Emails Show Hillary Clinton's Email Server Was A Massive Security Headache, Set Up To Route Around FOIA Requests

from the breaking-badly dept

More bad news for Hillary Clinton and her ill-advised personal email server. Another set of emails released by the State Department shows the government agency had to disable several security processes just to get its server to accept email from Clinton’s private email address.

The emails, reviewed by The Associated Press, show that State Department technical staff disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. They were trying urgently to resolve delivery problems with emails sent from Clinton’s private server.

“This should trump all other activities,” a senior technical official, Ken LaVolpe, told IT employees in a Dec. 17, 2010, email. Another senior State Department official, Thomas W. Lawrence, wrote days later in an email that deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin personally was asking for an update about the repairs. Abedin and Clinton, who both used Clinton’s private server, had complained that emails each sent to State Department employees were not being reliably received.

After technical staffers turned off some security features, Lawrence cautioned in an email, “We view this as a Band-Aid and fear it’s not 100 percent fully effective.”

While trial-and-error is generally useful when solving connection problems, the implication is undeniable: to make Clinton’s private, insecure email server connect with the State Department’s, it had to — at least temporarily — lower itself to Clinton’s security level. The other workaround — USE A DAMN STATE DEPARTMENT EMAIL ADDRESS — was seriously discussed.

This latest stack of emails also exposed other interesting things… like the fact that Clinton’s private email server was attacked multiple times in one day, resulting in staffers taking it offline in an attempt to prevent a breach. (h/t Pwn All The Things)

In addition to the security issues, there’s also some discussion about why Clinton was choosing to use her own server.

In one email, the State Department’s IT person explains the agency already has an email address set up for Clinton, but offers to delete anything contained in it — and points out that using the State Dept. address would make future emails subject to FOIA requests.

[W]e actually have an account previously set up: There are some old emails but none since Jan ’11 — we could get rid of them.

You should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.

So, there’s one reason Clinton would have opted to use a personal email address and server. More confirmation of the rationale behind this decision appears in an earlier email (2010) from Clinton to her aide, Huma Abedin.

Abedin: We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email to the department so you are not going to spam.

Clinton: Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.

There appears to be some intent to dodge FOIA requests — either by ensuring “no documents found” when Clinton’s State Department email address was searched, or by being able to control any release by being the chokepoint for responsive documents.

To accomplish this, Clinton’s team set up a private email server that was insecure and did not follow State Department guidelines. In fact, her team brushed off the agency more than once before finally informing it that they simply would not comply with State Department regulations.

In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department’s inspector general concluded that Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers. Her aides twice brushed aside concerns, in one case telling technical staff “the matter was not to be discussed further,” the report said.

The FBI investigation that Clinton refuses to call an investigation continues. There may be no criminal charges forthcoming, but there’s already plenty of evidence that Clinton’s use of a private email server was not only dangerously insecure, but put into place in hopes of limiting her accountability.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Emails Show Hillary Clinton's Email Server Was A Massive Security Headache, Set Up To Route Around FOIA Requests”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

Can't blame her for that at least

The FBI investigation that Clinton refuses to call an investigation continues.

In her position I wouldn’t care either, between her position(current and future potential) and personal connections she and everyone else knows that she’s essentially untouchable, and the FBI is just doing the investigation in order to look like they’re doing something and to further the charade that the rules apply equally to everyone.

No charges will be filed, no meaningful punishment will be handed out and everyone involved knows it, so it’s no surprise that she might be more than a little dismissive towards the whole thing.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Can't blame her for that at least

Further, it’s hard to attack Hillary on this without attacking others.

The Bush II White House, against the rules, used a private mail server at the Republican Party headquarters. Jeb Bush used his own mail server. It was common to hear Congressmen declare that they “didn’t use email” – instead having their aides do their emailing through private accounts. The real question here is “why didn’t anyone in either party want to use the official servers?”

One hint is the claim that phishing and anti-virus features had to be turned off for everyone on the government server to receive emails from Clinton, rather than just adding an exception for email from her server. For all the signs of mismanagement on Clinton’s server, the State Department technical staff isn’t looking any better.

