Hillary Clinton was questioned this morning for three and a half hours by the FBI regarding the agency’s criminal investigation into her use of a private email server for official correspondence while secretary of state. The questioning was conducted at the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign statement:
Clinton “is pleased to have had the opportunity to assist the Department of Justice in bringing this review to a conclusion” campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement.
Hillary Clinton is not assisting the Department of Justice in any “review”. She is the principle subject in the FBI’s criminal investigation.
Hillary Clinton continues to lie to her gullible followers.
On May 11, 2016, FBI Director Comey confirmed for reporters that the FBI does not do “security reviews or inquiries”. The FBI does criminal investigations.
Video could emerge tomorrow of her clubbing baby seals, stealing kids lunch money, and setting fire to puppies and it wouldn't matter. Most of the media wouldn't cover it, and her supporters would say its a conspiracy. She could take the oath of office from behind jail bars, and they'd cheer. Better get used to the likely fact that she's gonna be the next President.
Video could emerge tomorrow of her clubbing baby seals, stealing kids lunch money, and setting fire to puppies and it wouldn't matter. Most of the media wouldn't cover it, and her supporters would say its a conspiracy. She could take the oath of office from behind jail bars, and they'd cheer. Better get used to the likely fact that she's gonna be the next President.
Probably so. This election will serve to prove just how f&%$#&g ignorant the voting populace truly is.
At this point Hillary and Donald supporters are not going to be changing sides. If either of these two do it for you - then vote for them.
Personally, I am long ago disgusted by the antics, shenanigans and politics of those two. Neither the Republican or Democratic party speak to, for or about me. I'm voting for the Libertarian, Gary Johnson. He addresses issues and speaks calmly. Aside from calling Trump a pu$$y (to the delight of most everybody), he has not engaged in the level of $hit-slinging that the "big two" candidate have. There is no way I'd vote for either of the two major a$$holes.
I'm voting for the Libertarian, Gary Johnson.
Will he be included in ANY of the debates?
Will he be included in ANY of the debates?
So far, no, but there is hope. You need to be at least 15% in the polls to be included. Right now he is at about 10%.
Much depends on timing.
If a grand jury is impaneled prior to the Democratic Party convention Hilary Clinton is done.
Obama, The DNC and Democratic Party Elites know this and a “plan b” is probably already in place. The three named also have complete control over who will be their party’s nominee and none of them will allow Bernie Sander to be the nominee.
One would think that Obama, The DNC and Democratic Party Elites want the Hillary Clinton situation dealt with prior to their convention (July 25 – 28). Enter Joe Biden with Elizabeth Warren on the ticket… maybe.
Hillary was to hit the campaign trail next week with Obama and Joe Biden. Look for a change in scheduling.
Something has to give soon. FBI agents are livid about Bill Clinton’s secret (and improper) meeting Monday with Atty. Gen. Lynch.
The Sunday newspapers and talk shows should be fun to read and watch on how this is spun and who does the speaking and who does not.
There really should be a soundtrack for this show. We might want to go with an instrumental.
Nothing will happen. Trust in the ruling class will continue to erode.
Nothing will happen. Trust in the ruling class will continue to erode.
_______________________________________________________________________
A strong chance you are exactly right.
The liberals have no sense on country, the law and doing the right thing is nothing more than a catch phrase.
For reasons unacceptable to me, corruption, lying and putting our country at risk are concepts the left could not care less about.
Anybody notice that many democrats are now openly expressing concern about Hillary Clinton's crimes?
A sad commentary on the state of America on The Fourth of July.
c#ntservative cry-babys
how about: Innocent, until PROVEN GUILTY.
Yup, her supporters will accept anything.
Here computer specialist - Bryan Pagliano - who maintained her email server, takes the 5th over 100 times in recent testimony. But there's nothing here folks. Move on, nothing to see here....
c#ntservative cry-babys
Yup, her supporters will accept anything.
Here computer specialist - Bryan Pagliano - who maintained her email server, takes the 5th over 100 times in recent testimony. But there's nothing here folks. Move on, nothing to see here....
And NOTHING has come from it.
When James Comey speaks, I'll listen. Until then, I'd discount whatever (positive or negative) is posted post on this site.
One only needs to go back to March of 2004 to witness the George Bush, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales showdown with Comey in Ashcroft's hospital room re: secret surveillance programs. Comey is a man beholden to no political party.
When Comey & company speak one way or the other, then it's time to listen to someone truly in the know.
c#ntservative cry-babys
Yup, her supporters will accept anything.
Here computer specialist - Bryan Pagliano - who maintained her email server, takes the 5th over 100 times in recent testimony. But there's nothing here folks. Move on, nothing to see here....
And NOTHING has come from it.
"I always try to tell the truth"
Hahahahahaha!
FBI Director Comey has already spoken.
On May 11, 2016, FBI Director Comey confirmed for reporters that the FBI does not do “security reviews or inquiries”. The FBI does criminal investigations.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/sorry-hillary-fbi-director-confirms-clinton -email-investigation-not-security-review/
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly said The FBi was conducting a “security review” then she changed that to “security inquiry”. Reporters asked Dir. Comey and he confirmed that Hillary Clinton was lying.
FBI Director Comey has also publically confirmed many times at news conferences that The FBI is conducting two criminal investigations into Hillary Clinton. One criminal investigation is into her illegal use of a private, non-secure email server which contained thousands on classified documents, the other is a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton corruption involving their Clinton Foundation.
The State Department and The Justice Department have been stonewalling the document releases directly related to the Clinton Foundation corruption activity. A federal judge, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, has lost patience with that cover up and ordered The State Department to produce the documents by July 21st.
