CDZ FBI Recommends No Charges Against Mrs. Clinton...but what it says creates political drama...AWKWARD

[320 Years of History]

FBI Director Comey announced the FBI is not recommending criminal charges be brought against Mrs. Clinton in connection with her email handling while she was Secretary of State. That's good news for Mrs. Clinton, and it's the "be all end all" to the investigation into the matter. When one considers the rest of what he said in his announcement of that final decision, it may as well be considered "damning with faith praise."

Here's what he said:

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.
​

So what's all that mean?

• It means Mrs. Clinton avoids prosecution.
• It means that Mrs. Clinton was wrong about having turned over her emails, but per Mr. Comey's remarks above, it was simple error not malfeasance.
• It may mean she is a less-good Presidential candidate.
• It definitely means the GOP have plenty to say about her judgement about the handling of emails.
• It means Trump will tweet about all sorts of correlations with regard to other events and persons that don't actually correlate to the "Clinton email" matter.
• It means the Clinton campaign will be "bobbing and weaving" for months to refute whatever fallacious accusations get made by the opposition.

What I think right now:

• I think politically, things may have been better politically speaking were charges recommended, not because I think Mrs. Clinton should be charged, but because an indictment being recommended would almost certainly result in Sen. Sanders becoming the Democratic nominee.
• Bernie Sanders' efforts to garner the Democratic Presidential nomination may not fold.
• I think people will debate whether the FBI was right about there being no intent on Mrs. Clinton's part to break the law or to withhold emails (obstruct justice), but I know, at least for the moment, they'll be doing so without the benefit of the information the FBI examined.
  • Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly said her email handling was a mistake and she has apologized for it.
  • Mrs. Clinton stated she didn't intentionally send/receive classified emails.
• "Flexible" Principles -- I know too that the people who routinely "go with" the principle of "charged or accused but not formally charged, therefore guilty," hypocritically/conveniently will discard that principle in consideration of this matter and not "go with" "not charged, therefore not-guilty." Some examples may be found in discussions noted below. I'm sure if one looks in the Politics subforum, one can find plenty of instances where folks assign or conclude one is at fault/wrong/guilty absent a trial and conviction:
  • CDZ - Guilty until proven innocent. Is that really where we are as a nation?
    
  • CDZ - Is There a Solution to The Failed Corrupt US Justice System?
  • AP reporting Hillary did not turn over email...Preempting the Wikileaks email dump
    
  • CDZ - Trump and Narcissism...How is it we've not heard much about this in the news???

He states this in the beginning...

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.


Goes on to list there was improperly stored, transmitted and deleted classified information on several personal systems...so improperly handled that is more likely than not that foreign governments got that information.....

And he will not push for charges......

Remember.....

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.


What did comey say again?

making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,

I know what Dir. Comey said; I posted his remarks from this morning's press conference in the OP. I don't know why, with the OP quoted in your post, you have asked, "What did comey [sic] say again?"

Probably a retorical question!

Off Topic:
Perhaps so. I can't tell; I see only a sentence fragment that doesn't make sense to me in response to the question asked....figured I need clarification to understand the post, especially seeing as most of what it contains is in the OP to begin with. Just want to understand where the member is headed with the post....If I bother to read something, I like to at least understand the point of it....LOL

 

[320 Years of History]

Which is more than can be said of Donald Trump seeing as the NY Attorney General has filed suit against him.

Filing of a civil lawsuit isn't being prosecuted. .....

It remains to be seen whether Trump will be charged with rape or something related to a rape event.

Why that case is a lawsuit and not a trial, I don't know.

Because a civil case does not have require the same burden of evidence.

It is a good indication that the charges are false as well when you have to resort to reducing the requirements to try and get something.

It could also be the person "got over" the event itself, but sees a way to make some money.

I wouldn't eliminate your suggested reason from the realm of possibility, but, sadly, given my sense about the integrity of average folks, neither would I mine.

 

[320 Years of History]

the only way to truly do so is be open and transparent about everything possible.

