Breaking: Hillary Clinton Used BleachBit Software Designed To 'Hide Traces Of Deleted Emails'

[Skylar]

Now we know why her tech guru took the 5th. This one act has intent written ALL over it. Hillary is using tools to cover up her illegal activities on behalf the Clinton Foundation. No wonder why several MSM outlets have openly told her to shut down the Foundation before it blows up into a gigantic mess that could take town much of the Democratic Party with it.


FBI Admits Hillary Used BleachBit Software Designed to 'Hide Traces Of' Deleted Emails

What illegal activities?

Ask the FBI what they meant by "illegal activities."

What illegal activities are you accusing the Clinton Foundation of committing? Or if you'd like, quote the FBI in their assertions.

Smiling....good luck!

I was referring to the link in the OP. Personally, I think the lying, cheating, thieving, murderous Clintons are as innocent as newborn babes.

The link in the OP cites Trey Gowdy. Not the FBI.

So what 'illegal activities' have the FBI accused the Clinton Foundation of?

I believe the answer you're looking for it two words. Starts with 'jack'. Ends with 'shit'.

 

[Dekster]

I use file shredding software and I have no involvement with classified materials.

The difference is that the emails were already the object of a subpoena when it was done. That is destroying evidence in the everybody but Clinton world. Not even comparable to wiping your hard drive so it can be destroyed etc.

Yeah, but whether she used shredding software or not wouldn't change that deleting the emails after they were the object of a subpoena was wrong. The OP article, and the interview with Gowdy, seem to be saying that someone wouldn't use this type of shredding software on day to day, personal correspondence. I'm saying that is untrue; I use it on everything I delete, and I don't have anything like classified documents to worry about. Everything I have is personal.

If someone can show that she only ever used the software to shred emails after being subpoena, that is one thing. To imply or state that shredding software is not used for innocuous files is simply untrue.

It doesn't matter if she is the only one. It is destroying evidence whether she was the only one or the only one in 1,000. I have read stories of lawyers getting strung up by judges to the courthouse flag pole when they advised their client to destroy evidence to keep it from being revealed in discovery. It has been a few years since I read it, but I do recall them going after an entire law firm in WV after some of their lawyers got busted doing it in a black lung case (or cases).

I think you are missing my point. I'm not defending deletion of emails, I'm just saying the use of shredding software is nothing special.

1) I am not missing your point. Pu.tting freeware on a secure server is probably how she got hacked to begin with.

2) If the server guy still refused to testify after being offered immunity, then my guess was he was billing her top dollar while cutting corners and was afraid he could be prosecuted for something unrelated--like embezzlement.

and 3) You are somewhat wrong. It is not a smoking gun, but it shows a possible pattern aimed at wrong-doing since the software isn't pre-installed on computers. Now common sense says sure a lot of people have it. I recall reading about a child porn case a few counties over in which the person was caught through one of these undercover online trading stings via their IP address, but when they raided the house, there was no child porn found. The IP thing and the fact that they had one of these types of programs on their computer to explain why the person didn't have any evidence of porn on their computer and that it was recently used prior to the raid resulted in their conviction.

 

[Skylar]

I use file shredding software and I have no involvement with classified materials.

The difference is that the emails were already the object of a subpoena when it was done. That is destroying evidence in the everybody but Clinton world. Not even comparable to wiping your hard drive so it can be destroyed etc.

Yeah, but whether she used shredding software or not wouldn't change that deleting the emails after they were the object of a subpoena was wrong. The OP article, and the interview with Gowdy, seem to be saying that someone wouldn't use this type of shredding software on day to day, personal correspondence. I'm saying that is untrue; I use it on everything I delete, and I don't have anything like classified documents to worry about. Everything I have is personal.

If someone can show that she only ever used the software to shred emails after being subpoena, that is one thing. To imply or state that shredding software is not used for innocuous files is simply untrue.

It doesn't matter if she is the only one. It is destroying evidence whether she was the only one or the only one in 1,000. I have read stories of lawyers getting strung up by judges to the courthouse flag pole when they advised their client to destroy evidence to keep it from being revealed in discovery. It has been a few years since I read it, but I do recall them going after an entire law firm in WV after some of their lawyers got busted doing it in a black lung case (or cases).

I think you are missing my point. I'm not defending deletion of emails, I'm just saying the use of shredding software is nothing special.

1) I am not missing your point. Pu.tting freeware on a secure server is probably how she got hacked to begin with.