BTW, that fact that “Clinton’s private email server was attacked multiple times in one day” means exactly nothing. I run two company and one personal email servers and all three are under attack 24/7.

AJ says:

Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least

“Further, it’s hard to attack Hillary on this without attacking others.”

NO! Bush is done and gone. He’s behind us. Leave him there. After 8 years out you don’t get to drag him back in and say “but he did it too”. The whole “they did it too” is childish, and is part of what got this country into this “Criminal vrs Circus Clown Presidential Election”. She broke the law. Maybe Bush did too! If he did, they should have gone after him/them. But they didn’t. That doesn’t mean Hillary gets to break the law. If they find she broke the law, then she should be punished to the full extent of the law. PERIOD. No if’s/and’s/ or buts.

AJ says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Can't blame her for that at least

“Are you claiming there is a statute of limitations on the act of running an unauthorized email server?”

I wasn’t, but now that you mention it, it’s a good point. I believe there is a federal statue of limitation on some of the charges that could be brought. It’s either 5 or 7 years no?

That aside; I was referring to the fact that they had 8 years to go after him, and did not. Doing so now would look very bad for them, and would appear as a deflection tactic that could backfire horribly.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least

Hillary was in office immediately after Bush II left office. And even she left office several years ago. It’s interesting how you specific you are about the statute of limitations: No more than 7.5 years and no less than 3.5 years.

Nor does that cover Jeb!’s use of his own server, nor the folks in Congress who use their aides’ private accounts instead. Jeb was in the same political race as Hillary only a few months ago. Some of those folks in Congress are still in office.

Yes, the whole “they did it too” is childish. But “it’s only illegal when they do it” is even worse.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Can't blame her for that at least

Likewise, why do people attack Hillary or some other Democrat when they do something stupid or break the law, while having no problem, no sir, none at all, when it’s standard practice for Republicans?

As I said right from the beginning, the real question here is “why didn’t anyone in either party want to use the official servers?”

AJ says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Can't blame her for that at least

If techdirt writes a story about Bush or some other republican, then I would comment about Bush in the comments. This story isnt about Bush is it? Its about Hillary Clinton! So in the interest of staying on topic,most are commenting about Hillary and her crooked ways. You decided to drag someone thats not even Iinvolved in this and point at him in an effort to justifyy or deflect attention from the person in which this news story is about. Its pathetic and disingenuous. Just as pathetic as when the Republican s do it. Its partisan politics at its best and part of the reason these criminals think they can getaway with it.

AJ says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Can't blame her for that at least

If techdirt writes a story about Bush or some other republican, then I would comment about Bush in the comments. This story isnt about Bush is it? Its about Hillary Clinton! So in the interest of staying on topic,most are commenting about Hillary and her crooked ways. You decided to drag someone thats not even Iinvolved in this and point at him in an effort to justifyy or deflect attention from the person in which this news story is about. Its pathetic and disingenuous. Just as pathetic as when the Republican s do it. Its partisan politics at its best and part of the reason these criminals think they can getaway with it.

Jeremy Lyman (profile) says:

Re: Re: Can't blame her for that at least

“Clinton’s private email server was attacked multiple times in one day”

This is an important statement because the server “logs” (such as they are) show no record of intrusions. This is being held up as proof that no one hacked the server, even though the logs are so sparse they don’t show any reference to confirmed attacks.

Jeremy Lyman (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Can't blame her for that at least

I agree, servers get probed all day long. It’s only a problem if you don’t have rudimentary security in place. You know, like disabling RDP.

The Clinton staffers using blank logs as proof that nothing happened is like claiming your store wasn’t robbed, even though the doors were wide open for 4 years, because the security cameras were turned off. We didn’t see anyone come in a take all the files… we didn’t see them NOT get taken either…

I.T. Guy says:

2 x's f'ed

I’ve been running and supporting Exchange since 2000 and never had a breach. And even if I did the solution wouldn’t be to just shut the server down for a few minuets. Cuz, yeah… that’ll work. /s

The true nature of this lady is exposed here. I am glad to see Trump tear her apart but the sad sad reality for Americans still is, it is either going to be President Clinton or President Trump. Can we just Keep Barry? Did I really just say that? I feel dirty. I am going to go throw up now.

