Computer forensics defuses FBI's Clinton email 'bombshell' Since igniting a political firestorm and triggering major changes in US presidential voting intentions by revealing some emails passing through Hillary Clinton's private email server had been found in an unrelated criminal investigation, the FBI has gone to ground. The US criminal investigation bureau has repeatedly refused to …
Actually, you should be sensing the US system of justice at work. The reason for the lengthy delay to examine the contents is that PRISM could not apply, as the warrants involved only covered Mr. Weiner's emails. It's the subsequent warrants that only covered the emails of Mr. Weiner's estranged wife.
For me, the fishy part is this: they claim that they had to build special software to only index and examine his emails. I understand if the existing PRISM system didn't have these types of filters available during inputs, but it's not clear what's so special about instituting an input filter that it required a separate program. I would actually expect that they spent the time adding input filters as a new PRISM feature, but who knows really.
>>"For me, the fishy part is this: they claim that they had to build special software to only index and examine his emails"
Public: How did you search the emails?
FBI tech: I did a Bash script with some regular expressions.
Public: Regular what?
FBI tech: It takes like 30 seconds, it's scripting.
Public: Scripting?
FBI tech: You just have to adjust a few parameters because we want to make sure we get all the aliases covered and this email server used a new header format too and...
Public: What????
FBI tech: Fine, I "wrote a program that reads emails"
Preston: "Why would they need to write special software to examine the emails?"
This is answerable by translating tech into public speak and then back into tech, imo. Public speak really only has two ways of understanding any technical process: {Wrote a Program | Didn't Write a Program}.
You don't need PRISM to filter one set of emails by whether they were sent to or from clintonemail.com and whether they are not in a list of emails you already know of from clintonemail.com.
That can be coded from scratch and tested in minutes, given nothing but a directory of email files, in a variety of computer languages. It's probably about five lines of PERL, or maybe 15 lines of python that you spent some time formatting to make it look nice.
Given the Weiner email batch, which is electronic and easily scanned, just generate the list of emails to and from clintonemail.com (by To:, Cc:, Bcc:, From: and Sent-From: headers). Then save the list of Message-Id: headers, and compare that list with the Message-Id: headers you already know of from the batch you have spent a year already looking at, and spit out the messages without a Message-Id: match. It is literally as easy as I am describing.
I would be surprised if the list it spits out was more than a few thousand. I wouldn't be surprised if the list was empty.
The idea that the FBI doesn't have any tools other than PRISM to do this is entirely laughable.
Yes, they would have had to wait until the court gave them the go-ahead. They had the go-ahead by last Monday. They should have been able to reach initial conclusions by late Monday afternoon.
they claim that they had to build special software to only index and examine his emails...
Not so fishy if you've ever attempted to use Outlook's search function to find an email you've misfiled. Outlook is so bad at indexing and searching, it even manages to make the execrable Yahoo! seem like a searing beam of precision.
Meddling?
How about inaccurate reporting from El Reg?
Over 2,000 messages from the initial batch turned over contained classified material.
Then there's the issue of the deleted emails.
Its possible that the 650K emails is a complete dump of Huma's emails and there is definitely a lot of new emails. Also unlike the printed pages dumped, the FBI actually has the entire email, including headers which can add more to the previous investigation.
What fails is that the author is definitely trying to defend Clinton and that's sad.
Forget Trump and focus on the criminal acts of Clinton and the entire DNC who rigged the election process as well as the DoJ investigation. The level of corruption is mind boggling .
Over 2,000 messages from the initial batch turned over contained classified material.
Whoope-de-friggen-do. No matter what the number, the FBI has already stated that there's no case to answer.
Chump sexually assaults women.
What fails is that the author is definitely trying to defend Clinton and that's sad.
And you're defending a guy who said he'd do his own daughter if he got half the chance. Plus lots of clear evidence that he has committed sexual assault.
Which is worse, using your private email address to handle stuff with trusted people in an innocent-but-maybe-not-technically-legal manner, or sexually assaulting dozens of women and publicly stating you want to have sex with your daughter? (For the naysayers... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWxkauh6lyA and for something more disturbing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-Q5yRa2V4 - just a quick couple of many).
