Was Clinton's Personal Server Hacked?

Twice in recent days, I’ve seen claims on this site that Clinton’s personal server was hacked. My understanding was that it was not.

This is GQ, so I’m looking for factual information. That is, verifiable, credible reports from mainstream newspapers or government agencies that say that her server was hacked.

I’m specifically not interested in whether she should have had a personal server for her e-mail while she was secretary of state. I’m really, really not interested in that question.

So, was it hacked? Cite?

I found a recent article about this matter “DOJ watchdog slams Comey for claiming Clinton’s server could have been hacked” - Politico - June 14th, 2018 …

Remember, when classified information is left unsecure, it is considered compromised … we don’t know if our enemies got the information, but they could have, thus to be safe we must consider that they do have this information … and act accordingly …

Perhaps if you posted where you saw these claims we could delve into the matter a bit deeper … I suspect this might be fake news built on the IG report …

According to the Department of Justice’s Inspector General, there is no evidence that her emails were hacked, though associates of Clinton were compromised. On page 196 of the report:


Thanks! The original threads were pretty fast moving and the latest one was an instant train wreck, so I didn’t bother posting there.

Next time it comes up, I’ll reference this thread.

The irony is that the official government server she was “supposed” to be using was hacked.

Well this report says the FBI was unable to determine if her emails were hacked because they were not given access to all of Clinton’s electronic devices:


As far as I know, none of her emails were released by Wikileaks, except those to/from systems that were known to be hacked like the DNC. That’s a good sign that they didn’t get into her system.

You might try reading your cites first.

Doubtful she had access to the emails in regards to SecState business.

Why would our enemies give the hacked information to Wikileaks? … that tells us we’ve been hacked and we’d make the changes needed to stop future hacking … better for our enemy to remain silent, and continue hacking …

This was an issue during WWII … the Allies had some access to Axis communications, but the code-breakers had to be very very careful in how they used that information, so not to alert the Axis we had broken their code … or the Axis would have changed their code … they waited until something BIG came along, like Midway …

We have to assume our enemies have all these e-mails … to be safe …

Because the intent of the hacking was not to gain intelligence, but a combination of sowing chaos in the U.S. and also attempting to tilt the election toward Trump. Those goals cannot be achieved if emails are simply hoarded. ETA: And who is the “we” in “we’d make changes needed to stop future hacking?” That would imply that U.S. persons involved in political campaigns would no longer be vulnerable to spearphishing, an assertion I strongly question.

And remember that the intelligence you’re referring to during WWII had important strategic, operational, and tactical relevance: the Germans were deploying over there, withdrawing from here, the attack starts at dawn, etc. Contrast that to Podesta talking about eating pizza or DNC staff saying mean things about Bernie. The value of those two types of intelligence can hardly be more different.

There’s a difference between proceeding under a worst-case assumption, as you’re suggesting, and declaring that the email server was definitely compromised. The former is a policy consideration, the latter is a question of fact.

I don’t see how my cite refutes anything I said. I didn’t say her email was hacked or even that it was likely I said it was unknown.

Well, I think it is an odd cite, because it dates from September 2, 2016 – even before the copies of Clinton’s emails were discovered on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. A lot has happened since then.

One reason this is important is that the quote I provided earlier refutes one aspect of the story in your cite – that there was an unknown login to the Clinton server, with the article saying that the FBI couldn’t figure out who or why the login occurred. The quote from the IG report I provided shows that FBI technical experts concluded that it was to a different domain than Clinton’s emails.