Berenerd (profile) says:

Re: 2 x's f'ed

I too have set up and managed Exchange servers, Dominoes servers, and even Postoffice servers for as long as I have been in IT. Not once would I be ok with just shutting the server down for a few hours in hopes that the attacks would stop. I cry every time I read something about this. These IT people are insane.

Machin Shin (profile) says:

Re: Re: 2 x's f'ed

That email certainly does make these guys look amazingly stupid. I can understand that if I had a system with highly confidential information on it, and it was under attack, first response might be to shutdown, but as soon as that shutdown command was sent I would be working on ways to block future attacks and not turn the server back on until my systems were secured better.

It is amazing anyone in an IT position would be stupid enough to go for the “We will just shut down and hope they go away” method.

Jeremy Lyman (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: 2 x's f'ed

Stupid enough to buy an encryption cert but misconfigure the server to use the default one instead?

In order to ensure her e-mails were private, Clinton’s system appeared to use a commercial encryption product from Fortinet — a good step, McGeorge said.
However, when McGeorge examined the set-up this week he found it used a default encryption “certificate,” instead of one purchased specifically for Clinton’s service. Encryption certificates are like digital security badges, which websites use to signal to incoming browsers that they are legitimate.
“It’s bewildering to me,” he said. “We should have a much better standard of security for the secretary of state.”

Kevin Flanagan (user link) says:

Re: Re: 2 x's f'ed

It would be prudent to “shut down” the server as in “take it off line” if an attack were occurring. This would give you time to review logs, etc. Also, the server wasn’t serving a ton of people like a corporate email system, it was serving just a few people, and coordinating downtime would be a bit less complex than dealing with an organisation of a few hundred or thousand people.

AJ says:

Re: Re: Re: 2 x's f'ed

The rest of the world has some skin in this game. There is plenty of money from outside the U.S. funneled into our elections/political system.

The only rule that I’m aware of is “they can’t legally accept donations from individuals who are neither U.S. citizens nor permanent U.S. residents.” There are numerous other ways for the money to get there.


“foreign nationals may underwrite issue-oriented ads as long as they do not mention “candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election.”


Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Isn't the presidents main job to protect the constitution, that is the rules?

I think we can safely round-file that concept. Just look at what we just had with a “constitutional law professor” for President.

March 30, 2007, fundraiser, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.”

David says:

Re: Re: Isn't the presidents main job to protect the constitution, that is the rules?

March 30, 2007, fundraiser, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.”

Like a farmer respects pigs. You wouldn’t want vegetarians responsible for filling the troughs, would you?

Steve says:

Re: Why would you expect her to be good at her job.

Well of course she’s not good at her job. How could she be? It all comes down to judgement and hers’ is horrible. Let’s see: On the one hand we have the entire IT infrastructure of the State Department with a dedicated full time staff who’s entire reason for existing is to insure security and functionality. On the other hand we have an ad-hoc server without even basic security and a “staff” that thinks the solution to attempted cyber intrusion is to take the server offline which rather defeats the entire purpose of having one. Of course she chose the latter solution, so, no, she’s no good at her job because her judgement sucks.

I’ll give 5 to 1 that not one but multiple foreign governments have ALL her email correspondence including what she deleted. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few teenage computer geeks have it too. Russian SVRs biggest worry was probably that one of the many other people breaking into it would leave tracks and compromise everything. Hell, they probably cleaned up after the other intruders.

David says:

Re: Clinton(s)

Yay, history. A few days past, I read up on a German sports reporter who wanted to get into soccer and basically got “uh, aren’t you a woman? How about rhythmic gymnastics?”. Not interested, not knowledgeable. They gave her hockey as a sort-of compromise. Then finally she got an offer from a different broadcaster and said she’d do so only if she got to do soccer. So finally they agreed and she handed in her resignation at her current station.

