United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Senate committee seeks email facts from Clinton’s tech company
Source:
McClatchy
URL Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/pol ... overnment/article30964044.html
Published: Aug 13, 2015
Author: Greg Gordon, Marisa Taylor and Anita Kum
Post Date: 2015-08-13 02:31:03 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 3174
Comments: 15
Senate committee seeks email facts from Clinton’s tech company By Greg Gordon, Marisa Taylor and Anita Kumar WASHINGTON The chairman of the Senate’s homeland security committee has asked a small, 13-year-old Denver technology company that managed tens of thousands of emails for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to describe what measures it took to safeguard national security information. The FBI, which has embarked on its own scrutiny of Clinton’s private server, also has shown interest in the company, Platte River Networks, which began managing Clinton’s emails in 2013, according to published reports. Her use of a private, non-governmental server to conduct official State Department business is causing increased turbulence for Clinton as she pursues what many thought would be a relatively smooth ride to the Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton said late Tuesday that she would turn over to the Justice Department her private server as part of a widening security investigation into her use of private emails to conduct official business. McClatchy reported Tuesday that two emails found on Clinton’s server were classified as “Top Secret,” heightening concerns that Clinton may have improperly shared classified information or stored them on vulnerable Internet equipment that might be open to hacking. “Given that the server was used to conduct official State Department business, questions have been raised regarding whether classified information was stored on the private server,” Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin wrote Platte’s president in a letter Tuesday. He said he also wants to know “if that data was secure, who had access to that material and whether all official documents were appropriately preserved.” Clinton has said that after she turned over all of her official emails to the State Department last December, she wiped clean her server which contained over 61,000 emails. Clinton said she permanently deleted about half because they were personal and turned over the rest because they were related to State Department business. Senior Republicans in Congress now want to know whether Platte River has a backup file containing the deleted emails. In the letter obtained by McClatchy, Chairman Johnson asked company President Treve Suazo to respond to detailed questions within two weeks. He requested all communications referring to the server “between or among employees or contractors of Platte River” and between company employees and the family’s global charity, the Clinton Foundation. Johnson also sought an explanation of whether the company is “authorized to maintain or access classified information.” Suazo and other company officials did not respond to phone requests seeking comment. Platte River’s role grew more crucial Tuesday when the inspector general for the U.S. Intelligence Community advised Congress that two emails contained information it deemed “Top Secret.” The emails were not marked as classified when they were written, and Clinton has repeatedly denied ever sending or receiving classified information. At a State Department briefing Wednesday, Mark Toner, a spokesman, said the two emails designated as Top Secret “weren’t sent by her.” The declaration by Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III, however, ramped up the stakes, because security officials had been less concerned about the arrangement if information was classified no higher than “Secret.” Platte River’s services were sought in early 2013 to improve security of the server, which was installed for former President Bill Clinton at the couple’s home in New York state years earlier, The Washington Post reported recently. The Colorado firm’s hiring coincided with the discovery that an email account for Clinton’s longtime confidant, private consultant Sidney Blumenthal, had been hacked by a Romanian national Marcel Lazar Lehel, known as Guccifer. Brian Reid, a cybersecurity expert with Internet Systems Consortium, said Clinton’s use of a reputable company to manage her server means it was less likely to be vulnerable to hackers. Reid and a second security expert said that if Platte River used a backup server for extra security, it’s likely that some data Clinton had deleted could be retrieved. Darren Hayes, a cybersecurity professor at Pace University’s Seidenberg School of Computer Science and Information Systems, said it’s very common “in this day and age” for a company working with a client to back up their materials. Nonetheless, it’s unclear what investigators might find on the server. Hayes said what might be found will be determined by how the deletions were done. “It depends on what kind of tools they used,” Hayes said. Reid, a cybersecurity expert with Internet Systems Consortium, said there are two types of back-ups. One is a physical security back-up, which protects against the loss of data during a computer crash. That type of back-up is short-term. “Every company in the managed IT business will do physical security back-ups,” he said. “It’s similar to the concept of security video from the cops shows. If a cop subpoenas it, there are only very recent backups. A physical security backup can be overwritten in a matter of weeks.” Another type archives data farther back in time and is intended to be a record of what the data was at certain times in the past, Reid said. Companies dedicated to archival backups store the data in high-security warehouses. “Archival back-ups can be subpoenaed. They are evidence,” he said. “They’re extremely hard to wipe clean.” If Clinton had a backup, the type likely would be specified in her contract with the company that provided the server, Reid said. Clinton’s campaign did not respond to questions Wednesday. But her communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, sent a lengthy email to supporters to dispel “misinformation,” explaining why she used a private email account, what emails she turned over and assuring that there is no criminal inquiry into Clinton’s conduct. “Look, this kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president ... and we expect it to continue from now until Election Day,” she said.