Forget Trump and focus on the criminal acts of Clinton
Seriously? She deletes a few emails or uses her private server which maybe she shouldn't have done, and gets checked out but found not to have committed an offence by the fbi of all people, who probably are about as left-hating as you can get. Chump sexually assaults quite a number of people, boasts about getting away with it, practically publicly states that he wants sex with his daughter (and looking at many of the pictures of them together, probably is screwing her - not that I blame him!), and you want to let him off?
Some people really are fucked in the head. Will be easy to spot them in the US in a few days time, they'll be voting chump.
He really is a sick piece of shit. Shillary may've done things wrong, but nothing criminal in the way she's handled her emails. chump on the other hand is just sick.
Though I do suspect he's really a tool in the Clinton campaign, only they didn't take into account the idiocy of many yanks. (Sorry, while those two still live your whole nation deserves derision and abuse!)
@Kiwi: FFS, don't be a muppet. We all know Trump is a cnut, put it to one side and consider the actions of Clinton on their merits. She seriously did some wrong and didn't give a fuck for the consequences. The Clintons are pure poison. Billy boy flogging influence left right and centre. Hillary soliciting donations from foreign Government officials. It stinks to high heaven. Don't let the orange fraggle distract you from what is staring you in the face.
@Kiwi: FFS, don't be a muppet. We all know Trump is a cnut, put it to one side and consider the actions of Clinton on their merits. She seriously did some wrong and didn't give a fuck for the consequences. The Clintons are pure poison. Billy boy flogging influence left right and centre. Hillary soliciting donations from foreign Government officials. It stinks to high heaven. Don't let the orange fraggle distract you from what is staring you in the face.
Aye, she's a rabid bitch that should probably be put down, with the slavering mongrel known as her husband. And what they've done stinks. Morally, I find a lot of the Cliton's actions to be rather repugnant.
But...
I doubt that any of it is illegal. Certanly, with all the investigations they've experienced, that's been the outcome - nothing illegal. Mishandled, stupid mistakes that someone with their supposed intelligence or experience should not make - tons. But illegal? No.
Chump? Certainly "mis--handled" many women, many things suggest he could be an incestuous child-molester including statements he's made publicly and often, lots of business dealings that, well, make what Shill and Hilarity have done look positively wonderful and totally innocent. They're far from saints, and certainly are people I would not want living near me (and I have opened my home to convicts in the past), and I honestly would not support them if my life depended on it. But compared to dump...
The servers she used were not certified and accredited as data systems for processing the type of material for which they were used. That was not legal, as I believe the State Department inspector general stated in his report about the emails.
This is not about Trump, who certainly is ill qualified for the presidency and probably is unfit. It is about Clinton, who probably is qualified for the job, but certainly has given us plenty of reason to consider her unfit. In either case, we can be pretty sure of one thing: the people's business will be secondary to the incumbent's.
"I doubt that any of it is illegal."
FFS! You are truly clueless...
1) Private server in order to violate the FOIA is a misdemeanor (Meaning its illegal, but no jail time or felony conviction on record)
2) Violations of the Official Records Act. (emails are part of her official records and are the property of the US Government. ) This includes private emails that contain work related material are to be turned over within 20 days of transmission.
3) Obstruction. The deletion of emails. This is actually a felony criminal action.
4) Perjury. Hillary lied to Congress.
5) Lying to the FBI. This came out from her emails, The 302s and the Podesta leaks. Clinton, Mills, Huma, have all been shown to have lied during their 'interviews'.
6) 'Pay to Play' / Corruption. This is still under investigation however there's enough evidence in the public eye to show a pattern of corruption. The documents uncovered by the FBI in the Weiner investigation seem to include more emails. ... time will tell
7) Gross Negligence under the Espionage Act. This is where Comey bent over backwards trying to not indict Clinton. There is no requirement for intent. In fact the point of gross negligence is that the action doesn't require intent. Yet we have her intent to violate the FOIA and to hide her pay to play corruption scheme.
And that's just the highlights.
@080 http://www.talkingaboutpolitics.com/crooks-and-fools/
Sitting in a century old steakhouse staring out at the Brooklyn Bridge thirty years ago Hank Greenburg (the pollster not the baseball player) explained an election that could only happen in the grubby circus of New York politics: Given a choice between a Crook and a Fool, he said, voters take the Crook. His theory was simple: You can predict what a Crook will do but you never know what a Fool may do.
