Clinton aide says he doesn’t know what 'wiped' server means

Duh...

Use soap and water for the best results.

You realize its not a non nuanced concept...

She was "joking" that the reporter was asking about her housekeeper's dusting habits. There was no nuance to it.


This kind of statement just makes Hillary's supporters look bad. She is obviously caught evading a question and not being honest about not understanding that very common term.

The difference is that the Clinton aide on CNN at least knew that he didn't know, whereas the Hillary bashers aren't aware of their own ignorance.

nt

When nuked, there is no forensic method that can recover the data.

When you erase a file, all that happens is that the links in the directory get removed but the data remains in the disk drive and can still be recovered.

let's just say government destruction is a tad more involved. See Guardian article on the destruction of their own computers.

Degaussing is also involved.

It seems not many of them were too tech-savvy. Probably just Huma.

It's a difficult concept.

nt

Some GOP interns are out there right now going over old tape to find her using that very common term. Odds are they will find it too.

And her supporters honestly do not understand why she is seen as untrustworthy by nearly 2 out of 3 Americans.

How the hell can we risk the White House on someone who consistently self inflicts these wounds? I just don't get it.

an almost computer illiterate, know what wiping a server/hard drive means. Obviously, that's their agreed upon excuse - they know nothing about computers/servers. Nothing!

WIPED had such a specific meaning. I thought it meant simply deleting--but that's not the case, as a DUer has kindly explained in this thread.

I know people use it a lot (along with the phrase "the server", but I'm never quite clear what people mean by either one.

THey all know the difference between simply "deleting" emails and "wiping" or "scrubbing" or "reformatting" the server. They are all playing dumb and it makes them look like they are hiding something.

They you have the IT tech pleading the 5th.

but I also don't know, or rather didn't know, what the definition of wiped is. I know that there is a difference between deleting the emails, reformating the server, and reformating and rewriting over the data, but I didn't know which one wiped meant.

Regardless of the semantics, he made clear that the metadata, that is, the emails in their native format were erased from the hard drive. They are only recoverable through some forensic analysis. He said if the FBI is able to recover the erased emails, there won't be any work related emails there.

by the way the seven pass wipe does not comply with destruction of government files policies. Those who know will know exactly what I mean.

The one concerned that he may be exposed to criminal liability.

Something is starting to stink about this server.

Criminal exposure to invoke.

Drip, drip, drip.

The State Dept also sent a letter to FBI asking them to search server and thumb drives for deleted emails. This is pretty ugly.

How could anyone doubt the sleek inevitability of this professional, well-honed election winning machine?

1. We assume honesty. In which case, these people are too stupid to be in government.

2. We assume this is a huge, cynical lie and they believe the American people are this stupid. In which case, these people are too stupid to be in government.

Either way.

Which of the following is the same as "wiping a server".

1) Deleting all of the files on the hard drive.
2) Reformatting the hard drive.
3) Melting or other wise destroying the hard drive
4) All of the above must be done for a server to be accurately be described as "wiped".
5) None of these apply, there is some other action or set of actions, which renders a serer "wiped".

Which is it?

Thanks.

Because, they really need a detailed question about the server before they can give a general answer.

Huh. I'll correct myself. We need these people working for Comcast.

The IT guy worked for private companies. Feds "secret courts" have been trying to get stuff like encryption keys and methods from the private companies for years with mixed success. He may be protecting trade secrets and other clients.

Also, he has a smart lawyer who sees no end to the GOP committee going after everyone down to the janitor. This guy used to work in the WH, so no telling what he saw, but he was not a government employee. He may have more criminal liability or even be tied up for years in a wild goose chase.

I doubt he was stupid, and he didn't work "in government".

computer stuff! Don't be fooled by his youthful looks!

Which is it?

What specifically must be done to a hard drive for it to accurately be described as being "wiped"?

I'm guessing you know.

Thanks in advance.

It is a common term that most are familiar with. There are programs to wipe hard drives clean.

It looks like they have something to hide when they play the fool so unconvincingly. They are giving legalese weasel answers. That is not how to get past this.

When a term like that is used, it's best to be VERY precise in the answer. If the person answering has one definition in mind and the questioner has another, then you can get all kinds of accusations about lying and so forth. Better to be specific in this case, I think. And don't think for a moment that the GOP wouldn't do that. They would. And maybe some people here would too.

but the server was not formatted or wiped clean."

And you can be sure that twisting her words is exactly what the GOP (and some of our good friends here at DU) would love to do.

... in regards to computer servers.

Um, no. Not really.

And you, in trying to describe that term, actually added two new terms to the game ... scrubbed and cleansed.

Are those all the exact same thing? Or are they different mechanisms.

Do you think the reporter who had asked Hillary whether the server was "wiped" or not, had a specific definition in mind, or was he simply using a convenient term that sounded good? Should he have used "cleansed" or scrubbed" instead?

I mean if these are such common terms.

No one buys it.

This line will get her nowhere. It just makes her look like she's hiding and scared. But, it's her campaign.

she says, anything her staff says, no mater what they actuall say.

This line will get you nowhere.

The over the top whining by "your camp" has become little more than background noise.