McClatchy Washington Bureau
August 12, 2015
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nolu chan (#0)
You know, if it were not for Judaical Watch, everything would ahve been swept under the carpet long ago.
I'm waiting to hear that they have recently replaced all of their servers cause the old ones were peed on and shorted out by the guard dogs that roam the building at night...
Damn right. Remember that the next time you hear someone denigrating Judicial Watch. It will indicate where that person is coming from. Si vis pacem, para bellum
I believe most of the credit goes to Trey Gowdy and his committee. Their efforts led to the reopening of a failed litigation effort re FOIA.
They hired the Colorado company to professionally wipe/degauss them. Run a giant magnet over a disk and the recorded magnetic data is destroyed and irretrievable.
Wouldn't it be just as easy to take them out back pour kerosene on them and burn them??
If you have the right degausser, no. That is put it in and push a button and wait. Removing the drives, disassembling, and removing the discs and physically destroying the disks would work. Hillary want thorough and complete data destruction.
they do the work and Trey takes the credit.
Spoken like a true follower of the GOP.
That is the route you would have thought they would have taken... BTA Nobody has ever accused the Clintons of being smart, at least no one I know... The JW lawsuit was dead in the water and only reopened as a result of the committee work.
Or someone who bothered to download the court docket report and actually follow what happened. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2013cv01363/161905 JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE From the Docket Report it is readily observable from two consecutive docket entries when the JW went in the freezer and when and why it was revived. 06/19/2015 MINUTE ORDER granting 13 Judicial Watch's motion for relief from judgment. In view of revelations that then−Secretary of State Clinton and members of her staff used personal email accounts to conduct State Department business, and that emails from those accounts may not have been covered by State Department searches for documents responsive to the FOIA request at issue in this case, the plaintiff seeks to reopen this case for further proceedings. The State Department agrees that the case should be reopened under these circumstances. Judicial Watch relies upon Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), which permits relief in cases of "fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party." To obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(3), "the burden of proof of fraud is on the moving party and... fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence." 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2860 (3d ed. 2014); see also Sack v. CIA, 53 F. Supp. 3d 154, 178 (D.D.C. 2014). The State Department suggests Rule 60(b)(2), which allows for reopening due to "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)." Judicial Watch indicates that it did not rely upon Rule 60(b)(2) solely because of a statement in a footnote of this Court's Opinion in Sack, which stated that Rule 60(b)(2) "address[es] defects in or changed circumstances regarding a prior Court judgment." Sack, 53 F. Supp. 3d at 179 (D.D.C. 2014). This statement in no way affects this case: The newly discovered information is a changed circumstance regarding the prior judgment in this case−−i.e. the stipulated dismissal in 2014. Because the parties agree that Rule 60(b)(2) applies, the Court will rely upon that provision, rather than spilling ink to resolve their dispute as to whether Judicial Watch has submitted clear and convincing evidence of fraud by the State Department. For that reason, the Court GRANTS Judicial Watch's motion and ORDERS that this case be REOPENED and restored to the active calendar of this Court. To the extent that the parties' pleadings regarding the reopening of this case under Rule 60(b) address issues regarding the State Department's FOIA obligations once this case is reopened, the Court finds that such arguments are not proper subjects of a Rule 60 motion. They may be raised in an appropriate motion at such time as they become relevant. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, setting forth their individual recommendations for further proceedings in this newly reopened case, by no later than July 1, 2015. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 19, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/19/2015) JW did not have subpoena power. The Gowdy committee did and used it. The Clinton emails are being released under a judge's order pursuant to the Gowdy subpoena. The information gave JW what it needed to get its case reopened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy State Dept. releases of Clinton emails Court order for release of emails May 19, 2015, following a court order, the State Department announced it would release 55,000 pages of Clinton emails during her time as Secretary of State in a rolling sequence of blocks, rather than waiting until January 2016 to release all of them at once as it had planned to do. On May 22, 2015, hundreds of Clinton's emails were made public as the "first batch," many of which pertained to the 2012 Benghazi attack. State department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that the released emails "do not change the essential facts or our understanding of the events before, during or after the attacks." The State Department then proposed releasing a new batch every 60 days.
