FBI asks to make new secret filing in Clinton email case
Source: The Hill
In the request, which came as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the Justice Department offered for the FBI to provide additional details about how it conducted a reasonable search for records as part of the open records case and determined that there were no records responsive.
These details supplement defendants showing that it conducted a reasonable search, but cannot be disclosed on the public record without compromising information that the FBI seeks to protect, the department said in a filing late Monday evening.
The FBI currently has possession of the server Clinton used to run her personal email setup as part of an investigation into whether classified information was mishandled.
In a separate filing Monday, the Justice Department refused to detail the nature of the FBI probe connected to Clintons machine, except that it was based on a security referral from inspectors general at the State Department and federal intelligence agencies.
[T]he FBI is not required to identify a particular federal statute that it alleges has been violated in connection with the pending investigation, or the target(s) of the investigation, in order to keep the information secret, it asserted.
Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282454-fbi-asks-to-make-new-secret-filing-in-clinton-email-case
phazed0
(745 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)There's an election at stake...our national security. They should indicate now what's gong to happen. If they spring this on the public between july and november it could sabotage the electoral process. Im assuming they wont undermine the electoral process and cause a constitutional crisis that could SLIDE Trump in. They have had plenty of time to indicate what they will do...stonewalling is very suspicious and could cause a crisis.
phazed0
(745 posts)doesn't have this problem. Not to mention I can't think of an election in my lifetime where no one seems concerned about a possible indictment... really unbelievable considering the stupid Swift-boat attacks, flip flopping, etc in the past. Now we have an FBi investigation and it's "Shhh" time.
cstanleytech
(26,297 posts)or it could even be that they could be investigating someone who hacked into the server and it would be funny as hell they managed to nail some Republican senators for illegally accessing her emails.
Either way though they wont announce anything until they have their ducks all lined up in a row otherwise it puts the investigation at risk no matter who it is they are investigating.
beastie boy
(9,375 posts)you will be disappointed with their response.
It looks to me like they are asking for additional exonerating evidence, and they want to keep it secret.
And how are they supposed to tell you what's going to happen without knowing themselves what's going to happen? Don't you think this will sabotage and undermine the electoral process even more than otherwise? Not to mention that it will discredit the FBI and their investigation.
valerief
(53,235 posts)GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Pay for play. They are just waiting for their pay, that's all
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... but my comprehension on what it imparts is zilch. Someone with a brain explain it to me. Thanks.
It seems that one thing has led to another and now there is basis for yet another offense.. IMO. Could be wrong.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)..it to you, would you explain it to me?
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... I haven't seen anything yet that is making sense to me.
beastie boy
(9,375 posts)The Justice Dept provided the FBI with some details about how it conducted "a reasonable search" of records that may have a connection to the server and (possibly) how they determined which records were "responsive" (meaning they had some connection to the FOIA request in question) and which were not. Now they are offering the FBI additional details to demonstrate that these details are not "responsive" to the FOIA request in question, but those details contain classified information. The FBI, in turn, is asking the judge to allow to file those details as a "secret declaration", probably meaning it will not be available to the public and/or be subject to FOIA requests. In essence, the FBI is asking to have this information exclusively for the benefit of conducting their investigation.
This is the best I can make of it.
mercuryblues
(14,532 posts)to keep some information, about how it is conducting its investigation under seal. The FBI wants certain parts of its investigation exempt fro Jason Leopold's FOI request.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)but give them time they could find something. Kinda like Benghazi
cstanleytech
(26,297 posts)provided access to her emails or were illegally provided copies of them which could just as easily explain the length of time for the investigation as well as the grant of immunity to the guy who setup the server if he was involved in selling said access and or copies of said emails.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I'd expect that in any case.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)at another site will explain.
Here is basically what happened. Vice News filed an FOIA request to get information about the FBI investigation of the Clinton email/server. Sometime earlier this year, the DoJ filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging they were not required to produce these documents. Two weeks ago Vice News filed a well argued Response to the DoJ's Motion for Summary Judgment. In its Response, Vice News argued that case precedent required the DoJ to actually prove an investigation was ongoing or otherwise the DoJ was required to produce all of the documentation Vice News had requested.
So this sealed document is obviously the DoJ's Reply to Vice News' Response. And it is filed under seal because the DoJ does not want the public to know whether an investigation of the Clinton email/server scandal actually exists. In this sealed filing, the DoJ presumably must tell the judge one way or another whether such an investigation exists. But filing under seal is not going to fool anybody. If no investigation exists, the DoJ will have to produce FOIA documents, if an investigation does exist, they won't.
