quote:

Hillary Clinton apparently kept sending classified information over her personal email after leaving the State Department, according to documents obtained by the Republican National Committee.

The file in question is a May 2013 email Clinton sent from her private account to State Department officials and aides discussing the “123 deal” with the United Arab Emirates.

Much of the message is redacted due to classified information. The markings list the material as “confidential” and say it can only be declassified in 2033...

As reported by the Post, the email came from Clinton’s [email protected] account, and was sent to Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin and others. It was sent months after Clinton left the department...

Republicans seized on the latest finding to once again challenge her trustworthiness with the nation’s secrets.

“Hillary Clinton’s secret server jeopardized our national security and sensitive diplomatic efforts on more than 2,000 occasions, and shockingly, it now appears her reckless conduct continued even after leaving the State Department,” Donald Trump spokesman Jason Miller said in a statement. “Hillary Clinton’s terrible judgment shows she cannot be trusted with our national security.”

Clinton has claimed she never sent material that was classified at the time -- though FBI Director James Comey last month challenged that account, even as his bureau declined to pursue charges over her mishandling of sensitive information.

Regarding the email turned up in the RNC’s Freedom of Information Act request, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said Wednesday that the campaign is investigating.

Meanwhile, the FBI is preparing to release some of the documents from its investigation in a matter of days.

Law enforcement sources told Fox News (oh no comrades, fox news!) that FBI and Justice Department officials are in the process of determining what exactly will be released to the public.

quote:

The phrase “Clinton could not recall” litters the summary of the FBI’s investigation, which concluded in July that she should not face charges. Amid fierce Republican criticism of the Democratic presidential candidate, the party’s nominee, Donald Trump released a statement which said “Hillary Clinton’s answers to the FBI about her private email server defy belief” and added that he did not “understand how she was able to get away from prosecution”.

The FBI documents describe how Monica Hanley, a former Clinton aide, received assistance in spring 2013 from Justin Cooper, a former aide to Bill Clinton, in creating an archive of Hillary Clinton’s emails. Cooper provided Hanley with an Apple MacBook laptop from the Clinton Foundation – the family organisation currently embroiled in controversy – and talked her through the process of transferring emails from Clinton’s private server to the laptop and a thumb drive.


“Hanley completed this task from her personal residence,” the notes record. The devices were intended to be stored at Clinton’s homes in New York and Washington. However, Hanley “forgot” to provide the archive laptop and thumb drive to Clinton’s staff.

In early 2014, Hanley located the laptop at her home and tried to transfer the email archive to an IT company, apparently without success. It appears the emails were then transferred to an unnamed person’s personal Gmail account and there were problems around Apple software not being compatible with that of Microsoft.

The unnamed person “told the FBI that, after the transfer was complete, he deleted the emails from the archive laptop but did not wipe the laptop. The laptop was then put in the mail, only to go missing. [Redacted] told the FBI that she never received the laptop from [redacted]; however, she advised that Clinton’s staff was moving offices at the time, and it would have been easy for the package to get lost during the transition period.

“Neither Hanley nor [redacted] could identify the current whereabouts of the archive laptop or thumb drive containing the archive, and the FBI does not have either item in its possession.”...

The FBI identified a total of 13 mobile devices associated with Clinton’s two known phone numbers that potentially were used to send emails using clintonemail.com addresses...

Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, and Hanley “indicated the whereabouts of Clinton’s devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device”, the documents state. “Cooper did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton’s old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer.”

[this next paragraph is rich!]

The notes also contain a string of admissions by Clinton about points she did not know or could not recall: “When asked about the email chain containing ‘(C)’ portion markings that state determined to currently contain CONFIDENTIAL information, Clinton stated that she did not know what the ‘(C)’ meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.”...

Clinton was aware she was an original classification authority at the state department, but again “could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by state. Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined.”...

Clinton’s critics seized on the latest revelations. Trump’s full statement read: “Hillary Clinton’s answers to the FBI about her private email server defy belief. I was absolutely shocked to see that her answers to the FBI stood in direct contradiction to what she told the American people. After reading these documents, I really don’t understand how she was able to get away from prosecution.”

Jason Miller, senior communications adviser to Trump, said: “Hillary Clinton is applying for a job that begins each day with a top secret intelligence briefing, and the notes from her FBI interview reinforce her tremendously bad judgment and dishonesty.

“Clinton’s secret email server was an end run around government transparency laws that wound up jeopardizing our national security and sensitive diplomatic efforts.”

He added: “Clinton’s reckless conduct and dishonest attempts to avoid accountability show she cannot be trusted with the presidency and its chief obligation as commander-in-chief of the US armed forces.”

The House speaker, Paul Ryan, said: “These documents demonstrate Hillary Clinton’s reckless and downright dangerous handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. They also cast further doubt on the justice department’s decision to avoid prosecuting what is a clear violation of the law. This is exactly why I have called for her to be denied access to classified information.”

Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee, said: “The FBI’s summary of their interview with Hillary Clinton is a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency. Clinton’s answers either show she is completely incompetent or blatantly lied to the FBI or the public.

