2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSources: "FBI - no evidence that Hillary willfully mishandled information" re email server. CNN
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Cuz it isn't
stevenleser
(32,886 posts).
.
.
The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.
.
.
.
The probe remains focused on the security of the server and the handling of classified information and hasn't expanded to other matters, the officials said. Spokesmen for the FBI and Justice Department declined to comment. The Clinton campaign has not yet responded to CNN's request for comment. David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, had no comment.
-----------------------------------------------------
The short version of this is, Clinton is not the subject of the investigation and we have found no reason that she should be
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Instead of "Found no evidence she broke the law"?
Hmmmm......
And it doesn't say the FBI said it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It says, " U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN"
This isn't from the FBI, sorry.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And nowhere does it say this is from the FBI.
" CNN)Some of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin, have provided interviews to federal investigators, as the FBI probe into the security of her private email server nears completion, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say."
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)When they are so adamant otherwise...
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)Do you need to be so in your face? When people post like that just adds to to annoying nature of this forum.... There was another thread where two people were going at it: almost like kids going back and forth: "said yes" "said no."
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Cuz this is how they work.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)They want it so badly it consumes them.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)AND nowhere in the article does it say the FBI said any of this.....
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)pnwmom
(109,028 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Nuff said...
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)the US officials had been briefed on the investigation. I can't imagine DWS being on a briefing list.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Why should we believe these 'anonymous officials' were ever briefed in the first place?
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)about getting it right.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Now THATS funny!
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)are the people here who are grieving at the idea that Hillary won't be prosecuted for anything.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)pnwmom
(109,028 posts)for trusting the wrong sources. We'll see soon enough.
You can keep believing the RW sources who are eager to spread their crap, and I'll keep assuming that CNN and MSNBC and the WA Post have more trustworthy sources behind their stories.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You know, "Both sides do it!" false equivalency CNN? What, because they were so scared of Sanders this last year that you suddenly see them in a positive light?
bjo59
(1,166 posts)valid point being made by the person you are discussing this with. The point being made is very clear to me and the quoted lead paragraph from the CNN piece is also very clear and does not contradict that point. I don't get what the argument is here.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)in question it had to have been done wilfully. No evidence anything was done wilfully = not guilty.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)of wilful misconduct by now it's highly unlikely that they will.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)applegrove
(118,965 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)CNN is reporting that a "US official" said it.
Someone in the White House? Someone who works for the post office in Walla Walla?
It would be nice, in this case, to just have the media report the damn facts. Either they under report--leaving people ignorant and unaware of what is happening in our Democratic party. Or they pull a stunt like this and quote an unnamed source, and they also don't even bother sourcing where this person works.
But they sure did say that the FBI hasn't found anything yet!
I don't trust this quote. I think it's bullshit spin, from God knows who.
Loretta Lynch has admonished even the White House for commenting on this case. No one should be making pronouncements like that. Especially when the source is some "US official". Shoddy journalism.
I will wait until the FBI comments. The FBI would never have made a comment at this point. Which makes me wonder who this yahoo "US Official" is.
It's really too bad that our journalists are unprofessional.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)qualifies as a "US official". If I remember correctly the FBI suggested the White House should make no comments on this.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)then CNN owes the entire country an apology for shoddy journalism.
Yes, Loretta Lynch VERY publicly admonished Josh Earnest because he commented on the investigation. She took to the media and blasted the White House.
The comment from today's CNN piece did not come from the FBI.
That's a fairly profound statement too. If you're going to include such a profound statement, regarding the status of an FBI investigation--don't you think your source should be named? Or at least the person's title or where they work?
I wouldn't be surprised to see Lynch or the FBI wrist slapping this shoddy journalism.
All we want is the truth. Do the bullshit games ever end?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Interesting timing. Guccifer's talking, someone's planting bullshit "she's been cleared" stories... sounds like something's about to go down.
xloadiex
(628 posts)Like Clinton herself.
Lars39
(26,120 posts)If true, most blatant case I've seen in a long time.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)The likelihood of an indictment is not zero. The chances may be tiny, but factors other than intent may come into play.