And now for yay history: her almost-ex-broadcaster decided they wanted to go down in history as the first broadcaster to have a woman report a premiere league soccer game, so her last broadcast for the old network was a premiere league soccer game.

That was basically the clincher to an already breathtakingly stupid story.

I’d like the first female president not to be an incompetent power-greedy crook and weasel. But then I’d have wished this for quite a few male presidents as well.

Anon says:

Why the Vitriol?

Her personal request was a way to ensue FOIA requests could not access her personal correspondence. Considering the crap that’s been dumped on her by partisan types looking for any excuse, that desire is understandable – and a person in a 24-7 job (which most top-level government jobs are) is certainly going to have trouble separating personal and State Department correspondence all the time.

So this suggestion that she wanted to hide state department correspondence too is simply the same sort of innuendo that drove her to think about a private email setup in the first place.

But yes, going the private server route was just asking for trouble.

mcinsand (profile) says:

Re: Why the Vitriol?

When it comes to honest criticism or lack thereof, the partisans don’t count. There are real issues here that have nothing to do with party and everything to do with legal compliance, honesty, and competence. Protecting personal information from FOIA makes sense, but commingling national secrets with that personal information does not. Maintaining official records for those requests and for government documentation is a minimal requirement. If handling two separate e-mails is too much for a person, then that person doesn’t have the competence to work a McDonald’s drive-through, much less hold a higher office.

She’s claimed that previous SoS’s handled secrets in a similar manner. If so, then no matter what the party, throw the entire book at all of them. We’re now finding out that some of the mishandled information had to do with intelligence assets, so peoples’ lives were at risk.

Those that think that her party makes her more guilty or more innocent should have no place in the discussion.

Eponymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?

Amen and amen to this. Every time someone uses “Republican X did it first” I want to fucking scream.

Burn them all down, every last one who has broken these rules and violated FEDERAL FUCKING LAW regarding the handling of classified material (which, again, all of these people signed a document acknowledging that content, and not a stamp, determines level of classification). Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, whoever, doesn’t matter. Break the law? go to trial. Get convicted? go to jail, do not pass the Oval Office, do not collect a lifetime pension.

Your party affiliation doesn’t automatically make you a criminal. Being convicted does, and evidence continues to mount in this case.

AJ says:

Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?

“If so, then no matter what the party, throw the entire book at all of them. We’re now finding out that some of the mishandled information had to do with intelligence assets, so peoples’ lives were at risk.”


You break the law!!?? Throw them all in jail, regardless of party or money. We need true equality to survive. Rich, poor, black, white, democrat, republican, None of them have any business being considered in the eyes of the law.

I.T. Guy says:

Re: Why the Vitriol?

Personal email? not good enough?

It’s one thing to want privacy when corresponding with family and friends. Understandable. But that is not what she used it for.

She’s been in the game long enough to know exactly what the private server implies. She’s a sneaky underhanded liar just like her husband.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Why the Vitriol?

If she wanted to keep her personal emails separate she should have used a different email address for personal emails. She mixed personal business on a server she controlled. By mixing personal email with business emails she did not seem to care about protecting personal emails, since she did not even try to keep them separate. The reason you would choose to use your own email server while mixing your personal and business emails is so that you can decide what is released. You would not want to use webmail since a court could go directly to google and get all the emails. It also appears that she did not release all her work related emails

Jeremy Lyman (profile) says:

Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?

Yup, yup, yup. She never wanted anyone to see any of them, personal or professional. That was the whole point.

Her Dept signed sworn docs that they turned over all pertinent records, including all work related emails, even though NONE of her emails were archived. Woops! 21 months later they submitted 30,000 emails (as a result of Guccifer 1.0 and the Bengazi hearings) and swore (again!) that was it, the other 33,000 weren’t work related. But FOIA emails in her staffers and other government officals’ inboxes have repeatedly proved that to be false. The FBI (and the Russians and Chinese probably) are reviewing those last ones that were never willingly released.