And who says she was hacked?

 

[Dekster]

The difference is that the emails were already the object of a subpoena when it was done. That is destroying evidence in the everybody but Clinton world. Not even comparable to wiping your hard drive so it can be destroyed etc.

Yeah, but whether she used shredding software or not wouldn't change that deleting the emails after they were the object of a subpoena was wrong. The OP article, and the interview with Gowdy, seem to be saying that someone wouldn't use this type of shredding software on day to day, personal correspondence. I'm saying that is untrue; I use it on everything I delete, and I don't have anything like classified documents to worry about. Everything I have is personal.

If someone can show that she only ever used the software to shred emails after being subpoena, that is one thing. To imply or state that shredding software is not used for innocuous files is simply untrue.

It doesn't matter if she is the only one. It is destroying evidence whether she was the only one or the only one in 1,000. I have read stories of lawyers getting strung up by judges to the courthouse flag pole when they advised their client to destroy evidence to keep it from being revealed in discovery. It has been a few years since I read it, but I do recall them going after an entire law firm in WV after some of their lawyers got busted doing it in a black lung case (or cases).

I think you are missing my point. I'm not defending deletion of emails, I'm just saying the use of shredding software is nothing special.

1) I am not missing your point. Pu.tting freeware on a secure server is probably how she got hacked to begin with.

And who says she was hacked?

Me.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, but whether she used shredding software or not wouldn't change that deleting the emails after they were the object of a subpoena was wrong. The OP article, and the interview with Gowdy, seem to be saying that someone wouldn't use this type of shredding software on day to day, personal correspondence. I'm saying that is untrue; I use it on everything I delete, and I don't have anything like classified documents to worry about. Everything I have is personal.

If someone can show that she only ever used the software to shred emails after being subpoena, that is one thing. To imply or state that shredding software is not used for innocuous files is simply untrue.

It doesn't matter if she is the only one. It is destroying evidence whether she was the only one or the only one in 1,000. I have read stories of lawyers getting strung up by judges to the courthouse flag pole when they advised their client to destroy evidence to keep it from being revealed in discovery. It has been a few years since I read it, but I do recall them going after an entire law firm in WV after some of their lawyers got busted doing it in a black lung case (or cases).

I think you are missing my point. I'm not defending deletion of emails, I'm just saying the use of shredding software is nothing special.

1) I am not missing your point. Pu.tting freeware on a secure server is probably how she got hacked to begin with.

And who says she was hacked?

Me.

And can you back that claim up with anything beyond you saying it must be so?

 

[Dekster]

It doesn't matter if she is the only one. It is destroying evidence whether she was the only one or the only one in 1,000. I have read stories of lawyers getting strung up by judges to the courthouse flag pole when they advised their client to destroy evidence to keep it from being revealed in discovery. It has been a few years since I read it, but I do recall them going after an entire law firm in WV after some of their lawyers got busted doing it in a black lung case (or cases).

I think you are missing my point. I'm not defending deletion of emails, I'm just saying the use of shredding software is nothing special.

1) I am not missing your point. Pu.tting freeware on a secure server is probably how she got hacked to begin with.

And who says she was hacked?

Me.

And can you back that claim up with anything beyond you saying it must be so?

Mr. Assange will a couple days before the debate.

 

[Skylar]

I think you are missing my point. I'm not defending deletion of emails, I'm just saying the use of shredding software is nothing special.

1) I am not missing your point. Pu.tting freeware on a secure server is probably how she got hacked to begin with.

And who says she was hacked?

Me.

And can you back that claim up with anything beyond you saying it must be so?

Mr. Assange will a couple days before the debate.

Laughing......unless he doesn't.

 

[ogibillm]

trey gowdy has definitely not made false assertions before

 

[Dekster]

1) I am not missing your point. Pu.tting freeware on a secure server is probably how she got hacked to begin with.

And who says she was hacked?

Me.

And can you back that claim up with anything beyond you saying it must be so?

Mr. Assange will a couple days before the debate.

Laughing......unless he doesn't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/u...ail-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html?_r=0

 

[oreo]

Now we know why her tech guru took the 5th. This one act has intent written ALL over it. Hillary is using tools to cover up her illegal activities on behalf the Clinton Foundation. No wonder why several MSM outlets have openly told her to shut down the Foundation before it blows up into a gigantic mess that could take town much of the Democratic Party with it.