I think another way to remain above the fray would have been to say nothing and, as in other FBI investigations/recommendations, share it with the DOJ and leave it at that. I think the only thing militating for the FBI to disclose its recommendation is the Clinton-Lynch gaffe on the tarmac last week. That said, even as the only thing, it is nonetheless a thing.

Personally, I think Dir. Comey's announcement should constrained itself to the announcement of the recommendation. I know that a fully documented report of what the FBI found will be submitted to the DOJ. If the DOJ opts to make that written document public, fine, but I think the FBI should have stuck with it's SOP just as with all other cases. I think making the remarks the Director made increased the politicization of the matter After all, the FBI Director's tenure is for a ten year non-renewable period; he has nothing to gain by being anything other than objective in the conduct of the investigation.

I can tell you that if I had done the exact same things that Clinton had done here that I would be in prison right now without a single doubt in my mind.

I don't honestly believe that about myself. I don't know why you believe it about yourself.

This has always been true. I just do not know why we, as the general public, simply accept such things.

I don't agree it's always been so. I do believe that wealthy people have access to better quality legal representation and advice.

One reason why the general public may accept it is because it doesn't believe "it's always been true." Another may be that the members of the general public want it to be so if and when they find themselves in a similar situation. Yet another may be that they just don't find it objectionable in the first place. I suppose there are more reasons. Some of them may even be equally qualitatively neutral in their existence.

I would also say that to proclaim no one who goes to trial gets away with anything is a rather silly statement. That is demonstrable false and you know it. Our justice system makes mistakes as all things created by humans do.

Well, yes, American law enforcement, jurisprudence and juries have made mistakes, both in process and outcome.

I have no problem with my conviction that OJ is guilty as sin and got away with it - just because the justice system screws up every now and then does not mean that I have to agree with the final decision. Nor does that mean that someone believing thus disagrees with the system as a whole.

I have no problem with your believing that. I absolutely think it'd be wrong -- literally and morally/ethically -- to act, in part or entirely, on that belief. Acting on such a belief would be a clear indication of one's disagreement with the basic tenets of our legal system. I think that if one differs with those tenets, one should participate in the effort to have them revised. There is a long history of people doing exactly that in the U.S., for example, the repeal of "Jim Crow" laws, the abolishment of slavery, the creation of RICO and antitrust statutes, etc.

I would not put OJ in prison for example if the decision were up to me today because the justice system has declared him innocent and even with its flaws it is the best that we currently have.

On this we agree.

 

[Liminal]

Nothing to see here.

Move along everyone.

It's all good.

All good.....like waking up and discovering the Matrix is real.

 

[yiostheoy]

without reading through the long OP here and just going by the thread title,is ANYONE here seriously surprised?

If you are are,what planet you been living on? there is one different law for politicians than there is for us,they get away with crimes in washington everyday WE go to jail for.

I said a few weeks ago this is exactly what would happen.It hardly took a genuis to know beyond a doubt it would. I mean,when has there EVER been a politician who was one of the two finalists running for POTUS ever gone to jail? None that I can remember.

You must have really poor reading skills.

Seems to go along with your poor judgment skills.

It's a very good read.

You should at least try reading it before you shoot off your foul mouth again.

Q.E.D.

 

[yiostheoy]

It remains to be seen whether Trump will be charged with rape or something related to a rape event.
Why that case is a lawsuit and not a trial, I don't know.

Mainly because it's a bogus case and would never result in a conviction in a criminal trial. .....

And also like Director Comey said, while administrative and security sanctions would be appropriate, criminal prosecution is not.

 

[yiostheoy]

Nothing to see here.

Move along everyone.

It's all good.

All good.....like waking up and discovering the Matrix is real.

Or like that dream about that girl you had was real too and there she is next to you in bed in the early morning hours lying across your arm and you don't need to gnaw it off this time like last time.

I love that feeling.

 

[Liminal]

Nothing to see here.

Move along everyone.

It's all good.

All good.....like waking up and discovering the Matrix is real.

Or like that dream about that girl you had was real too and there she is next to you in bed in the early morning hours lying across your arm and you don't need to gnaw it off this time like last time.

