From: grarpamp <[email protected]>
>Clinton? If a public servant needs a mail system they >should go high ground in public and ask the public for one. >Fuck corruption, sneaky shady secret shit, and her. Maybe you missed the comment by Neera Tanden, friend of Hillary) within a 2-3 weeks of the election, who said, “I guess I know the answer … they wanted to get away with it,” wrote Tanden. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/10/25/clinton-ally-on-email-fiasco-well-it-looks-like-team-hillary-wanted-to-get-away-with-it-n2236948 That comment wasn't, in itself, surprising. What was surprising is that somebody, so close and friendly with her, would actually come out and say it openly. I knew it already, and knew it from the moment I heard that Hillary had deleted about 33,000 of her emails, and moreover when we later heard that they used "Bleachbit": My understanding is that this software actually over-writes the data on the hard disk, rather than merely deleting references to it in the directory. These days, with the hyper-high density of data employed, probably only a single re-write of data is necessary, although I was surprised when I heard that Bleachbit only did ONE re-write. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BleachBit (this was, of course, before we heard that Anthony Weiner had maybe 650,000 emails on HIS computer! How they go there is anybody's guess!)I am aware enough of business law to know that there are some very important data-retention requirements for things like email. You can't just erase data and declare it to be unavailable. Clearly, Hillary wanted to get away with something, something quite large. After all, each deletion amounts to a separate felony ("obstruction of justice"), so whatever they were covering up, was more important than exposing you to 33,000 felony convictions! The information had already been subpoenaed by Congress, so everybody knew how corrupt she was being.Also, I was very suspicious when I heard that the decision on whether or not to retain any specific email was the presence of one of a number of keywords in the Subject line of a list. Since she had probably settled on exactly this distinction when her server was built, it means that she was well aware of which emails were going to be erased, and which were not.Another very suspicious fact was that the media didn't talk about the email addresses to which she sent or received emails. Wouldn't all those be regularly backed up? Where did THAT data go?!? Jim Bell
