Sources: "FBI - no evidence that Hillary willfully mishandled information" re email server. CNN

[applegrove]

[stevenleser]

1. And pop goes that wishful thinking balloon. Sad that some folks here went there. nt

[AgingAmerican]

4. The source for the claim must have also popped

Cuz it isn't

[stevenleser]

12. Nope, its easy to find on the CNN website. Here it is...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/index.html

.
.
.
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]

13. So they have found no evidence she 'willfully' broke the law

Instead of "Found no evidence she broke the law"?

Hmmmm......

And it doesn't say the FBI said it.

[stevenleser]

15. The OP had it right. Not sure what the confusion is. nt

[AgingAmerican]

19. Where does it say the FBI said this?

It says, " U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN"

This isn't from the FBI, sorry.

[stevenleser]

20. Read the first paragraph again a few times. You'll get it. nt

[AgingAmerican]

26. I just quoted from the first paragraph

And nowhere does it say this is from the FBI.

&quot 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]

34. So annoying. Please stop.......

[AgingAmerican]

41. It probably is annoying to be proven wrong

When they are so adamant otherwise...

[kerry-is-my-prez]

48. I'm referring to your mosquito-like buzzing. I really don't care about who's proven wrong or right.

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]

49. Then perhaps you shouldn't visit internet forums....

Cuz this is how they work.

[Control-Z]

90. At least we know one of the cheerleaders for Hillary's demise

They want it so badly it consumes them.

[pnwmom]

24. These laws require intent. So if she didn't intend to break them, she didn't. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

27. Like manslaughter?

AND nowhere in the article does it say the FBI said any of this.....

[pnwmom]

30. No. Not like manslaughter. Manslaughter doesn't require intent, but these laws do. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

32. Nowhere in the article does it claim the FBI said any of this

[pnwmom]

38. You're right. The FBI reports to the US govt., and anonymous US officials are saying this. nt

[AgingAmerican]

40. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a US official

Nuff said...

[pnwmom]

42. Why would the FBI be briefing DWS on the investigation? According to CNN

the US officials had been briefed on the investigation. I can't imagine DWS being on a briefing list.

[AgingAmerican]

44. Because she is head of the Democratic Party and a congresswoman

Why should we believe these 'anonymous officials' were ever briefed in the first place?

[pnwmom]

46. Because CNN is staking its reputation on the story, and I think it still cares

about getting it right.

[AgingAmerican]

47. ROFL

Now THATS funny!

[pnwmom]

50. What is funny

are the people here who are grieving at the idea that Hillary won't be prosecuted for anything.

[AgingAmerican]

51. That CNN has integrity

[pnwmom]

61. It doesn't hinge on their integrity. They don't want to look like fools

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]

67. It's CNN

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]

79. Oh for God's sake. I've read this "conversation" you're having and you're willfully avoiding the

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]

81. Probably because, for there to be a violation of the law

in question it had to have been done wilfully. No evidence anything was done wilfully = not guilty.

[Autumn]

36. 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. Bless your heart stevenleser but words have meaning.

investigation is still ongoing, haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton

. See those fragments of that article? Here's the short version for you, Clinton is the subject of the investigation, and it's ongoing. Hillary can give all the fucking interviews she wants, it don't change a damn thing.

[COLGATE4]

82. By definition it's "ongoing" until it's closed. If they haven't found any evidence

of wilful misconduct by now it's highly unlikely that they will.

[Autumn]

83. The investigation is still ongoing.

[Autumn]

2. That came for the FBI? Got a link to the

FBI actually saying that?

[applegrove]

3. Sorry. Sources. Will change it.

[Autumn]

8. I saw Hillary's spokesman saying that on a news report but nothing from the FBI.

[CoffeeCat]

5. An FBI official didn't say it

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]

11. I saw a Hillary spokesman saying that on a news channel, so I guess he

qualifies as a "US official". If I remember correctly the FBI suggested the White House should make no comments on this.

[AgingAmerican]

21. Isn't Debbie Wasserman Schultz technically a 'US Official'?

[CoffeeCat]

31. If that "US Official" is a spinmeister from the Clinton camp

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]

74. I'd be amazed if it's not someone tied to the Clinton campaign.

Interesting timing. Guccifer's talking, someone's planting bullshit "she's been cleared" stories... sounds like something's about to go down.

[xloadiex]

78. Yeah

Like Clinton herself.

[Lars39]

56. I do believe we're being inoculated.

If true, most blatant case I've seen in a long time.

[pat_k]

6. No surprise regarding "intent." Unfortunately, that's not the only factor.

The likelihood of an indictment is not zero. The chances may be tiny, but factors other than intent may come into play.

Nathan Sales, an associate law professor at Syracuse University, disagrees with Lowell's and others' assessment. "Many scholars and lawyers think it's unlikely. I'm actually kind of in the minority on this," Sales says. "But, based on what we do know so far, I think there is a not insignificant chance that a grand jury could look at the facts and say, 'Actually, she may have violated various laws protecting classified information.'"

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]

84. So an associate Prof at some law school takes a

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]

89. My bad. Subsequently learned he's a Republican hack.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1908787

[COLGATE4]

93. You didn't know and neither did I. But it sounds right.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Bernie Sanders will never be President

Go cry into your pillows, Indictment Wishers.

[KingFlorez]

9. Emphasis on NEVER!

That point needs to be driven home.

[CoffeeCat]

18. Nobody is wishing for an indictment

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]

10. "I am not a crook" -- Richard Milhouse Nixon nt

[dinkytron]

14. not willfully, just ignorantly.

