Hillary and the FBI investigation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI made clear Hillary Clinton is not the target of their investigation, so your whole bullshit premise fails. Republican desperation is showing.

Where do you get this? Link? They most certainly seem be be investigating Hillary and her e-mails.

It's reported in several places that Clinton is not the target of the investigation. Here is one example - http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-prez-clinton-emails-q-and-a-html-htmlstory.html

Can Clinton face criminal charges?
Law enforcement officials have said Clinton is not the target of any criminal investigation and so far, no one has produced evidence that she violated any law.

The FBI has received a "security" referral from the inspectors general and is looking at whether people who sent emails to her may have violated security regulations and whether they exposed U.S. secrets to potential spying by foreign powers. If Clinton received secret information from staff over her personal email, that may have violated security rules, but it might be difficult to show she knew any of the information was classified at the time she received it.

Even a relatively low-level misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified information would require proof that Clinton knew she was keeping government secrets at "an unauthorized location." But she could argue that she didn’t know the information was secret at the time.

In short, the targets of the FBI investigation are (1) anyone who sent an email to Clinton that contained classified info, and ultimately (2) the people at State who provided the classified info to the people who sent it to Clinton, but failed to mark it classified.

The Washington Times (no friend of Clinton) had a pretty detailed piece with sources describing how someone at State looked at classified information on a "gapped" computer (i.e., a computer that is highly protected against intrusion) and copied relevant details from the classified reports into a summary memo, but failed to mark the summary memo classified. That summary memo circulated among various State employees and Clinton's team, before someone ultimately forwarded it to Clinton herself. If that reporting is accurate, then the person who screwed up (and who ultimately faces the biggest risk of criminal charges) is the State Department employee who wrote the original memo without properly citing his classified sources. His error meant that no one reading the memo would know it originally derived from classified materials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI made clear Hillary Clinton is not the target of their investigation, so your whole bullshit premise fails. Republican desperation is showing.

Where do you get this? Link? They most certainly seem be be investigating Hillary and her e-mails.

The FBI is investigating the security of her email system. The investigation was launched after a non-criminal referral from the Justice Department. You can be forgiven for misunderstanding this because the "liberal" New York Times misreported it at the time and most of the media followed its lead. Clinton herself is not a target of the investigation. Of course, none of this means that the FBI couldn't uncover something criminal involving Clinton. But, the FBI can only recommend charges. It is up to the DOJ to press them. In the case of General Petraeus, the FBI recommended much stronger charges than the DOJ decided to bring. So, going by that precedent, Clinton probably has little cause for concern.

Don't quite know how to respond to this. The FBI does not investigate computer servers. They investigate the people who put them together and the folks that communicate on them. HRC may well be as innocent as a newborn lamb on this, but paraphrasing their vendor in Colorado , "This looks like some shaddy shit". We'll see in due time.

They are investigating whether the servers were ever compromised, and whether that might have revealed classified information or otherwise jeopardized national security. If they discover that did happen, the next step will be to determine who is culpable, whether it was intentional or deliberate, etc., and then whether charges should be filed.

I have read that there is more to it than what you think. I know you will question the source, and I am posting it anyway. Catherine Herridge is an excellent reporter.

Three months after Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address and server while secretary of state was referred to the FBI, an intelligence source familiar with the investigation tells Fox News that the team is now focused on whether there were violations of an Espionage Act subsection pertaining to “gross negligence” in the safekeeping of national defense information. Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the “lawful possession” of national defense information by a security clearance holder who “through gross negligence,” such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location. Subsection F also requires the clearance holder “to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. “A failure to do so “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” A former FBI agent, who is not involved in the case, said the inconsistent release of emails, with new documents coming to light from outside accounts, such as that of adviser Sidney Blumenthal, could constitute obstruction. In addition, Clinton’s March statement that there was no classified material on her private server has proven false, after more than 400 emails containing classified information were documented.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425683/fbi-looking-gross-negligence-laws-hillary-server-investigation-jim-geraghty

What exactly am I supposedly missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI made clear Hillary Clinton is not the target of their investigation, so your whole bullshit premise fails. Republican desperation is showing.

Where do you get this? Link? They most certainly seem be be investigating Hillary and her e-mails.

It's reported in several places that Clinton is not the target of the investigation. Here is one example - http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-prez-clinton-emails-q-and-a-html-htmlstory.html

Can Clinton face criminal charges?
Law enforcement officials have said Clinton is not the target of any criminal investigation and so far, no one has produced evidence that she violated any law.

The FBI has received a "security" referral from the inspectors general and is looking at whether people who sent emails to her may have violated security regulations and whether they exposed U.S. secrets to potential spying by foreign powers. If Clinton received secret information from staff over her personal email, that may have violated security rules, but it might be difficult to show she knew any of the information was classified at the time she received it.

Even a relatively low-level misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified information would require proof that Clinton knew she was keeping government secrets at "an unauthorized location." But she could argue that she didn’t know the information was secret at the time.

In short, the targets of the FBI investigation are (1) anyone who sent an email to Clinton that contained classified info, and ultimately (2) the people at State who provided the classified info to the people who sent it to Clinton, but failed to mark it classified.

