FBI steps up interviews in Clinton email probe

[Halliburton]

Source: Politico

Even as Hillary Clinton tries to put questions about her private email server behind her, the FBI has stepped up inquiries into the security of the former Secretary of State's home-made email system, and how aides communicated over email, POLITICO has learned.

The FBI’s recent moves suggest that its inquiry could have evolved from the preliminary fact-finding stage that the agency launches when it receives a credible referral, according to former FBI and DOJ officials inteviewed by POLITICO.

“This sounds to me like it’s more than a preliminary inquiry; it sounds like a full-blown investigation,” said Tom Fuentes, former assistant director of the FBI. “When you have this amount of resources going into it …. I think it’s at the investigative level.”

The FBI declined to respond to questions about the scope of its ongoing work.




Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-probe-215630

[leveymg]

1. Interesting. This comes 4 days after confirmation the IC found "secret" classified info on server

Drip, drip . . .

[Fred Sanders]

7. The only drip, drip, is the drip, drip of the GOP scams going down the drain!

And the credibility of those on the left who support the smears of the right.

What else did the FBI say four days ago that proved all the nothing smearing by the GOP is still nothing?

Sanders still has said it best about those damn emails!

[leveymg]

8. An exclamation point - must be true! Actually, the GOP are HRC's main ally

By providing her with a Clown Car backdrop and Committee of Dunces, she is made to seem Presidential by comparison. They ask all the wrong questions, and she can just sit there looking annoyed. She really should thank them.

[Fred Sanders]

9. You forgot the sarcasm emoticon!

[Fred Sanders]

36. The ongoing never ending GOP-led investigations of something continue? Wow! Stop the presses!

[randys1]

27. Anyone on the left who supports this garbage has no credibility at all

Wont it be fun if this harms her enough that she either loses in the GE or Bernie is nominated and somehow loses and we can then look forward to the GOP putting to death all Gay folks since the candidates are on board with that now

[Fred Sanders]

37. Seems like we have our own version of a hybrid of the tea party, complete with poll denying, etc.

[2pooped2pop]

38. I think Sanders clarified

That the people don't want to hear it daily and it was not needed in a debate on the issues, but never meant the investigation should be stopped.

[getagrip_already]

11. no, they didn't...

They found information which was later used in a classified report. The report came out AFTER the emails were exchanged.

That doesn't make it classified. It may be identicle to information that later became classified, but it doesn't automatically classify the information in the email.

It would be no different on a state.gov server. If information which has become classified is found on a non-classified system, it has to be treated as classified from that point on. That is called spillage. But in and of itself it is not going to get anyone fired unless it was intentional.

The FBI is looking for a petreaus problem (sharing information you know to be classified, that you shouldn't even have, with third parties). It doesn't exist but they have to be sure.

Get a grip folks.

[leveymg]

16. Helps if you read the entire article. The material was found classified to Secret.

The story four days ago reported only that two emails of four previously found to be classified at the Top Secret level by the IG of the Intelligence Community had been downgraded by DNI Clapper to "secret." That still classified, and it is still illegal to store or transmit such documents over an unapproved private server.

State or other agencies may eventually determine that the emails in question contain classified information, but the recent action cleared State to handle the two emails in State's standard FOIA system, which is authorized only for information classified up to the "Secret" level — the middle of the three main tiers of national security information.

The two emails are part of a set of four emails McCullough's investigators flagged after obtaining access earlier this year to a sample of 40 emails among the 30,000 Clinton stored on a private server and provided to her former agency last December. "My office's limited sampling of 40 of the emails revealed [that] four contained classified intelligence community information that should have been marked and handled at the SECRET level," McCullough wrote to lawmakers on July 23.

Concerns about the four emails McCullough's investigators isolated appear to have set in motion a series of critical events in the email saga. State stepped up its efforts to have Clinton's private attorney David Kendall return thumb drives.

State decided back in May that one email in the Clinton collection contained "Secret" information about arrests possibly linked to the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi. At that time, Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy asked Kendall to delete all copies of that email and return all paper copies to the department. Kendall declined to delete the electronic copies because of outstanding preservation requests from inspectors general and congressional committees.