[polly7]

16. If Bill Clinton pardoned someone else for the exact same thing, how could it have

been ignorantly though?

[pnwmom]

22. Who did Bill pardon for what exactly? n/t

[polly7]

25. Bill Clinton pardoned CIA chief John Deutch for classified docs on home computers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280191569

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]

28. There has never been any evidence that Hillary stored then-classified documents on her computer,

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]

37. Sure it is. nt.

[COLGATE4]

87. Now THAT's a killer argument.

"'Cause I said so". Got it.

[Press Virginia]

57. You know that server, where she kept all of her e-mails? It's essentially the same thing

and certainly not authorized for storing classified information

And it's not retroactive. It's the first time they've been seen

[pnwmom]

59. Are you aware that she had a SCIF system both at home and at work

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]

62. If she had a SCIF, those TS e-mails wouldn't have been on her server, furthermore

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]

64. There were no emails marked secret or top secret on her server, according to credible reports.

Please provide a link for your claim about the "IC IG." I think you're just repeating a Rethug story.

[Press Virginia]

65. It ain't classified because it's marked

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 government’s 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]

71. General I. Charles Mccullough is a partisan hack. His claims are just claims,

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]

72. They don't NEED to be marked classified to be

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]

76. Hillary was the utmost authority for deciding what needed to be classified or not

while she was head of the agency.

IG didn't have higher authority over Hillary -- only President Obama did.

[Press Virginia]

77. Not when the sources are the intelligence community

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]

68. Excuse the source but it has the actual letter

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]

73. He's just blowing smoke. For example, some of this secret information

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]

75. Drone information is SAP even if it appears

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]

69. And from WaPo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/19/intelligence-community-watchdog-reconfirms-that-dozens-of-clinton-emails-were-classified/

[Yupster]

105. My question has always been

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]

23. You are correct. Thanks.

[COLGATE4]

86. Because it wasn't the same thing?

[COLGATE4]

85. Wilfully= guilty. Ignorantly = innocent.

[pmorlan1]

17. Anonymous Source

from who knows where and yet so many here on DU running with it like it was the FBI who said it.

[JoePhilly]

100. Kind of like every attack on Hillary.

[CentralCoaster]

29. Willfully isn't the threshold. Carelessly is crime enough.

Willfully would be worse.

[COLGATE4]

88. Care to cite to the law that says that???

[CentralCoaster]

91. How about three laws? 2009 Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

1. Mishandling Classified Information

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 Department’s 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 we’re the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs,’ Arends said of his group’s Benghazi-related request.”

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/

[COLGATE4]

92. I'd like you to point out where you find that

29." Willfully isn't the threshold. Carelessly is crime enough"

[CentralCoaster]

94. Nowhere does the law say that malicious intent is an element. Another description of her crimes:

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.

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”

The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?

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; it’s 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 there’s 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]

95. Now you're just making shit up. "Careless and wilful - a distinction without a difference".

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]

104. Ummmm.

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]

33. bern

It looks like the bernie bunker will have to come up with new material.

[ucrdem]

35. I love the smell of flop sweat in the evening.

[nc4bo]

39. What sources? Blowflies on the wall? nt

[mcar]

43. And there we have it

Can we stop pushing this meme here now?

[rhett o rick]

45. Who are you quoting? Unnamed US Officials? As told to CNN.

" (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]

52. GREAT! Now we know she's not a traitor...

Now let's see if she's a felon....

Survey Says....

[bobbobbins01]

53. Is this another one of those press releases the Clinton Campaign sent out?

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]

54. LOL! More unsourced spin.

Sorry, PR isn't news. Let us know when the FBI or DoJ reports in.

[rhett o rick]

55. Wait, they were paraphrasing an unnamed source that told someone that

the FBI hadn't something or other. It's the new journalism of the oligarchy.

[Waiting For Everyman]

58. IKR, and the new fact-free Dem party,

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]

63. They totally under estimate the power of the People that have come out

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]

70. Bernie and the Peasants. Formerly known as We the People.

The Royal Wannabe Families...who's your daddy or husband or brother...they have to Earn It.

[farleftlib]

60. OMG!!!11!! There's been an FBI leak on an ongoing investigation??

Oh no, there hasn't. They don't do that.

[BlueStateLib]

98. Attorney general blasts FBI leaks in Clinton email probe

Attorney General Loretta Lynch condemned the anonymous release of information about the FBI probe of Hillary Clinton's private emails during a Justice Department press conference Monday.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/attorney-general-blasts-fbi-leaks-in-clinton-email-probe/article/2573456

[Nanjeanne]

66. Great. So I guess it's just lousy judgement. Nothing criminal.

[d_legendary1]

80. So the Clinton News Network is using anonymous sources

to clear HRC's name without input from the investigating bodies. Seems legit.

[itsrobert]

96. "Clinton News Network"

Funny, that's what Freerepublic and the right has been calling CNN for over a couple decades.

[Hekate]

97. What a shock

[pdsimdars]

99. That is not so. I doubt it. There have been many facts to come out and that is not what they show

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]

101. ...Well. As if I didn't have /enough/ reasons to not trust the government.

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]

102. The indictment fairy has been hit!!!!!

Crash landing likely!!

Search for debris underway!!

[DCBob]

103. I hope those here on DU who have been relentlessly arguing Hillary was guilty of some crime..

will finally admit they were wrong and apologize to those of us who have been relentlessly arguing she was innocent.