Overall, I think the best we can conclude on the topic is summarized in this sentence:

We must be looking at different things … anything about, for or from the DNC isn’t US Government information of any kind, let alone classified information …

I’m talking about the e-mails that were official government business that were sent through a private and unsecured e-mail server, a few of which contained a bit of US Government classified information … this is where the FBI gets involved, as it’s a crime to send US Government classified information through using an unsecure method …

Political campaign information is not official government business, and is not classified …
What Podesta had for dinner is not official government business, and is not classified …
Everything about the DNC is not official government business, and is not classified …

I specifically said ‘enemies’ … ISIS, El Carder, North Korea, Iran … if the bozoes at Wikileaks can get this information, so can they … if Hillary used the name of the mole in any of these countries, for example, then this mole would be brought out to safety … all the FBI is saying is they need better evidence to bring criminal charges …

Why the FBI is talking about this at all is beyond me … the information “classified material in unsecure e-mails” is itself classified … the Chinese now know it’s worth reading through all of them they have stored …

You are getting things horribly, horribly confused.

We know that Russians hacked the DNC and other campaign officials, and turned that over to Wikileaks. You said, “Why would our enemies give the hacked information to Wikileaks? … that tells us we’ve been hacked and we’d make the changes needed to stop future hacking.” You don’t seem to recognize that Russia DID hack non-governmental email and give it to Wikileaks.

To dtilque’s point that the lack of any Clinton’s emails being released to Wikileaks may indicate that the Russians didn’t get in, well, I don’t think that is solid logic, but your point is also not responsive to his. If the Russians had hacked Clinton’s email – for which there is no evidence that it happened – then they would have all the goods already. There’d be no need to worry about burning their access to that server, since they already had all the info on it, the server was already burned because the public had known about it for years, and so on. They could, if they wished, release anything from the Clinton server to Wikileaks and its hard to see why they would need to maintain access.

Further, you said “it’s a crime to send US Government classified information through using an unsecure method.” That is not accurate the way you wrote it. We know for a fact that Clinton did so, and as we all know, she was investigated but not prosecuted for it, mainly because her intent did not meet the legal threshold for criminal culpability.

And also, on your comment, "I specifically said ‘enemies’ … ISIS, El Carder, North Korea, Iran … if the bozoes at Wikileaks can get this information, so can they … " I submit that you really have no clue what you’re talking about here. Wikileaks got the DNC and Podesta emails because they were given to them by one of the most sophisticated nation-state cyber actors. Just because Russia can mount a massive cyber espionage campaign, does not mean that El Carder (whoever that is) can do the same. And again, Wikileaks didn’t do any hacking here, so see again my comment about your post being very confused.

Finally, “the information “classified material in unsecure e-mails” is itself classified” is just made-up. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about here. For more than three years, investigators at the State Department and FBI have been judiciously releasing information on how much classified info, and how much potentially classified information, was found on her server. The idea that these two agencies were continually releasing classified information in an improper manner is just spectacularly wrong.

And more finally, “the Chinese now know it’s worth reading through all of them they have stored …” Well, now we are just off in fantasy land, because there’s no evidence that the Chinese have Clinton’s emails, no more than there is evidence that Joe Arpaio somehow got his hands on Obama’s real birth certificate. You’re just fully off the factual bandwagon here.

My Google-fu is failing me, but I could have sworn that during S.S. Clinton’s tenure, there WAS some kind of email leak and it was mostly embarrassing info, like her calling the Chinese delegation rude and Angela Merkel dowdy, or some such thing. I am having trouble remembering the details.

Well, I agree that it’s not a solid proof, more of a strong deduction. The Russians were hacking to get things that would help elect Trump; things that would embarass Hillary and the Democratic party. They found stuff like that in the DNC files and released it through Wikileaks. If they’d also hacked Hillary’s system, they’d have found more and it also would have been released the same way. There was none released, so it’s almost certain they didn’t get their hands on her emails.

Clinton had nothing to do with that. The traitor Chelsea Manning gave those to Wikileaks.

Right, but what was the source of those? I seem to remember that it was emails that came to public light through Manning to Wikileaks, but I’m not sure.

Whatever it was, that was usually my argument anytime anyone made a big deal over Clinton’s emails. Her emails HAD been leaked at one point and it was just catty stuff. Hardly worth “locking her up.”

They were diplomatic cables, it really had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton or email.