Sales points to the Petraeus case in particular, noting that the former CIA head did not, in the end, plead guilty to charges related to sharing classified information with his mistress and biographer, but rather to those related to him keeping the information in a desk drawer inside his home. "The conduct that is being investigated [in Clinton's case] keeping the documents on an unclassified server that's kind of the digital equivalent of locking it in your desk drawer, which is ultimately what did in General Petraeus," he says.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/what-should-we-make-of-the-hillary-clinton-indictment-speculation-20160503#ixzz47pDlWWxL
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)contrarian point of view to virtually all the legal experts who have opined on this so far and gets some notice in the press. Interesting for a discussion in the Faculty Lounge. As something definitive, not so much.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Go cry into your pillows, Indictment Wishers.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)That point needs to be driven home.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)We are following this story because, oh I don't know--it's kind of major when our Democratic frontrunner and her private server are the focus of a year-long FBI investigation.
This could affect all of us. The entire Democratic party.
I researched this situation, not because I was hoping for any particular outcome, but because the potential damage could upend our party during a Presidential election.
If the FBI recommends that Clinton be indicted--it's not going to help Bernie. Clinton would never release her delegates to Bernie. Her loss would not be a Bernie gain. We would have a crazy crisis in our party.
I don't know if your "wishing, praying, hoping" schtick is designed to do. Shut us all up and keep the entire party in the dark?
You do a disservice to the entire Democratic party. We should all be informed and unafraid to discuss this.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)dinkytron
(568 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)been ignorantly though?
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Bill Clinton pardoned CIA chief John Deutch for classified docs on home computers
Former CIA director John Deutch was also found to have stored classified documents including top-secret intelligence on computers in his homes in Bethesda and Belmont, Massachusetts, leading to an investigation by the CIA inspector general and a criminal investigation by the Justice Department.
Deutch was stripped of his security clearance and ended up reaching a plea agreement admitting to his crimes but was saved by a last-minute pardon from none other than ... President Bill Clinton.
The parallels between the Deutch and Clinton cases suggest that come January 2017, instead of planning her presidential transition, Clinton may find herself lobbying for a last-minute pardon of her own.
...
In one case, the data recovery team discovered that "he files on card with the unclassified sticker had been erased; however, the contract network engineer was able to recover data by the use of a commercially available software utility." He found top-secret information on it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/theres-an-ominous-precedent-lurking-over-hillary-clintons-email-scandal-2015-8
Read the rest of it, the parallels are stunning. He even used the computers for both personal and classified information. Article originally published in the Washington Post.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)as John Deutch apparently did.
All the documents in question for Hillary were retroactively classified years later, in preparation for the FOIA request.
So, no, this isn't even close to the "exact same situation."
polly7
(20,582 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)"'Cause I said so". Got it.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)and certainly not authorized for storing classified information
And it's not retroactive. It's the first time they've been seen
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)and the SCIF systems were what she used to transmit classified documents?
And are you aware that the documents they found in her server were not discovered to have been classified when she produced or received them -- but were only retroactively classified years later by analysts in a different agency?
She didn't use her private email to substitute for the classified system. She used it instead of a .gov account -- which no one used for classified materials.
For classified materials, she used the same SCIF system as everyone else.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)The IC IG has already told congress that 2 of the original emails in his initial review were classified at the time.
They don't retroactively classify information. It was either classified when produced or it wasn't. The SD review of her e-mails is the first time anyone has looked at them, outside the recipients and senders.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)Please provide a link for your claim about the "IC IG." I think you're just repeating a Rethug story.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)Inspectors General I. Charles McCulough III and Steve Linick late Friday released a statement, Yesterday the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) sent a congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG support to the State Department IG.
The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.
IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the governments possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)and his opinion that the emails contained classified information when they were generated has not been confirmed by anyone trustworthy.
Different agencies make different decisions for what needs to be classified. Hillary was the top authority within the state department for deciding the classification category for any document they produced. The IG couldn't overrule her on State Department documents -- and nowhere in this statement does he make the claim that these documents came from outside of the state department or that they were marked classified.
He disagrees with some of her classification decisions -- but as long as she was SoS, she was the ultimate authority in the state department, not him.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)classified. HRC knew this, signed a document stating she understood this and her responsibilities to recognize and safeguard classified information.
The words IC SOURCES means intelligence community and she doesn't have the authority to disregard that
And why would the President appoint a partisan hack?
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)while she was head of the agency.
IG didn't have higher authority over Hillary -- only President Obama did.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)There are rules. She didn't follow them.
That's why her story changed 3 times before settling on the nonsensical claim about markings.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)notice where it says DERIVED FROM CLASSIFIED IC SOURCES? That means it was classified information. The SAP information? If she had a SCIF that's where it should have been kept.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/19/read-letter-inspector-general-sent-congress-after-making-alarming-discovery-about-clintons-emails/
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)had to do with drone strikes that were reported in newspapers in Europe.