Steve says:

Re: Why the Vitriol?

Are you kidding? She has absolutely no right whatsoever to hide her State Department correspondence from FOIA and that is exactly what she did for years. She turned over NOTHING until she was finally left with no choice. This has NOTHING to do with her personal correspondence. All she had to do to keep that from FOIA was to use a separate email account for that correspondence. She could have simply used her server for that and State Department resources for her State Department email. She didn’t want to do that because she wanted to hide her official correspondence from FOIA. Clinton is the one who put her personal and official correspondence on the same account, and she has nobody to blame for that but herself. She should already have been tried and convicted on obstruction and destruction of evidence for the 30,000+ emails she had deleted. If it had been you or I deleting information from a server being sought in a federal criminal investigation you can bet we would have been. I am so sick of the pathetic excuses for this criminal and double standard for Justice in this country that fails to hold the political elite accountable no matter what they do.

Steve says:

Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?

Oh come one really??

1. She obviously corresponded with people other than people at the state department.

2. The idea that government officials get to pawn off their FOIA and federal, record law compliance onto third parties is completely ridiculous. She as SOS was responsible for her own compliance which meant insuring that all her work related emails were available to State on an ongoing and timely basis. This is pretty simple and a SOS who doesn’t immediately grasp the concept is far too stupid to be trusted with such an important position.

William D (user link) says:

Re: Why the Vitriol?

By this logic, critics of Clinton are responsible for the – at best – idiocy of running an unsecure, private server to conduct ALL Clinton’s SOS email communication.

But it’s far worse than some jaw dropping poor judgement in reaction to criticism. Clinton actively attempted to foil FOIA and appropriate scrutiny of email sent in her capacity as, or recognition of her position of SOS. Prior Clinton behavior strongly suggests that she was trading her position for private gain and that she wished to conceal this.

Steve says:

Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?

With Clinton you’ve only got three choices to explain her bahavior:

a. Corruption and criminality.
b. Incompetence
c. Both a and b.

With FBI director Comey actually going so far as to state before congress that he’s not sure Clinton could figure out that “(C)” was nomenclature denoting classified information it looks like the FBI has bought answer b. These are literally the kind of excuses you would expect for some Jr intern not a senior cabinet official in the US government and for such a person they are laughable.

Echroll (profile) says:

Re: Why the Vitriol?

Well it is impossible to separate the Presidential politics and speculation that Clinton has committed a crime. I highly doubt she would be scrutinized so closely by the FBI if she was not running for President. And politically speaking, I suspect that a cloud of suspicion as to Clinton’s guilt or innocence is worse than the likely outcome. Heck, General Petraeus admitted that he passed top secret info to a lover/reporter and he got a slap on the wrist.

I guess the country can live with the uncertainty of a Clinton indictment at the moment… but I hope whether she is or is not to be indicted gets resolved one way or the other before the Democratic Party Convention. Objectively, I can’t think why Americans would hope for a nominated Presidential candidate to be indicted for any crime during the fall campaign except any other reasons other than partisan ones.

Trump is going to find out the negative aspect of having a cloud of suspicion hanging over his head as we approach the November election. His own cloud of culpability over the Trump University legal proceedings will continue through election day. (The judge in the case won’t rule until after the election). I don’t think that is helpful to the democratic process either.

Clinton has admitted that setting up a private server was not a good idea and says she regrets it. Trump continues to defend his innocence in the improper financial procedures attributed to Trump University. Personally I wish all this be cleared up before the fall campaign for the sake of the nation. But I fear that is too much to ask.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?

Clinton has admitted that setting up a private server was not a good idea and says she regrets it.

As far as I’ve heard though, she’s stopped short of saying that she did something wrong and she’s sorry for it. I’m sure she regrets it, but I think only because of the trouble it’s caused her, not because she realizes it was the wrong thing to do.

Steve says:

Re: Re: Why the Vitriol?