I have no camp, bubs. And I don't do whining. I do accept your apology for your rudeness in advance, though.

I do get a kick out of folks who have been wrong over and over on DU explaining how politics works to the rest of us.

I bow to your political genius and unblimished analysis.

Oh wait, you don't post that. You post petty snark and personal insults. Such a contribution to the discourse!

nt

Does her IT manager know what it means to "wipe" a server?
Who gave him the orders to wipe it?
Did he wipe the server before or after the request came to hand the server over?

Potential obstruction of justice? It's not the crime; it's the cover up.

my understanding is that they can give him blanket immunity and compel him to testify.

and to do that, they need undeniable evidence of her guilt.

They could grant immunity and elicit testimony prior to charging anyone with a crime. What would most like happen is, if the DOJ were interested, hold a proffer interview with them first. It would be confidential and protected from use.

If the DOJ liked what he has to say, then plea deals and/immunity would be discussed. There is no requirement for criminal charges to precede immunity deals. On fact, they are most likely to occur in the grand jury stage, prior to indictment.

Immunity can precede another being charged with a crime.

And to be charged, the government need only establish probable cause that a crime has occurred, not undeniable evidence of guilt.

then what else is the offer of immunity for?

Why would the aide put himself in jeopardy by giving up his 5th amendment rights unless he had immunity from prosecution, and that doesn't exist unless they can charge Clinton with some wrongdoing.

Otherwise would not testify and the government wants or needs the information. Once one is granted immunity, there is no risk of prosecution for that person.

Such a deal can be made at any point along the way, including during the investigative stage, at the grand jury or at trial.

What precedes the immunity grant is a "proffer." The witness is made "Queen for a day." By agreement, anything the witness says during the proffer can't be used against them, regards of whether they are ultimately granted immunity or not.

It's a way for the government to find out if the info the witness has is worthy of an immunity grant or a plea deal.

All that is to say, immunity can be used to access information well before anyone is charged with a crime.

but not all the emails are. It would be no problem to delete certain emails then export the ones that are left. Then clean the drive and reinstall everything and import the cleaned message base. For all intents and purposes it would appear alright. Now was the drive "Wiped", I would have to testify "yes". Did it appear things were deleted "no". And the term "wiped" is a generic term. You "Wipe" a hard drive when you intentionally do something to remove the data. There are many levels of that dealing with security though.

If someone was to do all that, the problem could arise where an investigator might look into another email system and find a message and then not find that message on the sending/receiving system. That would indicate that the message(s) had been removed from the system. Investigators have numerous methods of tracking down a message, they just need to find a message sent by someone but not on the server they are examining.

the rest of the contents." Per Cheryl Mills

Mills testified that they weren’t trying to hide anything when Clinton decided to wipe the server and that they were over-inclusive in what they thought might be a work-related message. Clinton has said the remaining, erased correspondence were "personal" in nature.

Panel Republicans are skeptical that Clinton preserved all her work-related emails — particularly after they discovered this spring about a dozen undisclosed Clinton emails in a separate set of messages they received from her longtime ally Sid Blumenthal. Those emails were work-related, they argue, and should have been included. They suspect there could be more that didn't make the cut before the server was erased.

Mills had no explanation for those emails, according to the GOP source familiar with the testimony.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/cheryl-mills-benghazi-testimony-213320#ixzz3klzYrEYQ

than logging in and out of the network with the corp notebook. Before I left I went into my managers office and showed him that I was deleting all the corporate stuff off my personal notebook. I had already deleted my personal stuff off my corporate notebook. I think that HRC should have deleted her personal emails and delivered the hard drive to the State department for them to do as they want.

But people in management positions do not do logical things very often. The CEO I worked for got canned because he had 2 DUI's. Just stupid.

with specific requirements also around diplomacy, since so many of those communications are classified.

If you actually read the article, you'll see that Mills went through the emails to sort out work related versus personal. She pulled out what she deemed to be work related to hand over to state. And then they wiped the server, ie in some manner erased everything on it.

Turns out they deleted "personal" communications with her "friend" (informal advisor) Sidney Blumenthal that contained classified information. Blumenthal turned his copy of them over. That is why they are demanding she turn over everything. If her emails to Blumenthal (a private citizen) contained classified info, what other classified "personal" emails were not turned over and are "out there" for easy hacking.


This has nothing to do with how you, personally do your work or what you, personally, find more convenient. In a situation where much of your work is going to be classified, you convenience should not be a factor. Security and professionalism are.

Hillary doesn't even have to personally carry her "stuff" around. Her staff literally does that for her. She has a blackberry, an iphone, an ipad, and a notebook. One additional gadget for her personal communications shouldn't be such a big deal. She could have just made it a different color, ie black=state, red=me.

we don't need this kind of talk.I am so pissed at clintons for making dems go through this crap.

It's gonna be these legal messes non-stop and gridlock.

it means nothing to America and doesn't affect the American people. The end. Now is the time for all good Democrats to come to the aid of their party country and honour the Clintons by making Hillary the 45th POTUS.

She made herself a liability and has put the WH at risk due to her piss poor foresight and handling of this.