I love that feeling.

I was sort of picturing the whole country bent over while Hilary uses her strap on.

 

[Flopper]

FBI Director Comey announced the FBI is not recommending criminal charges be brought against Mrs. Clinton in connection with her email handling while she was Secretary of State. That's good news for Mrs. Clinton, and it's the "be all end all" to the investigation into the matter. When one considers the rest of what he said in his announcement of that final decision, it may as well be considered "damning with faith praise."

Here's what he said:

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.
​

So what's all that mean?

• It means Mrs. Clinton avoids prosecution.
• It means that Mrs. Clinton was wrong about having turned over her emails, but per Mr. Comey's remarks above, it was simple error not malfeasance.
• It may mean she is a less-good Presidential candidate.
• It definitely means the GOP have plenty to say about her judgement about the handling of emails.
• It means Trump will tweet about all sorts of correlations with regard to other events and persons that don't actually correlate to the "Clinton email" matter.
• It means the Clinton campaign will be "bobbing and weaving" for months to refute whatever fallacious accusations get made by the opposition.

What I think right now:

• I think politically, things may have been better politically speaking were charges recommended, not because I think Mrs. Clinton should be charged, but because an indictment being recommended would almost certainly result in Sen. Sanders becoming the Democratic nominee.
• Bernie Sanders' efforts to garner the Democratic Presidential nomination may not fold.
• I think people will debate whether the FBI was right about there being no intent on Mrs. Clinton's part to break the law or to withhold emails (obstruct justice), but I know, at least for the moment, they'll be doing so without the benefit of the information the FBI examined.
  • Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly said her email handling was a mistake and she has apologized for it.
  • Mrs. Clinton stated she didn't intentionally send/receive classified emails.
• "Flexible" Principles -- I know too that the people who routinely "go with" the principle of "charged or accused but not formally charged, therefore guilty," hypocritically/conveniently will discard that principle in consideration of this matter and not "go with" "not charged, therefore not-guilty." Some examples may be found in discussions noted below. I'm sure if one looks in the Politics subforum, one can find plenty of instances where folks assign or conclude one is at fault/wrong/guilty absent a trial and conviction:
  • CDZ - Guilty until proven innocent. Is that really where we are as a nation?
    
  • CDZ - Is There a Solution to The Failed Corrupt US Justice System?
  • AP reporting Hillary did not turn over email...Preempting the Wikileaks email dump
    
  • CDZ - Trump and Narcissism...How is it we've not heard much about this in the news???

It means:
For the Clinton campaign, a sigh of relieve.
For the Trump campaign, a new conspiracy between the JD, Obama, and the FBI.
For the media, a disappointment, a story with no legs that can only be kept alive by the Trump campaign.
For most Americans, an end to a five year witch hunt that should have ended 4 years ago.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges

and then didnt

it is as if he was saying

i would if i could

 

[320 Years of History]

For the Trump campaign, a new conspiracy between the JD, Obama, and the FBI.

Maybe in the mind of inveterate conspiracy theorists. I really don't care what they have to say or think. I don't think most rational people do. That conspiracy theory stuff, until proven, is one of those things whereby "the folks who care don't matter, and the folks who matter don't care."

 

[320 Years of History]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges and then didnt

it is as if he was saying i would if i could

??? Did you read carefully (or hear) the whole address Dir. Comey gave? If there were a case for which charges should have been brought, the FBI's recommendation would have differed.

You have some nerve to tacitly assert Dir. Comey wished he could do something he didn't do. The man is among the few in the public's eye who has a level of integrity whereby he looks objectively at the facts before him and decides based on them, not based on what he'd like to see happen.

Moreover, do you have any understanding of the nature of the charges that would have had to be brought? My guess is you don't, and I'm not holding against you that you don't. I'm holding against you the temerity you've shown in the first sentence above by making that remark having an uninformed opinion and knowing you don't know that much about the theory and practice of law, yet making that assertion.

