:
> There are currently no items in this folder.
[+] [-] diggan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gordon_freeman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koolba|9 years ago|reply
Why not? I'd much rather read and interact with the opinions of the fine people that make up this community on this topic than anywhere else on the interwebs.
[+] [-] bsg75|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uptown|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matmann2001|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taytus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josh5555|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]