This is small potatoes and she has ham handedly botched the hell out of it.

she put her own political hide and aspirations above national security requirements in refusing to follow proper email and communication policy. There may be laws broken. She does not deserve a promotion.

When she said “Like with a cloth or something?” If she's lying, she's dishonest. If she's telling the truth, she comes across as ancient and way out of touch with technology. It was an absolutely awful answer. Expect Republicans to use it in commercials if she gets the nomination. Sanders should use it now.

who gets to stick the fork?

As this has become a pattern of the campaigns response, it gives the appearance that obfuscaton is the best defense they have.

It comes across as disingenuous, and contributes to mistrust.

Remind me, what are the polling numbers for HRCs trustworthiness/untrustworthiness?

are we supposed to believe he is that clueless in his position?

just. wow.

Now everyone will believe everything she says.

¯\(?/¯

dressed the part.

Really, she should avoid wearing orange pantsuits.

as others here have posted, it's not always clear what is involved in "wiping" or "erasing" an electronic storage device. You can get a bunch of experts in the room, and they don't agree. What's also interesting is that .gov computers and private email are BOTH the same - unsecured and dependent on each user to determine what is "classified". In virtually every FOIA case, a review will "classify" more than whatever was in the original documents.

On Morning Joe this AM, the lawyers said they could find no single case of a prosecution for State Dept. employees using email in the manner that Hillary's staff was using it. (I'm paraphrasing while listening.)

Also, there are rules that communications must be preserved that conflict with rules that old computers that may or may not have "classified" communication must be erased or secured. One common practice is to save (or print) a copy of record and then "wipe" the unsecured computer.

Here are a few links:

http://gizmodo.com/5489933/leave-no-trace-how-to-completely-erase-your-hard-drives-ssds-and-thumb-drive


https://digital-forensics.sans.org/blog/2009/01/15/overwriting-hard-drive-data/


http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1355974/Secure-hard-drive-data-destruction-sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut


https://www.microsoft.com/security/online-privacy/safely-dispose-computers-and-devices.aspx

When she said "like with a cloth or something?" was a factually correct response?

She tried to make a smarky joke and it backfired, badly

just like the ignorance of many people on DU. Yes, it was a factually correct response. What kind of "wipe" do you mean? Are you actually asking the S0S a technical computer question that she had no hands-on reason to know anyway? Are you a dumb ass reporter?

If you didn't understand, that's fine. Hillary did not set up or have anything to do with the technical aspects of servers. As a lawyer, she was pointing out to the press that they didn't know a definition of "wipe" either.

Since you can get half a dozen IT experts in a room and they can't agree on a definition or process to "wipe" an unsecured computer - as Mad Magazine used to say, "It was a snappy answer to a stupid question."

The only logical thing anyone could say it what has ALREADY been reported over and over. The IT people took an old unsecured computer, backed up professionally (Google and McAfee) because officials are required to retain copies of work documents (even though a copy was sent to the State Dept.) , stored the backups on thumb drives with lawyers who had top secret clearance (even though that's not necessary for unclassified messages), erased the computer with some unknown process (whatever that particular company did as SOP), and stored the old computer.

The computer and thumb drives have been given to the FBI so they can check AGAIN what's there - but of course 90% was captured on .gov computers already. How many copies of the same thing are necessary?

It doesn't matter how it was erased, or even if it was erased.

But he's not talking. Not good, not good at all.

Ever since Ollie North's deleted PROF notes (equivalent to emails) were recovered from his hard drive you can bet your derriere that every politician and political operative understood the distinction between simple file deletion and wiping.

But it WAS a revelation to nontechnical people in the 80s ... and a horrifying one to the political class.

As North Learned, Deleted Files are Retrievable

Wiping, of course, is a well understood colloquial term for any measure taken to make it more difficult (or impossible) to recover deleted data. People, it's 2015. Computers are no longer a new thing. If these people really don't understand that I question their qualifications for political leadership. My teenagers understand that. My mother understood it before her passing in 1999. This is not esoteric anymore. It leaves folk asking, "Did this guy just insult my intelligence or is he really that clueless?"

This appears to me like classic Clintonian parsing ... and that is nothing more than the sharply trained legal mind at work. I happen to approve of sharply trained legal minds but this sort of thing just doesn't work well in the realm of public discourse because (quite frankly) most of the public just isn't into that kind of semantic analysis. Folk think yer tryin' to hide something from them. So I think this is disingenuous and damaging to the Clinton campaign.

BUT (disclosure: I am a Sanders supporter), in Ms Clinton's defense, we have to acknowledge that no one has been exposed to more systematically organized hatred over a longer period of time than the Clintons. It may well be that they know how best to deal with that. They had to deal with a bit of this before.

The email "scandal" just doesn't really seem to be that much of a scandal ... at worst "bad practice" (which would cost a normal person their clearance but it is understood that the Secretary of State has more latitude). The right wing hate machine will play with it as long as they can ("ooh! Shiny!", and may in so doing screw themselves in the eyes of the American people. That may well be the Clinton strategy ... feed them rope with which to hang themselves.


Trav