Pretty much, as a Brit I've no horse in this race but it seems the choice is between a school yard bully who's repeatedly had his businesses file for bankrupcy to avoid repaying debts, putting people out of work, who has dubious business practices elsewhere (Trump University anyone?) and who does everything for personal gain or personal status.
Against someone who is mired in corruption, who doesn't understand security as a basic concept when it applies to her and who, frankly would do anything to get into office despite never having any real-world experience of working, just another career politician like many before her.
Given the choice, and it is a shitty choice I'd pick Clinton, if only to avoid a warmongering sociopath. It's a bit like choosing between a kick in the balls and a kick in the face though.
And there's the Winner of the Weekly Completely Irrelevant Whataboutism Award! Whatever Trumpet did or didn't do doesn't excuse Clinton's acts.
/C'mon, Reg, where's the "Whatabout" icon?
Perhaps you weren't paying attention when it came out that the DoJ tanked the investigation by not allowing a Grand Jury to be paneled. No search warrants and Mills a co-conspirator was allowed to claim privilege when she wasn't acting as Clinton's lawyer.
Not to mention the Podesta email "Heads up" from the Asst. AG...
Then there's Obama's meddling.
Do you need me to continue?
The point is that there was more than enough evidence in the public eye of illegal acts.
You seem to not understand the significance of the private server, the deletion of emails which is Obstruction, and the perjury. The gross negligence on her handling of Classified material? Her house maid who held no security clearance routinely handled classified material on behalf of Clinton.
And I haven't gotten in to the 'pay for play' corruption. Haiti? UBS? Uranium Deal?
FFS! Get a clue.
the DoJ tanked the investigation by not allowing a Grand Jury to be paneled.
Or to put it another way, "did its job". The DoJ denies FBI requests for grand juries every day. That's its job.
Hilary Clinton has spent the past 30 years being investigated for everyfuckingthing, by some of the most brutally partisan and highly motivated lawyers on the planet. And they've never yet managed to pin an indictment on her. Of course they're pissed, of course there's an ocean of mud to sling and no shortage of useful idiots to sling it. And plenty of things that sound somewhere between "bad" and "unbelievable" when you just reference them, as you do, with no context.
Is she a crook? I assume so, yes. In the same way as every American politician since Washington has been a crook. But Trump? Trump doesn't even pretend to be honest.
".....What fails is that the author is definitely trying to defend Clinton and that's sad....." Very true. Let's start with the (frankly) either idiotic or deliberately obtuse suggestion for filtering the emails given in the article:
"....will have been forensically trivial, as all will contain the unique string "clintonemail."...."
Seriously?!? That filter would not catch an email where classified material had been forwarded by Abedin from a Clinton email but the email headers had been deleted to hide the origin. Remember, part of the investigation is not only looking for evidence of classified material, but also cases where the sender (Abedin) knew what she was doing and attempted to hide the origin of the material. In such cases, you would need to catch both emails - the one from Clinton to her aid, and then the forwarded one with the "clintonemail" removed - to show intentional transfer of classified material and the attempt to hide its origin. We already know Clinton and Abedin had a cosy relationship with some pet journos, so it would not be surprising to find Abedin leaking classified material to them with its origin deleted.
Also, if this second investigation turns up just one email with classified content that Clinton's lawyers did not forward as "relevant" in the original investigation, then they are guilty of obstruction and - if they deleted the original - spoliation of evidence. No, this second investigation is not the triviality suggested by Campbell's obvious bias. I expect the FBI are treading extremely carefully so as to leave no possibility of legal challenges to whatever is discovered.
The FBI has already looked into the classified info question. Only 2 emails contained classified information and both had been improperly labeled before they were given. The rest were not classified at the time they were emailed but became so later. The only thing rigged is the news sources you are believing to have ignored the actual evidence in favor of a story you WANT to believe.
what's TRULY important here isn't the volume of relevant e-mails, but rather the potential proof that OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE was happening from the Clint-stones, just like what happened in Watergate when Nixon tried to cover up the Watergate hotel break-in [regardless of how justifiable it was; McGovern was a closet COMMUNIST, and I bet Nixon wanted PROOF].
It was the COVERUP that took down Nixon.