“Heck, General Petraeus admitted that he passed top secret info to a lover/reporter and he got a slap on the wrist.

HELLO: This is the problem. There are two justice systems in America, one for the politcal elites like Petraeus and Clinton and one for everybody else. Petraeus commits multiple felonies and gets a misdemeanor and Clinton commits multiple felonies and gets no punishment at all. Both abused the public trust and endangered classified information they were entrusted to protect. Meanwhile we jail people for selling a little marijuana, unless of course they are political elites and then I’m sure they could sell pounds of the stuff while giving away our secrets to Russian foreign intelligence and nothing would be done. Christ Clinton without a doubt gave away everything classified on her server to Russian SVR. She might as well have dropped the thing off at the Russian embassy with a sign that said: TOP SECRET US INFO, HACK THIS for all the security she had.

Steve says:

Re: Your argument is ridiculous

That argument is just nonsensical. If she wanted to keep her private correspondence private it would have been a simple thing to do: Use State department resources for official email and use a private account on her own server, Gmail or wherever for private correspondence. Problem solved. What does she do? Lump it all together on a server that had virtually no security apparently all under one account. Hardly the actions of someone who wants to do as you suggest. She set the server up to avoid FOIA requests on her official correspondence and the proof is that she waited so long and never turned over any of her emails to the State Department until, she had no other choice. An honest and non-corrupt SOS who absolutely had to have their own server, would have put in place procedures to regularly upload email to the State Department to insure compliance with federal record keeping laws. She made no such effort because she is corrupt and transparent as a brick wall.

waywray says:

“In one email, the State Department’s IT person explains the agency already has an email address set up for Clinton, but offers to delete anything contained in it — and points out that using the State Dept. address would make future emails subject to FOIA requests. “

Where have you been, under a rock. This was discussed very early on when the private server issue was brought up..

AJ says:

Re: ummm

“You realize that every article like this helps Trump right?

Maybe you should shut up until after the election.”

No. If Hillary broke the law she should go to jail. AND…If… no .. WHEN.. Trump says something stupid, it needs to be put on display for all to see. We are either going to have a Career-power brokering criminal, or a flip flopping circus clown for president, lets at least make it an honest election.

David says:

Re: ummm

You mean, let’s hope that at least the Democratic vice president candidate will not turn out to be another president of vice? He/she may not be nominated yet but nobody can be worse than the candidates we have already?

That sounds optimistic. Even though our current crop of candidates for the presidency would have a hard time even beating Richard Nixon.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: ummm

Because self-censorship and prior restraint is better than a court-ordered one?

Because an organization that disseminates topical information SHOULD engage in censorship and prior restraint?

Would you feelz the same way if it HURT Trump?

I disagree with your thesis and hope that news and analysis experts continue to do news and analysis.


Steve says:

Re: one law for the rulers and another for the ruled.

It became clear beyond any and all doubt that the whitehouse was going to try to obstruct and bury it when Obama endorsed Clinton while she was still under active criminal investigation. As far as I’m concerned that makes him as corrupt as her. The only way she will be prosecuted is if the results of the investigation clearly warrant prosecution (and I think they will) and are leaked so that not prosecuting her becomes a completely untenable position.

Dr. Ramon (profile) says:

Re: one law for the rulers and another for the ruled.

I am retired Navy (1989) and I had a very high security clearance, and believe me, had I mishandled even the lowest level of classified or for official use only document I would have been reduced in rank, lost my security clearance (and my job) and been sent away to work manual labor where clearance wasn’t an issue.

NO ONE should be exempt from the requirements of protecting classified information, especially SIGINT and HUMINT.

Jeremy Lyman (profile) says:


Remember, Bill was President Clinton first. They set up a foundation that has received around 3 billion dollars in donations, which is affiliated with There’s a lot of speculation that Hillary was using this ‘stealth’ server to hide the mixing of business and pleasure between the Dept of State and the Foundation. That’s a bit too ‘conspiracy theory’ for me, I’m content to focus on the legitimate and provable FOIA and mishandling State Secrets claims.