On Wednesday June 29th, two days after Bill Clinton met privately with Atty. Gen Lynch, The State Department filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a 27 month delay in complying with Judge Contreras’ order.
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras was placed on the Federal District Court by Obama.
The U.S. District Court for The District of Columbia Emmet G. Sullivan is handling the Hillary Clinton email crimes case.
The court proceedings, transcripts and orders for the two judges are publically available via The U.S. District Court for The District of Columbia.
You won’t find the mainstream media covering much of the two criminal investigations or the stonewalling and cover up by The State Department and The Justice Department. It simply doesn’t fit their political agenda.
However, anyone with even the most basic skills of sourcing information can read it all for themselves.
When James Comey speaks, I'll listen. Until then, I'd discount whatever (positive or negative) is posted post on this site.
One only needs to go back to March of 2004 to witness the George Bush, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales showdown with Comey in Ashcroft's hospital room re: secret surveillance programs. Comey is a man beholden to no political party.
When Comey & company speak one way or the other, then it's time to listen to someone truly in the know.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/what-the-ashcroft-hospital-showdown-on-nsa-spying-was-all-about//blockquote >
________________________________________________________________________You forgot to mention that on Dec. 19, 1998 the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice.
Both offenses are common in the Clinton’s almost three decades of criminal activity.
c#ntservative cry-babys
Yup, her supporters will accept anything.
Here computer specialist - Bryan Pagliano - who maintained her email server, takes the 5th over 100 times in recent testimony. But there's nothing here folks. Move on, nothing to see here....
And NOTHING has come from it.
Like they say in the opera, it ain't over till the fat lady sings, and the conventions are still to come. IF Trump becomes the Republican nominee things might change. If he doesn't he may be pissed off enough he vows to fight till their is impeachment of the future Madam President. He's not just going to go away with his tail between his legs and he may get some bi-partisan support, I don't think Bernie is waving the Hillary flag.
[Edited on 7/3/2016 by gina]
HC is running for President; not BC - although small minded individuals would want to make this election about BC.
The previously mentioned post referenced Jim Comey due to his decision making in an attempted illegal action during the George Bush Presidency. It goes to Comey's character. One would expect the same level of professionalism in the current case looked at by Comey & team. Let the chips fall one way or the other. Until then there is nothing but speculation, because no one can speak to the facts that are in the hands of the FBI; certainly not anyone on this site.
If Comey's team finds that HC broke the law, I'm fine with this finding.
If Comey's team finds that HC didn't break the law, I'm fine with this finding.
[Edited on 7/3/2016 by MartinD28]
Let the chips fall one way or the other. Until then there is nothing but speculation, because no one can speak to the facts that are in the hands of the FBI; certainly not anyone on this site.
If Comey's team finds that HC broke the law, I'm fine with this finding.
If Comey's team finds that HC didn't break the law, I'm fine with this finding.
Exactly. That's all there is to it until a final report is issued.
Anyone still holding their breath?
Let the chips fall one way or the other. Until then there is nothing but speculation, because no one can speak to the facts that are in the hands of the FBI; certainly not anyone on this site.
If Comey's team finds that HC broke the law, I'm fine with this finding.
If Comey's team finds that HC didn't break the law, I'm fine with this finding.
Exactly. That's all there is to it until a final report is issued.
________________________________________________________________________
A "final report" has nothing to do with these criminal cases are all about.
The FBI will either make a make a criminal referral to The DOJ or not.
At that point if they do any reputable DOJ would impanel a Grand Jury and seek indictment.
I see alloak is posting selfies again. 😛
Huma Abedin admits that Clinton burned daily schedules
By Daniel Halper - Published July 04, 2016 - New York Post
http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/
State Department under fire for Clinton-related records delays
Published July 05, 2016 - Associated Press
FBI Director Comey will make a statement at 11:00am and then take questions from reporters on camera.
Care to guess the subject of those questions?
FBI Director Comey: No evidence Clinton's work-related emails were intentionally deleted
Comey: There is evidence that Clinton and allies were "extremely careless" w/ handling sensitive information
FBI Director Comey: None of Clinton's emails should have been on any unclassified system
FBI Director Comey: "It is possible that hostile actors gained access" to Clinton's email account
FBI director James Comey: "I can assure the American people this investigation was done honestly, competently and independently."
FBI Director Comey: Our view is no charges in Clinton email investigation
[Edited on 7/5/2016 by LeglizHemp]
[Edited on 7/5/2016 by LeglizHemp]
[Edited on 7/5/2016 by LeglizHemp]
[Edited on 7/5/2016 by LeglizHemp]
[Edited on 7/5/2016 by LeglizHemp]
You can read Comey’s full statement below:
Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.
After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.
This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.
I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.
So, first, what we have done:
The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.
Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.
I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.
For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.
FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.
With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”
I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.
It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.
The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.
It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.
And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.
Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:
In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.
Comey has spoken. I said last week I'm comfortable with whatever legal conclusion he came to. I'm waiting for those who have for months indicated she would be indicted to question Comey's integrity.
Trump, the leader of the GOP said a few days ago on his Twitter account, “Impossible for the FBI not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.
Guess we can add this to a long list of things where Donald got it wrong. Does Donald know something Comey doesn't? Trump has said he knows more than the Generals. Maybe Trump also knows more than the Director Of The FBI?
Time to move on to the next thing.
Time to manufacture another phony scandal!. I heard Hillary kicked a dog once as a 10 year old 😮
Time for a few more Benghazi hearings. That horse has been beaten to death, but not yet turned to glue.
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
The key paragraph. Apparently it was decided in this case that the absence of intent wins out. No
matter how much harm can result from your actions, if no harm was intended, no problem. Not sure
this is the best message to send to the public and us ordinary citizens, but it is what it is.