“Either way it’s clear that, through her own actions, she has disqualified herself from the presidency.”...

[ah one could hope]

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"cringe" is a really appropriate word when it comes to her isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Oh, I wouldn't say that undertail. After all, your compulsions always make you have to have the last word. That's entertainment enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

i have noticed that some folks find his rabid frothing and incoherent ranting "entertaining" also.

I rather find them a sad testament to his critical thinking skills and blind partisanship, and at times, his basic humanity.

quote:

Last week's 58-page, bombshell FBI report partially detailing the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of multiple private email servers while Secretary of State, didn't make the scandal go away but instead has prompted more questions for the Democrat presidential nominee.

“In reviewing those files, the Committee identified a sequence of events that may amount to obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence by Secretary Clinton and her employees and contractors, including her attorneys, employees of Platte River Networks, and employees of Clinton Executive Services Corporation," a letter sent Tuesday to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz states.

“In light of this information, the Department should investigate and determine whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statutes that prohibit destruction of records, obstruction of congressional inquiries, and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation.”

Essentially, Chaffetz is asking if evidence was deleted under subpoena.

The letter includes a timeline of document requests and subpoenas from the Oversight Committee, the Benghazi Select Committee and the response from Clinton and her staff.

A letter was also sent to Platte River Networks, the company responsible for hosting Clinton's private email servers.

“In brief, the summaries of the FBI’s interviews with a PRN engineer show that within days of a conference call with Secretary Clinton’s lawyers, the engineer deleted archives of Secretary Clinton’s emails, despite knowing those records were covered by preservation orders and a subpoena from Congress," a separate letter from the Committee states. "The sequence of events leading up to the destruction of Secretary Clinton’s emails… raises questions about whether Secretary Clinton, acting through her attorneys, instructed PRN to destroy records relevant to the then-ongoing congressional investigations.”

Byron York points out that based on the evidence presented in the FBI report and the timeline of events with Clinton's email deletion, it is likely staffer deleted emails while under subpoena from Congress. The letter from Chaffetz officially makes that inquiry.

The incomplete records of the Hillary Clinton email investigation released by the FBI raise questions about the conduct not only of Clinton but of her top aides and the staffers working under their direction. Perhaps the most serious is whether the Clinton team destroyed evidence which they were under legal order to save and produce to congressional investigators.

Even with the fragments now public — the Clinton 302, the overview report, but none of the many other witness interviews — it seems fair to conclude that staff on the Clinton team destroyed material that was under subpoena. Whether that was unwitting, or whether it was something else, is not known, at least publicly.

In recent weeks, the Committee also asked the USADC to look into why Clinton attorneys, who sorted through her emails, were handling classified information when they didn't have proper security clearance to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Oh, I wouldn't say that undertail. After all, your compulsions always make you have to have the last word. That's entertainment enough.

Well, you know wilburtheshiteater, it isnt my compulsions that make this townhallnutsuckerslobberblogfest run 86 pages, I just point out that you nutsuckers cant miss any opportunity to felch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Oh, I wouldn't say that undertail. After all, your compulsions always make you have to have the last word. That's entertainment enough.

Well, you know wilburtheshiteater, it isnt my compulsions that make this townhallnutsuckerslobberblogfest run 86 pages, I just point out that you nutsuckers cant miss any opportunity to felch.

Pretty much 86 pages and you can't help your compulsion. Hehe.

quote:

For months Americans wondered whether the FBI, led by Director James Comey, would take down the most corrupt woman in the history of American politics, Hillary Clinton.

As it turns out, Hillary Clinton took down the FBI.

According to new documents from the FBI's investigation of Clinton, the agency was fully aware that Clinton lied when she said she set up a private server in order to utilize one Blackberry device -- she used 13 mobile devices and two phone numbers. The FBI knew that Clinton's aides destroyed old Blackberrys by cracking them in half or hitting them with a hammer. The FBI knew full well that Clinton had passed classified information over her private server -- she admitted that she didn't even know how classified information worked, instead stating that she thought the "C" appearing at the top of documents probably had something to do with alphabetizing files. The FBI recognized that Clinton wiped her server after a New York Times article revealed her private sever and email use; that she brought her Blackberry into a secure State Department area; that she never turned over nearly 18,000 work-related emails; that she discussed an undercover asset on the server and put his family in danger; and that she refused to take Blackberrys from the State Department out of fear they could be discoverable under Freedom of Information Act requests.

That's not all.

The FBI also allowed Clinton aide Cheryl Mills to act as Clinton's lawyer during her FBI hearing, even though Mills was a material witness. In doing so, the agency granted Mills legal privilege where none existed. And the FBI didn't bother asking Clinton whether she intended to hide information. Officials gave her the benefit of the doubt every single step of the way.

And then the FBI recommended to the Department of Justice that she not be indicted.

The fix was in.

The press seems sanguine about the possibility of Clinton in the White House. That's bizarre given her corruption. It's even more bizarre when you consider that she has now undermined Americans' trust in the chief domestic intelligence agency in the country, making it a laughingstock and a political Hackey Sack. Director Comey entered this investigation well-liked and well-respected across the political aisle. He will exit having destroyed his reputation for honesty on the shoals of Clinton's lies.