He wants to claim that the state department referring to the newspaper reports was a violation of the classification laws. Not only is this nonsensical, but it's not up to him how the State Department chooses to classify things. It's up to the head of the State Department, which was Hillary while she was there.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)on a billboard on the side of the road.
She doesn't get to pick and choose which rules she has to follow
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)Let's say Hillary sends Huma some classified info. I don't know what. Let's say just had phone call with Mubarek. This is what we talked about.
Obviously it wasn't marked classified at the time she sent it.
It was just sent between the two of them. No one even knew the e-mail existed so no one could have marked it classified.
So does that mean the e-mail wasn't classified because it wasn't marked classified when she sent it?
That doesn't seem like a reasonable position to take.
dinkytron
(568 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)from who knows where and yet so many here on DU running with it like it was the FBI who said it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)Willfully would be worse.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email. Casey Harper at The Daily Caller delved into this angle:
By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and the State Departments Foreign Affairs Manual regarding records management, and worse, could have left classified and top secret documents vulnerable to cyber attack, Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein said in an email to reporters.
This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be facing fines and criminal prosecution.
2. Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act
Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:
Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.
3. Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)
Veterans for a Strong America has filed a lawsuit against the State Department over potential violations of FOIA. Joel Arends, chairman of the non-profit group, explained to the Washington Examiner that their FOIA request over the Benghazi affair specifically asked for any personal email accounts Secretary Clinton may have used:
At this point in time, I think were the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs, Arends said of his groups Benghazi-related request.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)29." Willfully isn't the threshold. Carelessly is crime enough"
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)Careless and willful: a distinction without much of a difference in effect. She was careless, she clearly intended to retain documents offsite, outside of the control of the government. Ignorance is no excuse.
The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clintons?
Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.
She then fell back on the claim that none of the emails in question was marked classified at the time she was dealing with them. The marking is not what makes the material classified; its the nature of the information itself. As secretary of state, Clinton knew this, and in fact she would have been re-briefed annually on this point as a condition of maintaining her clearance to access classified information.
Then theres location. Clinton knowingly set up her email system to route 100 percent of her emails to and through her unsecured server (including keeping copies stored on the server). She knowingly removed such documents and materials from authorized locations (her authorized devices and secure government networks) to an unauthorized location (her server).
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)You may have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night but it doesn't make you qualified to opine on things you don't understand.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)The standard for prosecution in the current instance is gross negligence which is an entirely different legal principle than carelessness.
gross negligence
n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil
Read more: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=838#ixzz47snz6F92
enid602
(8,679 posts)It looks like the bernie bunker will have to come up with new material.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)mcar
(42,478 posts)Can we stop pushing this meme here now?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)" (Anonymous) U.S. officials briefed on the investigation (by an unknow someone) tell CNN the investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the (anonymous) U.S. officials say.
CNN, Fox News for the Clinton Campaign.
Jack Bone
(2,023 posts)Now let's see if she's a felon....
Survey Says....
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)With the unknown sources just being people in the campaign making up bullshit? I have a source that tells me yes, yes it is.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Sorry, PR isn't news. Let us know when the FBI or DoJ reports in.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the FBI hadn't something or other. It's the new journalism of the oligarchy.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)to match the fact-free Repub party. Who needs reality? Now all is harmony!
Except for the pesky progressive crowd -- the last vestige of the pre-Orwellian USA.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to support Sanders in an attempt to end the culture of corruption that Clinton supports, the corrupt culture that has made the Clintons very, very wealthy.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)The Royal Wannabe Families...who's your daddy or husband or brother...they have to Earn It.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Oh no, there hasn't. They don't do that.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/attorney-general-blasts-fbi-leaks-in-clinton-email-probe/article/2573456
Nanjeanne
(5,007 posts)d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)to clear HRC's name without input from the investigating bodies. Seems legit.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Funny, that's what Freerepublic and the right has been calling CNN for over a couple decades.
Hekate
(91,055 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)This must be another spin way to misrepresent the facts. Because the facts are there.
I don't know how they can say that. They found 22 emails at a classification level higher than simply Top Secret.
They were on her server OUTSIDE the government network. . THAT, in and of itself, is a crime.
So . . . . . spin and twist, you can't get around the facts.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)If I'd handled emails the way she did, I'd be riding a Leavenworth bench. Glad to see money and prestige actually ARE armor against petty little things like laws.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Crash landing likely!!
Search for debris underway!!
DCBob
(24,689 posts)will finally admit they were wrong and apologize to those of us who have been relentlessly arguing she was innocent.