FBI investigation of Hillary’s emails is ‘criminal probe’

[uhnope]

Source: NY Post

The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured e-mail account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.
The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.
“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.
“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”

Read more: http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-criminal-probe/

[pnwmom]

1. Not this again. Again, no one has ever provided evidence that Hillary sent CLASSIFIED information

on her personal system. This is just a rehash of the now thoroughly discredited NYTimes report, with this "new" story being put out by the NY Post, a right-wing rag owned by Rupert Murdoch. (Do you believe political stories from Rush Limbaugh? If not, then you shouldn't from Murdoch.)

The emails are being examined now to see if some should be RETROACTIVELY classified. This is NOT the same as what the General did. He mishandled information that was already marked classified.

Until it's classified, it's NOT classified. It isn't uncommon for the government to reconsider whether an item should be classified -- but unless and until that is done, it's NOT classified.

From the WA Post story that the NY Post referred to:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-looks-into-security-of-clintons-private-e-mail-setup/2015/08/04/2bdd85ec-3aae-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html

The FBI’s interest in Clinton’s e-mail system comes after the intelligence community’s inspector general referred the issue to the Justice Department in July. Intelligence officials expressed concern that some sensitive information was not in the government’s possession and could be “compromised.” The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI is not targeting her.

Kendall confirmed the contact, saying: “The government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials. We are actively cooperating.”

From NEWSWEEK, about the NYTimes own twisted version of the same story:

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246

In terms of journalism, this is terrible. That the Times article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clinton’s emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable. That this all comes from a concern about the accidental release of classified information—a fact that goes unmentioned—is even worse. In other words, the Times has twisted and turned in a way that makes this story seem like something it most decidedly is not. This is no Clinton scandal. It is no scandal at all. It is about current bureaucratic processes, probably the biggest snooze-fest in all of journalism.

The heavy breathing of deception or incompetence by the Times doesn’t stop there. In fact, almost every paragraph at the top of the story is wrong, misleading or fundamentally deceptive.

The third paragraph states: “It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.” No, in fact, it is quite clear. All of the memos are about emails that the officials say may not have been properly designated as classified, meaning it would be improper to release them. If a document is marked as classified, it is certainly not difficult to determine if it has been marked as classified. Paragraph three is false.

Paragraph four: “But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.” Mmmm-kay. A point that would seem to be reinforced by the fact that this whole issue is about whether emails should have been designated as classified by FOIA officials. The but makes it seem as if there is a contradiction, when in fact the two points are completely consistent.

[candelista]

11. A lot of work went into that post! But here's a problem.

The standard classified information nondisclosure agreement, for example, defines classified information as "marked or unmarked classified information," and requires the return of such information to the government at the end of one's employment under threat of possible criminal charges.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/opinions/cox-clinton-email-controversy/

The Secretary of State is supposed to be able to recognize unmarked classified information and has a duty not to reveal it.

[pnwmom]

17. And that changes nothing. No one has ever shown, though Rethugs have accused,

that she failed to do that.

And this report was written by a right-wing rag, parroting the NYTimes story.

[candelista]

20. No one has ever "shown"?

You mean "proven in court"?

Well, she hasn't had a trial yet. But...

"The inspector general of the intelligence community concluded Mrs. Clinton sent at least four emails that included classified information."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-says-she-didnt-use-personal-email-account-to-send-or-receive-secret-data-1437870630

That's four out of forty randomly selected emails. Her attorney also has copies.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

14. The Inspector General already said they already found 4 emails with classified info.

drip... drip... drip...

[pnwmom]

18. And they have already said Hillary is not a target of investigation. They are looking

at the emails to double check that none of them might have to be re-classified in light of the FOIA. That's what this is about. Not going after Hillary.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

19. Sorry - you're wrong. /eom

[riversedge]

51. Not classified at the time they were sent but have since

been classified

[madaboutharry]

2. The NY Post

is a Rupert Murdoch rag.

[cynzke]

8. Looks like Gowdy wore out his welcome at the Times!

[okasha]

31. Exactly.

"Sources" are Republicans on the Benghazi committee. You'd think by now DU'ers would know better than to take the bait.

[murielm99]

3. Another convoluted OP from a right-wing source.

This needs to end.

[elias49]

5. Uhyup. nt

[candelista]

37. How do you propose to end it?

More censorship? When will that end?

[BumRushDaShow]

4. PE's take on the NY Post

[Sunlei]

6. I'm still amazed that out of a million? emails the 'coal rakers' only found a couple to question.

Funny, how people like Romney can outright get rid of his state computers, yet he's considered by some to be presidential material.

[former9thward]

27. No one has looked at "a million".

They did a "limited sample" and looked at a grand total of 40. And found 4 that should have been classified. That is 10%.

[Sunlei]

29. They have had that server from before Bill was President.

SOS emails are archived for public view (use the request form) by our gov. I'm still amazed.

IMO, that server was hacked years ago, as were most gov. computers and some on the dark side have seen 'private' emails they would like to expose in public to trash the Clintons, but can't.