The Washington Times (no friend of Clinton) had a pretty detailed piece with sources describing how someone at State looked at classified information on a "gapped" computer (i.e., a computer that is highly protected against intrusion) and copied relevant details from the classified reports into a summary memo, but failed to mark the summary memo classified. That summary memo circulated among various State employees and Clinton's team, before someone ultimately forwarded it to Clinton herself. If that reporting is accurate, then the person who screwed up (and who ultimately faces the biggest risk of criminal charges) is the State Department employee who wrote the original memo without properly citing his classified sources. His error meant that no one reading the memo would know it originally derived from classified materials.

Sorry, if Hillary set up this private, unsecured e-mail system and didn't realize she was receiving 400 or so emails that could be classified in nature, she is supremely unqualified to be President.

[Anonymous]

You need to do some reading on how classified info is handled. It is very complex and not easy to spot whether something is classified or not. There are many examples of info freely available on the internet being marked classified, and on inconsistencies in what is deemed classified. Google for any of the agency handbooks on classified info and "derivative" classification, if you really want to understand this stuff.

If you're just looking to beat your chest with specious lines to chant against Clinton, then continue with your ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You need to do some reading on how classified info is handled. It is very complex and not easy to spot whether something is classified or not. There are many examples of info freely available on the internet being marked classified, and on inconsistencies in what is deemed classified. Google for any of the agency handbooks on classified info and "derivative" classification, if you really want to understand this stuff.

If you're just looking to beat your chest with specious lines to chant against Clinton, then continue with your ignorance.

So you're saying this is too complex for Clinton to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to do some reading on how classified info is handled. It is very complex and not easy to spot whether something is classified or not. There are many examples of info freely available on the internet being marked classified, and on inconsistencies in what is deemed classified. Google for any of the agency handbooks on classified info and "derivative" classification, if you really want to understand this stuff.

If you're just looking to beat your chest with specious lines to chant against Clinton, then continue with your ignorance.

So you're saying this is too complex for Clinton to understand?

No, I'm saying what all the government manuals on handling classified information say: It's incredibly difficult and often impossible to know when looking at a document whether it contains classified info. Therefore, the classification rules set up a complex structure of checks to carry classified citations forward as new documents are derived from old ones. Often, only the person creating the document will have ability to know what in it is classified. If you are genuinely interested, read some of the materials. If you do, I suspect you will understand better and agree with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to do some reading on how classified info is handled. It is very complex and not easy to spot whether something is classified or not. There are many examples of info freely available on the internet being marked classified, and on inconsistencies in what is deemed classified. Google for any of the agency handbooks on classified info and "derivative" classification, if you really want to understand this stuff.

If you're just looking to beat your chest with specious lines to chant against Clinton, then continue with your ignorance.

So you're saying this is too complex for Clinton to understand?

No. Many times reasonable people disagree.

[Anonymous]

Why in the world does anyone think Hillary thought this private server was a good idea? What was the motivation? Serious question.

[Anonymous]

Gross negligence.

Her minions' negligence? Or the owner of the server.

[Anonymous]

The Washington Times (no friend of Clinton) had a pretty detailed piece with sources describing how someone at State looked at classified information on a "gapped" computer (i.e., a computer that is highly protected against intrusion) and copied relevant details from the classified reports into a summary memo, but failed to mark the summary memo classified. That summary memo circulated among various State employees and Clinton's team, before someone ultimately forwarded it to Clinton herself. If that reporting is accurate, then the person who screwed up (and who ultimately faces the biggest risk of criminal charges) is the State Department employee who wrote the original memo without properly citing his classified sources. His error meant that no one reading the memo would know it originally derived from classified materials.

Pretty sure that I read awhile back that it was from one of those three people around her (I think it may have been Huma) and was not circulated but sent directly to Clinton. I think it was Steven's schedule for the day in Benghazi (a different trip--not the one around 9/11). It talked about a possible evacuation that day and the procedures. No one with a lick of sense would not know that would be highly classified.

[Anonymous]

^^^^

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/us/politics/first-batch-of-hillary-clinton-emails-captures-concerns-over-libya.html?_r=0

I think this is the "cut and paste" letter. There are others, too. Pretty sure it is not good for Huma. Don't see how this would just be "sensitive".......

[Anonymous]

Pinning your hopes on another investigation turning up some smoking gun... It's both funny and sad at the same time.

Maybe instead of trying to take Clinton down, y'all could work on figuring out what the GOP can offer America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/us/politics/first-batch-of-hillary-clinton-emails-captures-concerns-over-libya.html?_r=0

I think this is the "cut and paste" letter. There are others, too. Pretty sure it is not good for Huma. Don't see how this would just be "sensitive".......

.

Gee, if is its so bad for Huma, why didn't Gowdy show up when the committee questioned her today? He has a pretty odd pattern of attending these session, apparently. Of 53, he's gone to just 10 and it's always when Hillary's people are there. Not today, granted, but Blumenthal, Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, et al. But when it's top intelligence officials or Benghazi survivors, he doesn't go. Why is that? I mean, since the sole purpose of the committee is to learn the truth about what happened in Benghazi, you'd think he'd attend those sessions.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/562125ffe4b069b4e1fbe59e?4zuuwhfr

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^^
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/us/politics/first-batch-of-hillary-clinton-emails-captures-concerns-over-libya.html?_r=0

I think this is the "cut and paste" letter. There are others, too. Pretty sure it is not good for Huma. Don't see how this would just be "sensitive"......

This article explicitly says it wasn't classified. If this is what the FBI is investigating, it's an even bigger waste of time than anyone expected.

[Anonymous]

I found this interesting.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamas-comments-hillary-clintons-email-143500810.html