According to publicly available computer records, the IP (Internet Protocol) address for the server is from at least 2009 to 2011. Records also show that server has the same exact IP address,, from at least May 21, 2010 to October 21, 2010. That means the two servers must have been in the same location for that overlapping time period.

Jeremy Lyman (profile) says:

Full Background

For anyone who wants a TON more backstory on this whole debacle, I’ve been reading the notes taken at:

It is a ton of information with links to the sources; details like how she wasn’t allowed to bring her Blackberry into her office (a SCIF) so she had to leave the secured area to read her email instead of using a secured computer.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Indeed. This is one of the most frustrating things about the issue.

Every time I’ve worked for a company that was large or had government contracts, I’ve been required to use the company email system for all company-related communications because they are required to retain copies of all of that.

I have never used company systems for anything but the most trivial of personal emails because… why in the world would anyone do that? Privacy issues aside (you have no expectation of privacy when using your employer’s IT systems), what happens when you move to a different company? You’d have to tell everyone you know to start using a different email address. Wouldn’t it be better to just have a personal one that doesn’t change?

Anonymous Coward says:

So what has yet to be released?

I mean if I had a bunch of this stuff and I was an International player, I would wait until after the elections to cream her with it. She is a just a big stack of liabilities. Her first 100 days, will look like her last 100. Nothing will get done. Which is why she is backed by the Corporations. She is the least progressive candidate out there, whether she wants to be or not.

Steve says:

Re: So what has yet to be released?

Many people may be waiting to do exactly that with the emails she deleted that have never been made public. Foreign intelligence services would have to be absolutely incompetent not to have hacked her security nightmare of a server on an ongoing basis. The rumor that the Kremlin has all her email correspondence is probably true. Others probably have it to. She is a huge blackmail liability.

q says:

Asking the wrong questsions

What was Justin Cooper’s role in administering Hillary’s server?

Why are the Clintons reported to being paying thousands of dollars in legal fees for Cooper during this FBI investigation?

Justin Cooper had no security clearance, yet he appears to have had a hidden sysadmin role. As an admin, Cooper would have had complete access to all email and documents on Hillary’s server.

Justin Cooper was a personal aide to Bill Clinton, and an employee of Teneo Holdings. Teneo Holdings is a consulting firm with ties to the Clintons founded by Douglas Band. In the Clinton shutdown email, Hillary Clinton’s personal aide Huma Abedin (also a Teneo employee) and Cooper emailed Doug Band about the status of Clinton’s server.

How a Clinton insider used his ties to build a consulting giant
April 13, 2016

“Eight former employees and other sources with knowledge of the start-up or close to the Clintons told POLITICO that many Teneo clients received exposure to Bill Clinton, invitations to salon dinners filled with D.C. power players, or meetings at CGI with foreign leaders in the years immediately after the company’s founding. They also said a key element of Kelly and Band’s pitch to new clients was donating to the foundation or joining CGI to “raise your leadership profile.”

Are Bill Clinton and his team the key to the FBI’s Hillary investigation?
The Washington Times
April 27, 2016

“A source familiar with Mr. Cooper’s arrangement with the Clintons tells me that they have paid his legal fees associated with the FBI investigation, amounting to “hundreds of thousands of dollars.” They aren’t paying those costs out of a sense of decency. They’re paying them because he knows the “why” of the server, which may very well have been to make it easier for the foundation to hustle big donations.”

Rapnel (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Not many fucks given.

I’m all but completely convinced our “choice” of president has become a joke on us.

National Security
You get the government we say you’ll get and it matters fuck-all who happens to be president.

Those executive departments that are armed and informed rule. That threshold has been crossed. Accountability? Accounted for. Status: none.

The Constitution is effectively trumped – why not the rest of us?

100 mile borders. Secret law. Unjust mass incarceration. Bullshit wars. Secret lists. Corporate financed law. Order by intimidation, threat and ignorance. Our “moral high ground” is an inverted hole filled with a mix of mud, salt, blood and shit.

Election.. pfft. whatthefuckever.