We are looking at the same data, differently. I am seeing JW looking for help from Trey, and having to wait, heaven only knows shy. Then when Congress finally acted, JW had the next piece of the puzzle and was able to move forward. If it were the way you are looking at it, there would have been no need of JW. I look at JW as the contractor and Congress as the goffers. The Contractor cannot move on to the next phase of the job till the goffers return with the materials. You may be looking at it eh right way, but I don't think so.
Saw this and thought you might like to see it.
If it were the way you are looking at it, there would have been no need of JW. JW got it started. They were unable to get past an obstacle. They needed a weapon not available to them. Congress brought forth a weapon that could not be given to JW. Had Gowdy not been persistent, JW could not have done it on their own. Congress could have gotten there without JW. Congress generally does not use the subpoena until less forceful means have been tried and proven unsuccessful. They do tend to be slow. But Congress unearthed the private email accounts for official use and the private server. That is what enabled the JW case to move forward. I would give JW an assist, but Congress scored the goal.
#2. To: nolu chan (#0)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#3. To: BobCeleste (#1)
" You know, if it were not for Judaical Watch, everything would ahve been swept under the carpet long ago. "
#4. To: BobCeleste (#1)
You know, if it were not for Jud[icia]l Watch, everything would [ha]ve been swept under the carpet long ago.
#5. To: CZ82 (#2)
I'm waiting to hear that they have recently replaced all of their servers cause the old ones were peed on and shorted out by the guard dogs that roam the building at night..
#6. To: nolu chan (#5)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#7. To: CZ82 (#6)
Wouldn't it be just as easy to take them out back pour kerosene on them and burn them??
#8. To: Stoner (#3)
Damn right. Remember that the next time you hear someone denigrating Judicial Watch. It will indicate where that person is coming from.
#9. To: nolu chan (#4)
#10. To: nolu chan (#7)
Removing the drives, disassembling, and removing the discs and physically destroying the disks would work. Hillary want thorough and complete data destruction.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#11. To: BobCeleste (#9)
Spoken like a true follower of the GOP.
#12. To: BobCeleste (#9)
Spoken like a true follower of the GOP.
Plaintiff: JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
Defendant: DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Case Number: 1:2013cv01363
Filed: September 10, 2013
Court: District Of Columbia District Court
Office: Washington, DC Office
County: 11001
Presiding Judge: Emmet G. Sullivan
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Jury Demanded By: None 04/03/2015 15 REPLY to opposition to motion re 13 MOTION for Relief from Judgment and Request for Hearing MOTION for Hearing filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Bekesha, Michael) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
The Gowdy committee served a subpoena on Blumenthal on May 19, 2015, for a deposition regarding this matter to be held on June 3, 2015.
#13. To: nolu chan (#12)
#14. To: All (#13)
#15. To: BobCeleste (#13)
We are looking at the same data, differently. I am seeing JW looking for help from Trey, and having to wait, heaven only knows shy. Then when Congress finally acted, JW had the next piece of the puzzle and was able to move forward.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]