However, the classification of that email as secret did not set off the scramble that began in late July when the intelligence inspector general flagged the set of four from the sample of 40. The flagging of those four emails by the ICIG led to a formal referral to the FBI of a potential counterintelligence breach.l/b]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599#ixzz3r7hVIb5g

[getagrip_already]

24. it helps if you don't take politico reports as gospel..

The quotes highlighted above were based on similar information being found in a classified report (the 4 emails all contained the same info - think reply with content). The basis of the investigation was that the material in the emails came from the report.

They then came back and said the report was written after the emails were exchanged. The material in the emails could not have come from the report.

The worst thing they can say is that the information later became classified. That is far different than intentionally sending classified documents on a non classified system.

Look, data spills happen almost every day. Information residing on unclassified systems later gets classified. That is NOT a violation of the law as long as it isn't intentional. You can google it.

The policies require that once information is found that has become classified, it has to be secured.

But there is no requirement that information owners constantly review old data to determine if there is a problem. The government would grind to a halt.

I expect clinton derangement syndrome from the right, but here it is a little tiresome.

[antigop]

14. but Politico just recently reported that her emails did not contain highly classified info nt

[leveymg]

18. They have been reclassified to Secret from Top Secret. Still classified. Still illegal to store or

transmit over an unauthorized private server.

[antigop]

22. OK, thanks. nt

[getagrip_already]

28. still wrong...

It is only a violation if you knowingly transmit classified information.

If it isn't classified when you send it, you haven't violated anything. If it later gets classified, it still isn't a violation unless you know that, and then as long as you secure and report it, it still isn't an issue. You don't have to constantly review your data to see if anything has become classified.

You might have classified information in your email right now. You may have even forwarded it to someone. It doesn't mean anything without knowledge and intent. And that is what is missing.

[leveymg]

31. Presumed classified materials are always classified as created. She knew because she was trained in

handling classified materials, as is everyone else who has a security clearance. She acknowledges she was trained and understood her training. Negligence isn't a defense. Therefore, she doesn't have that legal defense, either.

[HassleCat]

2. OK if it leads in the right direction

What Clinton did was evidently common practice among government officials. I suspect systemic mismanagement of classified information at all levels, among various agencies. If the probe results in changes in handling classified information, good. If it's just an attempt to discredit Clinton, it's a waste of time and money.

[merrily]

3. I disagree that having your own server was common practice among government officials.

I don't especially care about this issue, but I do care that people are conflating having your email account, as does almost every adult in America, and using your own server. Plus, Powell was pointed to repeatedly and he has cleared the record on that. He used an official state dept account for everything but what I think he termed "housekeeping" emails and he never used his own server.

[getagrip_already]

12. Yeah, it was probably a lot safer then the state dept server...

I have a server, and don't see how that is different than a private email account. It just comes down to who manages it.

What is ironic is that there is a very good chance that the Chinese government probably has all of the emails ever kept or passed through state.gov. By all accounts, it was very poorly managed and very insecure.

So everyone is getting all frothy over what was quite probably a more secure platform than the state department email server.

[merrily]

29. Thanks, but not really relevant to my post and, as my prior post said, I don't

have an interest in a broad discussion of this topic.

Have a great evening!

[getagrip_already]

30. you said you don't agree that a server and an email account are the same...

So, yeah, it was relevant.

It doesn't matter if I keep my car in my garage or a public garage. The car still is the same.

Same for a private email server vs a public server. The email is what is relevant, not who manages the server. Keeping a private email account for govt business was permitted. It doesn't matter that it was hers and not google or gmail.

[merrily]

32. Third time: no interest in discussing (tho my silence should not be interpreted as agreement with

anything stated in your two posts to me). Second time: not relevant to my post to hasslecat. 7 posts in 7 years, and you can't stop replying to someone who has repeated she has no interest in discussing this? Odd.

Continue to post away, if you wish, but please don't expect another reply stating I am not interested in discussing this topic. Third time's a charm.

[DURHAM D]

4. LOL Washington Examiner Hack rewrites

same old drivel.

[totodeinhere]

6. Do you have information that the FBI is not conducting a Clinton email probe?

If so please let us know. But if they are conducting a probe, how can reporting on it be drivel? And after all, imagine the reaction if the FBI were probing Bernie Sanders.