Oh, I know, lets marginalize everyone holding up two, big, fuck you fingers, one each for blue and red.

Like our presidential candidates represent a choice, or something.

Tossers, both.

Chris Farrell (user link) says:

Judicial Watch Compels Record Production By Court Process

The emails discussed in this story were obtained by Judicial Watch by court order in our ongoing litigation. Somehow, Mr. Cushing avoided mentioning that in his story. That’s unfortunate and somewhat misleading. Our discovery efforts continue next week with Ms. Abedin and Undersecretary Kennedy. Stay tuned to . ###

Sio2ga says:

Why didn’t the state department’s IT staff just tell Hillary “NO” when it came to having to lower their security to allow her emails to come thru from her private email address.
This is an obvious case of her violating FOIA.
Why isn’t she punished for this?
I would think her private server kept at her house and her private email address, and the fact she evaded FOIA requirements would make her ineligible to be President. She shouldn’t have a security clearance now either.
I’ve seen a few video clips of her being asked questions (like the recent one in a Star Bucks) where she looks and acts as if she is high as a kite.

franklin says:

Get the TRUTH

WATERBOARD them until they talk. …. they are refusing to tell what they did IN OUR EMPLOYMENT. They are Obstructing Justice and hiding what they did IN PUBLIC SERVICE. WATERBOARD them until they talk.
That is PUBLIC PROPERTY they are refusing to relate and DESTROYING. That is OUR PROPERTY. Those emails are OUR PROPERTY and it was a crime simply for them to destroy ONE of them.
ANY intellectual materials created on OUR time belongs to WE the PEOPLE. When that SKANK Hillary destroyed (tried to) e-mails she was destroying PUBLIC PROPERTY more valuable then if she smashed windows or spray painted walls and she should be in shackles

Government EMPLOYEES should not be allowed to plead the FIFTH or refuse to testify about Government matters. They are not PRIVATE Citizens.
Since waterboarding is not torture ….. enhanced interrogation is in order for Government Employees who try to STEAL KNOWLEDGE of Government(OUR) business.

Gene Cavanaugh (profile) says:

Clinton's email server

So, for Rice, et al (any Republican, apparently) a personal email server, or an even less secure public email (Cheney) is fine, but for a Democrat, especially Hillary, and more especially to prevent radical “right” extremists from digging through her PERSONAL emails, it is “a crime”?
As an attorney: stop the nonsense! There was no crime involved, and she was following long established procedure, which with the 25 years of badgering, sounds pretty smart.

Steve says:

Re: Clinton's email server

Typical misdirection. No other secretary of state has ever set up their own server to conduct virtually all of their official business through, and, no, sorry public email like Gmail is much more secure that anything Clinton’s IT clowns could even dream of setting up. Clinton can’t be trusted to be president on the grounds that she circumvented FOIA for years with her server setup. That alone makes her corrupt or completely incompetent to ever hold a position of trust. Your choice.

Ryunosuke (profile) says:

HRC configured her private server so she can circumvent FIOA requests? And by doing so she put the lives of state dept personnel in jeopardy?

so if foreign agents wanted said information, instead of going through FIOA requests, they could just lift the unredacted documents straight from the server?

Does anyone else think that a) this totally defeats the purpose, and b) monumentally stupid?

brian says:

There may be a solution to Clinton’s never ending scandals.
Please consider registering with the Green Party US, and send a message that the DNC will understand. If Jill Stein can get enough support she can further Sanders goals in the general election debates. You can still vote for Sanders id he gets
lucky and wins the nomination.

Anonymous Coward says:

Holy Hell

I don’t know what I just read. It was mostly a lot of venting about things that are so vague and spiced with mob mentality that I think this thread is the comedy of the common clumsy bandwagon. So, let’s elect an orange con man and just see what happens. ‘Cause it’s all fun and games until the economy collapses and food is gone and your nice neighbors capture you to keep you alive so they can slice off fresh bits daily. But, who cares as long as Hilary gets eaten too, amirite?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...