COVERUP is nothing new to Mrs. Clinton. The shredding of 'White Water' documents back in the 90's - documents from the Rose Law firm that somehow ended up in the White House - in addition to her handling of the 'Bimbo Eruptions' [THEIR name for it], and a few other things I can't remember the details on at the moment. There has even been SOME evidence to suggest that evidence was DELIBERATELY TAMPERED WITH in Mrs. Clinton's first major law case, as 'Hillary Rodham', defending the rapist of a 12 year old girl, and getting him off with 'time served', because the rape evidence had become "lost" [while in HER custody].
It might not even require 32k e-mails (i.e. "the 5 percent") to make a difference here. All you need is just a handful that clearly demonstrate either Obstruction of Justice, or outright mishandling or illegal disclosure of classified information, to be enough for a conviction.
But yeah, 95% of the 650,000 is just about right. Investigators have been talking about the 30,000 or so "missing" e-mails for a while. Why _WERE_ they 'missing' ? Inquiring minds want to know!
Oh, if Trump wins it will only be a few years more before the American public wakes up to the anti-democratic garbage that is the modern Republican (Tea) Party and conservative "movement" in general.
Whether we'll still be allowed to turn the rascals out at that point remains to be seen.
Oh, if Trump wins it will only be a few years more before the American public wakes up to the anti-democratic garbage that is the modern Republican (Tea) Party and conservative "movement" in general.
Really? Tony Blair was re-elected twice despite being very clearly in the process of stuffing his pockets with tax money and the nation's assets, and that was visible to anyone who cared to investigate, so I'm not holding out high hopes there.
The problem is that Trump is so clueless he doesn't need to mix in extra echo in his mike feed, which makes him a toy to his advisers. They know that as long he's turning a profit he won't care what goes one - he'll do the public bullshit because that's his speciality, and he won't care about what happens to the country. Add to that that wars are the best mechanism to turn tax money in private equity without too many questions and that they have pushed most of the population into poverty to keep them incapable of challenging of what goes in Washington, and I predict that NOT a good time will be had by all and the world if the orange idiot gets in.
Think Bush, but even less restrained.
Hardly.
The FBI is in revolt because Comey and the DoJ tanked the investigation.
The Assistant AG gave Podesta a heads up and there was a clear conflict of interest here.
If Trump wins and Obama doesn't pardon Clinton and her crew... there will be a revamp of the investigation in to Clinton and the Foundation. Lynch and the Assistant AG will be on the hot seat along with others.
Personally, I think what's important is that an appointed bureaucrat knowingly and deliberately tried to mislead the American people during the final week of the presidential election. Further, said bureaucrat did it in a way that precludes reasonable response and defence by the affected party. All this in a bid to drive votes to the flagging campaign of the rival candidate. A series of actions which are, in fact, illegal themselves.
Of course, that's just me. Your's makes sense too.
Bob. BOB!
Take. Your. Meds.
No-one else cars if McGovern wanted to share his Wardrobe with everyone.
Anyone interested in actually looking into the real facts of that rape case can usefully start with Snopes. That will trim 95% of "everyone knows" from the evidence trail they'll need to chase.
And I'm pretty sure that is the FBI could make a case for Obstruction of Justice they'd have already done so, if only because that's what they do for a living.
I believe the article is saying that the writer thinks the prevarication is because there is nothing there and the FBI knows it, but is hiding behind the lie that it cannot possibly figure out 650 000 emails using just a computer for heaven's sake. I mean, it's not like they can just write a simple regex cascade to sift through them for key phrases.
Skip to #5 for the part of this response related directly to the article, or read on for US politics rebuttal.
Since you appear to bringing your politics into this, rather than sticking to the technical details of this well-written article, here is some relevant politics back at you:
1) It's pretty easy to explain Hillary's old time reporting spreadsheets from her time as an employee of Rose being in the White House. You move out of one house in Arkansas, you move into another -- random documents come with you unless you're particularly good about purging files.
2) Trump shredded documents that had been actually requested in a governmental investigation of racially biased leasing policies: http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120?rm=eu Failing to note this given that we're in the final week before an election where Trump is the other candidate would be bias by exclusion.
3) How are the accusations against Bill Clinton around sexual misbhaviour relevant to email retention?
4) You should really provide a link to this supposed "lost evidence" as this summary http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/ doesn't mention it, depsite being apparently pretty complete.