Why have I that level of disdain for your remark and derision for your having made it? Because the charges the DOJ could bring are of a class called "specific intent" charges/crimes that must conform to the concept of mens rea. Mens rea is a very basic level of criminal law theory not to understand and yet have an opinion about why charges are or are not brought in a very specific situation, namely the one involving Mrs. Clinton and that's gone on for as long as it has, thus giving anyone who cares to have an opinion ample opportunity to become fully informed so as to have a well informed standpoint.

It's not cool to be "loud, strong and wrong."
-- Barrack Obama, adapted by me​

 

[Liminal]

FBI Director Comey announced the FBI is not recommending criminal charges be brought against Mrs. Clinton in connection with her email handling while she was Secretary of State. That's good news for Mrs. Clinton, and it's the "be all end all" to the investigation into the matter. When one considers the rest of what he said in his announcement of that final decision, it may as well be considered "damning with faith praise."

Here's what he said:

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.
​

So what's all that mean?

• It means Mrs. Clinton avoids prosecution.
• It means that Mrs. Clinton was wrong about having turned over her emails, but per Mr. Comey's remarks above, it was simple error not malfeasance.
• It may mean she is a less-good Presidential candidate.
• It definitely means the GOP have plenty to say about her judgement about the handling of emails.
• It means Trump will tweet about all sorts of correlations with regard to other events and persons that don't actually correlate to the "Clinton email" matter.
• It means the Clinton campaign will be "bobbing and weaving" for months to refute whatever fallacious accusations get made by the opposition.

What I think right now:

• I think politically, things may have been better politically speaking were charges recommended, not because I think Mrs. Clinton should be charged, but because an indictment being recommended would almost certainly result in Sen. Sanders becoming the Democratic nominee.
• Bernie Sanders' efforts to garner the Democratic Presidential nomination may not fold.
• I think people will debate whether the FBI was right about there being no intent on Mrs. Clinton's part to break the law or to withhold emails (obstruct justice), but I know, at least for the moment, they'll be doing so without the benefit of the information the FBI examined.
  • Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly said her email handling was a mistake and she has apologized for it.
  • Mrs. Clinton stated she didn't intentionally send/receive classified emails.
• "Flexible" Principles -- I know too that the people who routinely "go with" the principle of "charged or accused but not formally charged, therefore guilty," hypocritically/conveniently will discard that principle in consideration of this matter and not "go with" "not charged, therefore not-guilty." Some examples may be found in discussions noted below. I'm sure if one looks in the Politics subforum, one can find plenty of instances where folks assign or conclude one is at fault/wrong/guilty absent a trial and conviction:
  • CDZ - Guilty until proven innocent. Is that really where we are as a nation?
    
  • CDZ - Is There a Solution to The Failed Corrupt US Justice System?
  • AP reporting Hillary did not turn over email...Preempting the Wikileaks email dump
    
  • CDZ - Trump and Narcissism...How is it we've not heard much about this in the news???

It means:
For the Clinton campaign, a sigh of relieve.
For the Trump campaign, a new conspiracy between the JD, Obama, and the FBI.
For the media, a disappointment, a story with no legs that can only be kept alive by the Trump campaign.
For most Americans, an end to a five year witch hunt that should have ended 4 years ago.

It means that the corporate security state apparatus is well entrenched.

 

[JoeMoma]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges and then didnt

it is as if he was saying i would if i could

??? Did you read carefully (or hear) the whole address Dir. Comey gave? If there were a case for which charges should have been brought, the FBI's recommendation would have differed.

You have some nerve to tacitly assert Dir. Comey wished he could do something he didn't do. The man is among the few in the public's eye who has a level of integrity whereby he looks objectively at the facts before him and decides based on them, not based on what he'd like to see happen.

Moreover, do you have any understanding of the nature of the charges that would have had to be brought? My guess is you don't, and I'm not holding against you that you don't. I'm holding against you the temerity you've shown in the first sentence above by making that remark having an uninformed opinion and knowing you don't know that much about the theory and practice of law, yet making that assertion.