FBI Admits Hillary Used BleachBit Software Designed to 'Hide Traces Of' Deleted Emails

And another OCDD (obsessive Clinton Derangement Disorder) thread. Brought to you by 25 years--3 hours of daily Reich wing hyperbole--1/2 truths, misconceptions and enough conspiracy theories to fill the capital building from floor to ceiling.

Maybe someday--you pea brains will figure out that the very worst thing that could happen to those ratings and obscene profit breaks--is that Hillary Clinton LOSES this election and they have nothing to talk about.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The echo chamber rolls on.

Your projector rolls on...

Trump insists on dominating the news cycle with his blunders. Whose fault is that?

What does blunders have to do with the Commander-in-Chief being able to properly handle classified information? Between that and Obama using executive action to come in between of upholding federal immigration laws, will the democrats nominate someone able to take the position seriously and hold themselves accountable to their government position?

 

[oreo]

trey gowdy has definitely not made false assertions before

Well I don't know how the taxpayers of this country would feel-- if they knew that they wasted 7 million of their dollars on an 8th investigation, just so Republicans could fill some campaign pockets.

 

[oreo]

The echo chamber rolls on.

Your projector rolls on...

Trump insists on dominating the news cycle with his blunders. Whose fault is that?

What does blunders have to do with the Commander-in-Chief being able to properly handle classified information? Between that and Obama using executive action to come in between of upholding federal immigration laws, will the democrats nominate someone able to take the position seriously and hold themselves accountable to their government position?

You mean like Condi Rice & Colin Powell.
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

"The truth about the last two Republican secretaries of state has finally come out: Colin Powell and aides to Condoleezza Rice trafficked in classified information on their personal email accounts. This is an enormous scandal!

Oh, wait. No, it’s not.

This news involving Powell and Rice is meaningless except that it sets up a rational conversation (finally) about the Hillary Clinton bogus “email-gate” imbroglio. Perhaps the partisans on each side will now be more willing to listen to the facts. From the beginning, the “scandal” about Clinton using a personal email account when she was secretary of state—including the finding that a few documents on it were retroactively deemed classified—has been a big nothing-burger perpetuated for partisan purposes, with reports spooned out by Republicans attempting to deceive or acting out of ignorance. Conservative commentators have raged, presidential candidates have fallen over themselves in apoplectic babbling, and some politicians have proclaimed that Clinton should be in jail for mishandling classified information. The nonsense has been never-ending, and attempts to cut through the fog of duplicity have been fruitless.

But Powell and Rice’s aides did nothing wrong. (I’m going to focus on them so that partisans who say Clinton broke the law have to attack respected Republicans first.) Start with this: Powell and Rice, like all modern secretaries of state, each had at least two email accounts—one personal and the other for communications designated as highly classified at the time of their creation . For classified information, both of them—and their aides with appropriate clearance—had a sensitive compartmented information facility, or what is known in intelligence circles as a SCIF. Most senior officials who deal with classified information have a SCIF in their offices and their homes.

Then there is the issue of servers. Where did Powell and Rice’s staff have their servers? Who knows, and who cares? Maybe they were private with special security and no public access. Or maybe they were just an AOL server. Whichever it was, they would be just as open to hacking as the State Department servers. In fact, the State Department general email system has been hacked multiple times, with terabytes of information improperly downloaded in 2006 alone. There has been no indication that the email accounts of either Powell or Rice’s staff were compromised.

Powell may have made one mistake in all this. He has said he never backed up his emails or printed them out; that was necessary to comply with some of the preservation rules detailed in the Federal Register. Of course, that doesn’t mean they can’t be recovered, since the FOIA staff is now reviewing his emails.

The bottom line: Democrats may try to turn the revelations about the email accounts used by Powell and Rice’s staff into a scandal. They may release press statements condemning the former secretaries of state; they may call for scores of unnecessary congressional hearings; they may go to the press and confidently proclaim that crimes were committed by these honorable Republicans. But it would all be lies. Powell and Rice did nothing wrong. This could be considered a scandal only by ignorant or lying partisans.

So there is no Powell or Rice email scandal. And no doubt, that will infuriate the Republicans who are trying so hard to trick people into believing Clinton committed a crime by doing the exact same thing as her predecessors.
The shocking truth: Colin Powell’s emails don’t matter

There's much more information in the article regarding classified information. But it's clear you're suffering from OCDD (obsessive Clinton derangement disorder) so it may be very difficult for you to get through it all.