5) The admin for Clinton's personal email sent in the emails matching matching a reasonable "government business" filter, and months later deleted the other email (eg personal) on the system after significant time for the other side to check that the data delivery had been fine. There was no requirement that Clinton maintain backups of personal email into the indefinite future AS THE GOVERNMENTAL EMAIL HAD ALREADY BEEN DELIVERED. For a well-written summary of the steps carried out, see this post: https://plus.google.com/+AmandaBlain/posts/6ugnBQCdL9S
So you're blaming Clinton that the FBI failed to follow good process and show up with a warrant and get a copy of the full email server? Or show up with a warrant and oversee the extraction process?
Government related emails were requested, and provided. If the FBI failed to follow sensible process, leaving the individual involved with a reasonable understanding that requirements had been complied with, how is that the fault of the individual? Or must we all keep a copy of all our documents in case the relevant government agency decides to broaden their initial request years down the line?
Well, after Enron companies are compelled to keep copies of everything. And in any sensible company you can't make business using your own server, it's usually enough to be fired on the spot.
If she wasn't an animal much more equal than others, FBI would have not been so sloppy, after all it's the same FBI that wants mails stored in Ireland without asking Irish authorities, isn't it? But of course kindly asking Clintons' employees is OK.
How could you be sure *all* relevant emails were provided? Why FBI didn't get a warrant and got the server for a full forensic investigation, including analysis of deleted files?
Ms. Clinton is very much alike Mr. Nixon, obsessed with the idea of becoming president (trying over and over), same despise for rules, and obsessed also with the idea she need total control because someone else could spy on her otherwise (just as she would do). The worst possible candidate, but Trump...
"3) How are the accusations against Bill Clinton around sexual misbhaviour relevant to email retention?"
it's the COVERUP part that's important. Mrs. Clinton has a history of coverups. It seems to extend throughout her entire career.
"4) You should really provide a link to this supposed 'lost evidence' "
http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/listen-rape-victim-speaks-out-about-15196170/
"Clinton’s defense team requested its own testing of the underwear, but it ended up being 'accidentally destroyed' by the 'independent' lab."
what's NOT told, in snopes, the ABC article I found, and a few other places, is WHEN the evidence was lost. They all admit it was lost. That's the basis of Mrs. Clinton's (then Miss Rodham) argument for getting the defendent off with an extremely light sentence. THAT and the polygraph, which anyone properly trained can defeat. examples, put thumbtacks in your shoes, and give yourself a dose of pain for EVERY true answer, and every lie that you want called "truth".
/me comments I don't need drugs. I'm just fine the way I am, howler monkeys and amateur shrinks notwithstanding.
The prosecution side (aka crime lab), didn't do the test well and destroyed the evidence -- it wasn't there any longer to be lost by Clinton or the independent lab. That's all a right-wing distortion of facts. See my other comments in this chain for details and links.
re 3) So you're now alleging that *Hillary* covered something up in the sexual misbehavior of Bill, rather than being an uninformed spouse defending her husband?
re 5) Above you said 'because the rape evidence had become "lost" [while in HER custody]', implying per personal possession. Now you admit that your sources don't say when it was lost, or by who. It could have been lost by the police. It could have been lost by the independent lab. It's pretty unlikely that it was lost by the defense attorney, as they are not allowed to hold evidence for very good reasons. For Hillary to be blamed for this, it would have to proven that she turned either the police or the lab to illegal behavior.
But turns out the story is completely different than that. The police lab cut the evidence (a bloodstain) from the defendant's underwear, and after blood testing (not DNA, this is 1975) ended up tossing out the bit of material. So when the defense (Clinton) asked for the underwear to test (as required by her duties as public defender), there was nothing to test. The government lab had destroyed the evidence, collecting only a blood type, and it was their incompentence that let the defendant plead guilty and get a lighter sentence. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4&feature=youtu.be, Hillary Clinton being interviewed about the case.)
Then you go onto the notion of defeating a polygraph test, but again offer no proof that Clinton coached the defendant to do so.
"3) How are the accusations against Bill Clinton around sexual misbhaviour relevant to email retention?"
it's the COVERUP part that's important. Mrs. Clinton has a history of coverups. It seems to extend throughout her entire career.
Oh, of course. If there's not enough evidence, there must be a cover-up (that's how you write it, by the way.) It can't be that the evidence simply doesn't exist because your batshit insane conspiracy theory isn't true...
"4) You should really provide a link to this supposed 'lost evidence' "
http://www.hannity.com...
Really? You link to Sean Hannity's website as your source for truth? I rest my case.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