So if Vice News gets the documents we know no investigation exists and if they don't, we know one does. Based on a sealed response, I think it is fair to say that an investigation exists, or they would just have handed over the documents. I can't see there being any kind of Reply that would be ambiguous about the existence of an investigation. We just don't know the details of it.
I also think that Vice News if it files some kind of Objection to the filing under seal will give us further clue that an investigation does in fact exist. They will not file their objection under seal.
LarryNM
(493 posts)Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)I thought the FBI already announced they were 'investigating' when they cleared up the terminology by pointing to the I in their name?
Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #35)
dorkzilla This message was self-deleted by its author.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)The DOJ was trying to basically block Vice's ability to get their hands on some of the documentation of the FBI investigation. Dept of Justice tried to argue that they didn't need to give over said documents and Vice presented relevant legal precedent to argue that they needed to present evidence of an ongoing investigation, otherwise it had to hand over the documents.
The DOJ apparently presented the judge with proof, but it was under seal so we won't know, at least in the short term, what that proof actually was.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)Still confusing, but basically it's a secret ("sealed" message between DOJ and VICE News. Is anyone else upset that the DOJ is purposely and deliberately hiding information from the American public? And I agree that in spite of all the sneaky sealed secret business, that the whole exercise proves that there IS an investigation ongoing. The whole thing was meant to be confusing.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Vice was just told "sorry, can't show ya!!" but you're supposition is most probably correct that they have things they don't wish to be widely known. It's bureaucratic obfuscation at the least but to my mind it points to someone being up the proverbial creek sans paddle.
vdogg
(1,384 posts)The FBI is stating that it conducted a reasonable search, and turned over all emails it could find, but it doesn't want to give details as to how this search was conducted.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)we don't know, but one reason to give him immunity was to get the encryption key to emails that they could not read. Like asking Apple to break into a phone. That's just one possible speculation.
It may be they agreed (or can't) reveal the encryption software (proprietary?) or something to the public. Chances are the personal emails that the Clinton's wanted to keep are there, because we know the server was backed up by Google and McAfee. They may or may not be readable without decoding.
phazed0
(745 posts)Apple phones are easy to break. Period. That whole episode was to get carte-blanche access anytime they need using a backdoor (although, via snowden, we already know the US Gov't has full access using nefarious methods.)
Take exhibit #1 where the FBI gets a third party to hack the phone (duh!).
And here's DriveSavers doing data recovery from encrypted iPhones all day, everyday:
Once you know how microcontrollers and microchips, I2C bus, etc all work.. it's the same all over.. Apple is not special, they use the same hardware as everyone else.
As far as your ideas about encryption, well, I thought it was pretty much common knowledge now that encryption is essentially only good for non-gov't entities. Gov't has been "weakening" encryption for it's own needs so that it can be brute forced fairly easily using supercomputers (or even less-powered machines):
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security
http://www.rsaconference.com/blogs/can-a-government-encryption-backdoor-and-privacy-coexist
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3040206/security/attack-against-tls-shows-the-pitfalls-of-weakening-encryption.html
So, no, to me your premise is not correct at all.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)...and no, it's not easy to break into some encryption. Even the FBI might find it easier to ask for an encryption key rather than try to PROVE to a federal judge that they had the right to break into the Sec. of State and Ex. President's computer for an FOIA request!! That might be the reason for immunity. They don't seem to be telling the public.
They likely do not have evidence for such a warrant. I know the encryption that some current companies use would take a lot of effort to break in...and it might self-delete (like iPhones).
phazed0
(745 posts)That's not a put down whatsoever, so please don't take it as such.
You obviously didn't view the post with the videos in it, for if you did, you would know why your first statement is not logical. An encryption key only applies to a single person/computer - not to all of that encryption technique for the world. No need to be classified even if the key was revealed - basic computer security 101 stuff here. Look it up, it's an issue you need to take seriously.
Let us not forget that this came about because a low-level hacker got Hillary's email, which prompted response and inquiries into whether or not classified docs existed on her previously unknown server... and it looks like there were *some*. The problem with her emails is that security was severely lacking... not that it was super secure. Therefore, because of that and the fact that she was supposed to basically CC all of her emails to the Gov't (By law), but didn't. Why not? Hmmm..