 

[westwall]

I use file shredding software and I have no involvement with classified materials.

Were you served with a subpoena for those records? If you were, and you destroyed them, that is a felony.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I use file shredding software and I have no involvement with classified materials.

The difference is that the emails were already the object of a subpoena when it was done. That is destroying evidence in the everybody but Clinton world. Not even comparable to wiping your hard drive so it can be destroyed etc.

Yeah, but whether she used shredding software or not wouldn't change that deleting the emails after they were the object of a subpoena was wrong. The OP article, and the interview with Gowdy, seem to be saying that someone wouldn't use this type of shredding software on day to day, personal correspondence. I'm saying that is untrue; I use it on everything I delete, and I don't have anything like classified documents to worry about. Everything I have is personal.

If someone can show that she only ever used the software to shred emails after being subpoena, that is one thing. To imply or state that shredding software is not used for innocuous files is simply untrue.

It doesn't matter if she is the only one. It is destroying evidence whether she was the only one or the only one in 1,000. I have read stories of lawyers getting strung up by judges to the courthouse flag pole when they advised their client to destroy evidence to keep it from being revealed in discovery. It has been a few years since I read it, but I do recall them going after an entire law firm in WV after some of their lawyers got busted doing it in a black lung case (or cases).

I think you are missing my point. I'm not defending deletion of emails, I'm just saying the use of shredding software is nothing special.

I'm sure limited email correspondence would explain a few things in using this shredder method, that also makes retrieving those deleted files nearly impossible.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The echo chamber rolls on.

Your projector rolls on...

Trump insists on dominating the news cycle with his blunders. Whose fault is that?

What does blunders have to do with the Commander-in-Chief being able to properly handle classified information? Between that and Obama using executive action to come in between of upholding federal immigration laws, will the democrats nominate someone able to take the position seriously and hold themselves accountable to their government position?

You mean like Condi Rice & Colin Powell.
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

"The truth about the last two Republican secretaries of state has finally come out: Colin Powell and aides to Condoleezza Rice trafficked in classified information on their personal email accounts. This is an enormous scandal!

Oh, wait. No, it’s not.

This news involving Powell and Rice is meaningless except that it sets up a rational conversation (finally) about the Hillary Clinton bogus “email-gate” imbroglio. Perhaps the partisans on each side will now be more willing to listen to the facts. From the beginning, the “scandal” about Clinton using a personal email account when she was secretary of state—including the finding that a few documents on it were retroactively deemed classified—has been a big nothing-burger perpetuated for partisan purposes, with reports spooned out by Republicans attempting to deceive or acting out of ignorance. Conservative commentators have raged, presidential candidates have fallen over themselves in apoplectic babbling, and some politicians have proclaimed that Clinton should be in jail for mishandling classified information. The nonsense has been never-ending, and attempts to cut through the fog of duplicity have been fruitless.

But Powell and Rice’s aides did nothing wrong. (I’m going to focus on them so that partisans who say Clinton broke the law have to attack respected Republicans first.) Start with this: Powell and Rice, like all modern secretaries of state, each had at least two email accounts—one personal and the other for communications designated as highly classified at the time of their creation . For classified information, both of them—and their aides with appropriate clearance—had a sensitive compartmented information facility, or what is known in intelligence circles as a SCIF. Most senior officials who deal with classified information have a SCIF in their offices and their homes.

Then there is the issue of servers. Where did Powell and Rice’s staff have their servers? Who knows, and who cares? Maybe they were private with special security and no public access. Or maybe they were just an AOL server. Whichever it was, they would be just as open to hacking as the State Department servers. In fact, the State Department general email system has been hacked multiple times, with terabytes of information improperly downloaded in 2006 alone. There has been no indication that the email accounts of either Powell or Rice’s staff were compromised.

Powell may have made one mistake in all this. He has said he never backed up his emails or printed them out; that was necessary to comply with some of the preservation rules detailed in the Federal Register. Of course, that doesn’t mean they can’t be recovered, since the FOIA staff is now reviewing his emails.

The bottom line: Democrats may try to turn the revelations about the email accounts used by Powell and Rice’s staff into a scandal. They may release press statements condemning the former secretaries of state; they may call for scores of unnecessary congressional hearings; they may go to the press and confidently proclaim that crimes were committed by these honorable Republicans. But it would all be lies. Powell and Rice did nothing wrong. This could be considered a scandal only by ignorant or lying partisans.