There is no excuse for Clinton escaping charges. Not one. The FBI's own documents prove that she took action that you would only take if you were attempting to obstruct justice, destroy evidence and lie to law enforcement. And yet the FBI, as a wing of the Obama White House, went out of its way to ensure that the Democratic presidential candidate would evade prosecution. That means it lacks basic legitimacy.

It's not the only agency the Obama administration has exposed as a political hammer. It has corrupted the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services. The list is nearly endless. No wonder so many Americans seem willing to turn to a man who promises to burn the entire structure down, Donald Trump. There's little worth saving here, unless you're a Democrat [read, "shameless comrade"] hoping to uphold the integrity of institutions dedicated to preserving scandal-ridden Democrats.

quote:

On Sept. 2, the FBI released a lengthy explanation of its investigation of Hillary Clinton and a summary of the evidence amassed against her. It also released a summary of Clinton's July FBI interrogation.

The interrogation was in some respects standard and in others very troubling. It was standard in that she was confronted with emails she had sent or received and was asked whether she recalled them, and her judgment about them was challenged. The FBI was looking for gross negligence in her behavior about securing state secrets.

The failure to secure state secrets that have been entrusted to one for safekeeping is known as espionage, and espionage is the rare federal crime that does not require prosecutors to prove the defendant's intent. They need only prove the defendant's gross negligence.

At one point during the interrogation, FBI agents attempted to trick her, as the law permits them to do. Before the interrogation began, agents took the hard copy of an innocuous email Clinton had sent to an aide and marked it "secret." Then, at her interrogation, they asked Clinton whether she recognized the email and its contents. She said she did not recognize it, but she questioned the "secret" denomination and pointed out to the agents that nothing remotely secret was in the email.

By examining the contents of the email to see whether it contained state secrets, which it clearly did not, Clinton demonstrated an awareness of the law -- namely, that it is the contents of a document or email that cause it to be protected by federal secrecy statutes, not the denomination put on it by the sender.

This added to the case against her because she later told the FBI that she had never paid attention to whether a document contained state secrets or not. In the strange world of espionage prosecution, this denial of intent is an admission of guilt, as it is profoundly the job of the secretary of state to recognize state secrets and to keep them in their secure government-protected venues, and the grossly negligent failure to do so is criminal.

The FBI notes of the interrogation recount that Clinton professed serious memory lapses 39 times. She also professed ignorance over what "C" means in the margin of a government document. "C" in the margin means "confidential," which is one of the three levels of federal state secrets. The other two levels are "secret" and "top secret." Under federal law, Clinton was required to keep in secure government venues all documents in those three categories. The FBI found that she had failed to do so hundreds of times.

By denying that she had paid attention to notes in margins designating the presence of secrets, by denying that she recognized a secret when she saw one and by denying that the location of planned drone strikes is secret (an obvious secret with which FBI agents confronted her), she succeeded in avoiding incriminating herself.

But by saving herself from indictment, she may have doomed her campaign for president. In this dangerous world, how can a person seeking the presidency be so dumb or ignorant or indifferent or reckless or deceptive about what is a secret and what is not?

The records released last week also reveal that the FBI must have been restrained from the outset from conducting an aggressive investigation. It did not present any evidence to a grand jury. It did not ask a grand jury for any subpoenas, and hence it didn't serve any.

It did not ask a judge for any search warrants, and hence it didn't serve any. The data and hardware it gathered in the case were given to it in response to simple requests it made.

I counted five times in the report where the FBI lamented that it did not have what it needed. This is the FBI's own fault. This tepid FBI behavior is novel in modern federal law enforcement. It is inimical to public safety and the rule of law. It is close to misconduct in office by high-ranking FBI officials.

Someone restrained the FBI.

The FBI did not ask Clinton aggressive follow-up questions. Her interrogators just blithely accepted her answers. They failed to present her with documents she had signed that would have contradicted what she was telling them -- particularly, an oath she signed on her first day in office promising to recognize state secrets when she came upon them and to keep them in secure venues. And agents violated Department of Justice policy by not recording her interrogation when her lawyers told them she would not answer questions if her answers were recorded.

Now the FBI has interjected itself into the presidential campaign by releasing these documents. Notwithstanding the mountain of evidence pointing to Clinton's guilt, it is highly improper and grossly unfair to release evidence gathered against a person who will not be prosecuted.

Moreover, it is tendentious to release only part of the evidence -- only what agents want the public to see -- rather than the complete file.

Yet all this evidence is secret under DOJ regulations. Had any of it been intended for or presented to a grand jury, the release of it would have been criminal.

What happened here? The FBI seriously dropped the ball, and Clinton was more concerned about being indicted than she was about losing the race for the presidency.

It is apparent that some in FBI management blindly followed what they were told to do -- exonerate Hillary Clinton. There is no other explanation for the FBI's failure from the outset to use ordinary law enforcement tools available to it. Yet some in the FBI are not professionally satisfied by this outcome. They know that a strong case for prosecution and for guilt is being ignored for political reasons.

What else do they know?