Again, "it might self delete (like iPhones)" - You don't understand the technology.. so hows the iPhone going to reset when 'I' keep resetting the counter? Hmm... Let me refer you to a company that specializes in retrieving data from cell-phones (including iPhones) without encryption keys or passwords:
http://www.drivesaversdatarecovery.com/
or another one I use in MY computer shop:
http://www.gillware.com
So your going to argue that the FBI is incapable of doing the same thing these legal, US companies do? Ridiculous.
Most of the time you don't need to break the encryption, you simply break the security of the computer/device (Not encryption).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard
Sancho
(9,070 posts)She sent personal emails that were encrypted. Nothing to do with .gov emails. They use a key on both ends.
phazed0
(745 posts)The algorithm described by AES is a symmetric-key algorithm, meaning the same key is used for both encrypting and decrypting the data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard
Doh!
Here's the rest of the Hillary email probelm as described by VICE and the Inspector General, so that you can brush up on what it is you're defending:
https://news.vice.com/article/inspector-general-state-department-report-hillary-clinton-private-email
https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-additional-details-hillary-clinton-email-probe-secret-declaration
VICE should be a good source, no?
Sancho
(9,070 posts)We are pretty sure that there is nothing missing on the server. The Clinton's regularly backed it up locally and had a professional service also at the time.
Besides turning over the server, Hillary's lawyers gave a thumb drive copy of all .gov emails (that they had collected). There's also 90% in the system. They likely have copies of personal email, but we don't know if they turned those over.
The FBI wants to assure the judge they have done a though investigation - that may include inspecting personal email (not ever handed over to the state dept) that was sent with some unknown encryption software. I'm speculating that they may have some emails from years ago from somewhere that may be encrypted. Maybe sent from the Clinton server, but no longer on the system. Maybe recovered on some backup. Who cares?
It may be possible to get a warrant, but why even bother if the Clintons are cooperating? Who knows what the encryption key is at this point?
Rather than cranking up super computers; just ask the IT tech to get the key and prove they were personal or whatever. Then the investigation is through.
It has nothing to do with taking hardware apart or anything so nefarious. I'm not anyone's lawyer and I'm not defending anyone. I'm just guessing (like many others) what the mysterious report to the court might be about. None of us will likely ever know for sure, unless it becomes public.
I've seen encrypted files and emails. I've sent personal email that was encrypted to lawyers for example. After a few years go by, it can be a real pain to recover archives from old software and systems. Encryption keys are sometimes lost. That is particularly true when it's not something official that is required to be stored.
phazed0
(745 posts)penndragon69
(788 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Since they are not saying anything about the nothing, we can assume high treason and Bernie will win, right?
phazed0
(745 posts)Seems to me that if there was nothing found and nothing to find that they would be done already, but OK!
ToxMarz
(2,169 posts)Then your investigation can go on forever on the basis that you just haven't found it yet.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)is illogical and something to ROFLMAO about too.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)NotHardly
(1,062 posts)Whether FBI, CIA, or any other local, state or federal law enforcement ... truth is, they are probably coming for all of us, sooner or later. Secret is as secret does. One cannot begin to defend one's self if their prosecution in the press or a system of courts is all done in secret. The real secret is that what they have done, are doing and wish to do (to her and ultimately the rest of us) is to ensure fear, silence, and finally punishment all while hiding truth. Lastly, after so much secrecy those accused can be secretly disappeared. If you have no sympathy for Hillary, you should at least have a bit of enlightened self-interest in these nasty little undemocratic and unAmerican processes.
phazed0
(745 posts)We've been screaming about this since at least the Bush Jr. era...
"If you have no sympathy for Hillary, you should at least have a bit of enlightened self-interest in these nasty little undemocratic and unAmerican processes."
Why? She is all for those practices.. voting for her only shows your support for such things. What, you conveniently missed this part?
Hillary's Evasive Views on the NSA
Wikileaks: Hillary Clinton Ordered Diplomats to Spy on UN re: Guantanamo, HIV, & More
Hillary Clinton Calls for More Surveillance to Fight Terror
cstanleytech
(26,297 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)cstanleytech
(26,297 posts)in light of the fact that its an ongoing problem that dates back long before she or even Bill were even in politics.
phazed0
(745 posts)You do realize that there is a difference between what is happening in recent history compared to the BS you posted as rebuttal, right? The NSA has had the power to spy on international calls...
cstanleytech
(26,297 posts)If not though, take care.
phazed0
(745 posts)You like this?
Mohammed_Lee
(38 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,350 posts)We would never have known about this secret FBI request.
Using "Single Secret" is just a way of announcing to the world that they know something, and it's bad, but they're not telling.