So there is no Powell or Rice email scandal. And no doubt, that will infuriate the Republicans who are trying so hard to trick people into believing Clinton committed a crime by doing the exact same thing as her predecessors.
The shocking truth: Colin Powell’s emails don’t matter

There's much more information in the article regarding classified information. But it's clear you're suffering from OCDD (obsessive Clinton derangement disorder) so it may be very difficult for you to get through it all.

As I've said before, but liberals appear to have trouble really following along: Show me where Condi Rice and Colon Powell used personal email accounts on private servers in specifically handling and retrieving classified information, while intentionally and deliberately [key words] going against very specific advisement of departmental procedures that were given to them prior to them receiving further classified correspondence.

 

[Montrovant]

I use file shredding software and I have no involvement with classified materials.

Were you served with a subpoena for those records? If you were, and you destroyed them, that is a felony.

Would it be a felony for me to delete them in the usual way, rather than use a file shredder? If so, the file shredder isn't actually the issue, it's the deletion of the files by whatever means, yes?

 

[Montrovant]

I use file shredding software and I have no involvement with classified materials.

The difference is that the emails were already the object of a subpoena when it was done. That is destroying evidence in the everybody but Clinton world. Not even comparable to wiping your hard drive so it can be destroyed etc.

Yeah, but whether she used shredding software or not wouldn't change that deleting the emails after they were the object of a subpoena was wrong. The OP article, and the interview with Gowdy, seem to be saying that someone wouldn't use this type of shredding software on day to day, personal correspondence. I'm saying that is untrue; I use it on everything I delete, and I don't have anything like classified documents to worry about. Everything I have is personal.

If someone can show that she only ever used the software to shred emails after being subpoena, that is one thing. To imply or state that shredding software is not used for innocuous files is simply untrue.

It doesn't matter if she is the only one. It is destroying evidence whether she was the only one or the only one in 1,000. I have read stories of lawyers getting strung up by judges to the courthouse flag pole when they advised their client to destroy evidence to keep it from being revealed in discovery. It has been a few years since I read it, but I do recall them going after an entire law firm in WV after some of their lawyers got busted doing it in a black lung case (or cases).

I think you are missing my point. I'm not defending deletion of emails, I'm just saying the use of shredding software is nothing special.

1) I am not missing your point. Pu.tting freeware on a secure server is probably how she got hacked to begin with.

2) If the server guy still refused to testify after being offered immunity, then my guess was he was billing her top dollar while cutting corners and was afraid he could be prosecuted for something unrelated--like embezzlement.

and 3) You are somewhat wrong. It is not a smoking gun, but it shows a possible pattern aimed at wrong-doing since the software isn't pre-installed on computers. Now common sense says sure a lot of people have it. I recall reading about a child porn case a few counties over in which the person was caught through one of these undercover online trading stings via their IP address, but when they raided the house, there was no child porn found. The IP thing and the fact that they had one of these types of programs on their computer to explain why the person didn't have any evidence of porn on their computer and that it was recently used prior to the raid resulted in their conviction.

1) I didn't say anything about any potential hack.

2) I didn't say anything about potential embezzlement or other crimes.

3) I'd like to see the case you're talking about. If it can be shown that the file shredding software was only used on the emails in question, that would be a pretty strong indicator. However, if Clinton or her server guy regularly used file shredding software, using on the emails becomes innocuous in and of itself. As I said, I use file shredding software all the time. When I delete anything, no matter what it is, I shred it. Sometimes I use a program that not only shreds the contents of my recycle bin and temporary files, and anything else I might decide needs cleaning up, it will also run the shredding on the unused space on my hard drive in case there is stray data on it.

Again, my point is that the use of a file shredder is not necessarily indicative of anything. If the person who used it on the emails used it regularly, it certainly wouldn't indicate anything nefarious.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Hillary also looks like she uses Bleach Bit as shampoo.

 

[Divine Wind]

Now we know why her tech guru took the 5th. This one act has intent written ALL over it. Hillary is using tools to cover up her illegal activities on behalf the Clinton Foundation. No wonder why several MSM outlets have openly told her to shut down the Foundation before it blows up into a gigantic mess that could take town much of the Democratic Party with it.


FBI Admits Hillary Used BleachBit Software Designed to 'Hide Traces Of' Deleted Emails

Smart move. That's what all the other lying, cheating politicians use.