[Andrej28]

34. Nonsense.

You got refuted. Why not admit it?

[Sunlei]

35. Nope, I really like Mrs. Clinton and think she will be an excellent President.

so quit trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and trying to start stupid message board arguments with me.

you going to vote for Mrs. Clinton if she wins the primary?

[candelista]

38. "Stupid"?

That's a personal attack. Don't you have something better? Can't you give one rational argument?

[Sunlei]

36. and by the way thanks for registering on Wed Jul 29, 2015 just to nag about the Clintons ancient

server. you need an icon

[candelista]

39. That's another personal attack.

You can do better than that. Deal with the issue.

[Sunlei]

41. You going to vote for Mrs Clinton if she wins the primary?

[Andrej28]

50. You're welcome.

Anytime.

[Metric System]

7. I guess the NYT 's source is now peddling BS to a different media outlet. Stinks of GOP

[candelista]

40. So it's a conspiracy?

The liberal NYT "stinks of GOP"?

Now that is a stretch.

[Metric System]

42. The New York Times is NOT liberal, except in the minds of nutty conservatives.

[candelista]

43. "Nutty conservative"?

I don't mind the personal insult, coming from you.

[Metric System]

45. That wasn't a personal insult. It was a knock on the commonly held belief of Cons that the NYT is a

liberal newspaper. It isn't.

[still_one]

52. NYT has not been a liberal source since Judith Miller, and actually before. when they let

Peter Schweizer spew his crap with no holds, that said everything about what the Times had become.

[asiliveandbreathe]

9. Until THE SOURCE is identified

why bother us with this drivel....

[candelista]

10. Of course it's a criminal probe.

That's what the Justice Department does. Okay, once in a while they sue somebody, but not often.

[Kingofalldems]

12. Shame we have so called news stories from the extreme

right wing NY Post in LBN.

[candelista]

44. What would be your rules for censorship?

Please explain. And tell us where the NYT fits in. They had a "hit piece" on Hillary. Should they be censored or not?

[Kingofalldems]

46. The NYT story was proven wrong.

The New York Post , like Fox, is dedicated to electing republicans. Pretty sure you know that.

[candelista]

47. Your Highness! You deigned to address me!

I am honored by your comment. And for you to say that you are "pretty sure" I know something! Well, I'll have to go and celebrate.

But actually, the NYT was never proven wrong. It got pushed back, that's all, by a barrage of recriminations from Hillary supporters and her lawyer, David Kendall (he defended General Petraeus against similar criminal charges).

Of course this is a criminal investigation. That's what the FBI does. They do not do computer systems analysis, not unless it's part of a criminal investigation.

Is Hillary the target, or her computer? If the FBI investigates a computer for child porn, they are after the owner. Same with state secrets.

[Kingofalldems]

49. No answer except for an insult.

[Bradical79]

13. Does the FBI do non-criminal probes?

If there is a possibility that classified materials were ending up somewhere they shouldn't be, then a criminal probe seems like something they should be doing. Seems to me calling it a "fact finding" investigation is just what you might call a criminal probe in it's early stages and you don't want to make things look worse than they might be.

[candelista]

22. A "fact finding" inquiry by the FBI is a criminal probe.

There is no other way to spin it, no matter how Hillary supporters may try.

[itcfish]

15. NY Post?

Murdoch rag? Please...........

[DCBob]

16. This is garbage and speculation until it comes from FBI directly.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. Did they look at Colin Powell's

Colin Powell would have had some interesting emails

[Ducksworthy]

23. Oh Its the NEW YORK post

I thought is might be a real paper. Benghazi!

[RussBLib]

24. I think we will all be better off...

when the Clintons have left the political scene.

[loveandlight]

25. no...

We will be better off when the right-wing Republicans are no longer controlling the media in a relentless lying attack on any Democrat who gains public support. Has Obama done any better than the Clintons? They have attached him relentlessly since he's been in office. Any Democrat worth their salt is going to get this. It not just the Clintons.

[6000eliot]

30. After her eight years as president!

[Doingto]

32. Do you believe the new York Post that it is a criminal investigation?

And is Hillary the target?

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. I wonder if this un-named source is the same un-named source used before? n/t

[cantbeserious]

28. Trouble In Paradise

eom

[truthisfreedom]

33. It's the post. With a little p.

meh.

[Hekate]

48. Source? Meanwhile, I have yet to hear of the Clintons' private server being hacked by anyone.

Months ago when I was expressing concern about my own cyber-security, my husband the Data Base Administrator looked up from what he was reading and asked if I wanted a "private email server," because, he said, he could easily do that from our home. I gave him a very funny look. Turns out he hadn't been following the news at all, and was unaware that the term had become a slam on Bill and Hillary.

I decided not to proceed with that for my own use, but I do have to point out that as one federal government and military server/data base after another has been hacked, I have not heard one word about either the Clintons' or Colin Powell's accounts being hacked. Maybe because they were really secure.

I'm sure we would have been told if they had been. Don't you think?