[virtualobserver]

26. There would be a lot of "shouting".

[appalachiablue]

5. K & R. Probe continues, interesting.

[appalachiablue]

20. You don't know what I think and your assumption is just that. Have a good one.

[Android3.14]

10. Now that is interesting

I've never heard of the GOP controlling the FBI.

[antigop]

13. but Politico just recently reported that her emails did not contain highly classified info

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599

[leveymg]

19. Reclassified to Secret from Top Secret. Still illegal to have on a private server. See 16 above

[antigop]

23. thanks. nt

[getagrip_already]

25. nope - that's not the law...

You can look it up.

If information is unclassified when sent, there is no violation. Just because it later might be considered classified doesn't make it automatically illegal.

The law does require that once found, it must be reported and secured.

The law does not require information owners to review old documents for changes in classification levels.

The system just doesn't work as you describe. Period.

[leveymg]

33. I did look it up.

The whole thing is explained here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

Please read and come back before you make inaccurate postings here on this again.

[getagrip_already]

42. I am more aware than you know..

but the key is willful intent, or in the other extreme - gross negligence. None of that applies here. And it also doesn't even apply because none of the information in question was actually classified when it was exchanged.

For example, information that is in some contexts classified routinely gets published in the media. It isn't a violation of law. People can come up with info and have no connection to classified sources. That info can then be copied and inserted into a document that gets classified; or simply parallel the sources. It doesn't mean anybody revealed classified info, yet it is both classified and in the public domain.

The interpretation you reference is simply wrong in fact and practice. There are dozens of CFR's, presidential directives, and agency policies that apply in different ways. You can cherrypick, but it isn't the way the law is enforced either in policy nor in practice.

Do you have any case law to reference? Probably not. Patreus is probably the closest parallel, but what he did was far different. He knew he had classified information, the information was labelled as such, and he exposed it to a third party.

That is the difference between a serial killer and someone who simply clears their throat in what gets interpreted as an aggressive manner.

Haters gotta hate I guess. Nothing is going to happen to clinton as a result of the info in that particular issue (who knows if other info exists - maybe - maybe not). The fbi likely won't even focus on her at this point. Politico is not exactly an impartial news source here. Neither is Fox.

The info in the links isn't compelling. It also isn't the way the govt works. Just like email isn't the way the state department runs its communications.

[leveymg]

43. The willful intent to violate the statute is obvious as is negligence be

If you're going to be generous and conclude the posting of classified materials was inadvertant. That's why there are two subsections to 793 that don' t require intent to harm the national interest. Catch all. She did this knowing her server was hosting classified communications and that it wasn't authorized. End of story. Others have been prosecuted for less. Equal protection under the law

Unless there is something we haven't been told - a CI operation for instance - the AG should go to a Grand Jury.

[Francois9]

44. There is a very powerful case against her.

She very clearly violated the Espionage Act (18 U.S. Code § 793), on more than one occasion, as you and others have explained very well. She also may have violated U.S. Code 18, Section 1001, which pertains to "materially false" statements given either in writing, orally or through a third party. Violations also include pressuring a third party to conspire in a cover-up.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch will not want to prosecute the case, but there will be a lot of pressure for her to do so, especially if leaks from the FBI continue. Can we really afford, as a Party, to risk having Hillary as a candidate?

[leveymg]

45. That pressure will be coming from within the IC which includes

FBI and NSA, two agencies with access to the raw Intel. I can not imagine that individual officers will want to let her set this sort of precedent when lesser officials have gone to jail for less.

[JoePhilly]

21. This OP is missing something ...

... there ya go.

[leveymg]

34. Apparently, the FBI disagrees with you on that visual metaphor.

[JoePhilly]

35. Just because the horse's corpse moves when you hit it ...

... that doesn't mean its alive.

The FBI, by its very nature, follows a long slow process.

The FBI may cut that dead horse into smaller and smaller pieces, but that horse will not be appearing in the Kentucky derby.

[Fred Sanders]

39. The fact the horse's corpse has not moved in a year and when beaten does not mean it is dead!

The analogy with EGazhi and BGazhi is perfect!

"Get Hillary" allies of the extremist right wing on the left wing are not allies of the left wing.

[SunSeeker]

40. Pure guessing by someone without any involvement with the FBI inspectors.

Different day. Same bullshit.