Why have I that level of disdain for your remark and derision for your having made it? Because the charges the DOJ could bring are of a class called "specific intent" charges/crimes that must conform to the concept of mens rea. Mens rea is a very basic level of criminal law theory not to understand and yet have an opinion about why charges are or are not brought in a very specific situation, namely the one involving Mrs. Clinton and that's gone on for as long as it has, thus giving anyone who cares to have an opinion ample opportunity to become fully informed so as to have a well informed standpoint.

It's not cool to be "loud, strong and wrong."
-- Barrack Obama, adapted by me​

According to 18 US Code 793 Section F charges could had been brought due to gross neglance. Neglance does not require intent.

 

[Flopper]

FBI Director Comey announced the FBI is not recommending criminal charges be brought against Mrs. Clinton in connection with her email handling while she was Secretary of State. That's good news for Mrs. Clinton, and it's the "be all end all" to the investigation into the matter. When one considers the rest of what he said in his announcement of that final decision, it may as well be considered "damning with faith praise."

Here's what he said:

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.
​

So what's all that mean?

• It means Mrs. Clinton avoids prosecution.
• It means that Mrs. Clinton was wrong about having turned over her emails, but per Mr. Comey's remarks above, it was simple error not malfeasance.
• It may mean she is a less-good Presidential candidate.
• It definitely means the GOP have plenty to say about her judgement about the handling of emails.
• It means Trump will tweet about all sorts of correlations with regard to other events and persons that don't actually correlate to the "Clinton email" matter.
• It means the Clinton campaign will be "bobbing and weaving" for months to refute whatever fallacious accusations get made by the opposition.

What I think right now:

• I think politically, things may have been better politically speaking were charges recommended, not because I think Mrs. Clinton should be charged, but because an indictment being recommended would almost certainly result in Sen. Sanders becoming the Democratic nominee.
• Bernie Sanders' efforts to garner the Democratic Presidential nomination may not fold.
• I think people will debate whether the FBI was right about there being no intent on Mrs. Clinton's part to break the law or to withhold emails (obstruct justice), but I know, at least for the moment, they'll be doing so without the benefit of the information the FBI examined.
  • Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly said her email handling was a mistake and she has apologized for it.
  • Mrs. Clinton stated she didn't intentionally send/receive classified emails.
• "Flexible" Principles -- I know too that the people who routinely "go with" the principle of "charged or accused but not formally charged, therefore guilty," hypocritically/conveniently will discard that principle in consideration of this matter and not "go with" "not charged, therefore not-guilty." Some examples may be found in discussions noted below. I'm sure if one looks in the Politics subforum, one can find plenty of instances where folks assign or conclude one is at fault/wrong/guilty absent a trial and conviction:
  • CDZ - Guilty until proven innocent. Is that really where we are as a nation?
    
  • CDZ - Is There a Solution to The Failed Corrupt US Justice System?
  • AP reporting Hillary did not turn over email...Preempting the Wikileaks email dump
    
  • CDZ - Trump and Narcissism...How is it we've not heard much about this in the news???

He states this in the beginning...

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.


Goes on to list there was improperly stored, transmitted and deleted classified information on several personal systems...so improperly handled that is more likely than not that foreign governments got that information.....

And he will not push for charges......

Remember.....

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.


What did comey say again?

making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,

After an ARB investigation, Inspection General review, and finally an FBI investigation, 5 lawsuits and associated investigations by Judicial Watch, two House investigations, and one Senate Investigation, it was determined that 110 classified emails out of 30,000 emails passed through Clinton's personal server, there was no evidence that the server was hacked, no intent to violate the law, and no recommendation that anyone be prosecuted.

The bill for FBI investigation will top 20 million and it's estimated that the cost of all the other investigations and probes will at least equal that. And what did we really learn. The FBI summed it up when they said "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." The lack of a security culture has existed in the State Dept. long before Clinton took office. One good thing that will probably come out of all this is the State Department will clean up their act, if they haven't already.

 

[2aguy]

FBI Director Comey announced the FBI is not recommending criminal charges be brought against Mrs. Clinton in connection with her email handling while she was Secretary of State. That's good news for Mrs. Clinton, and it's the "be all end all" to the investigation into the matter. When one considers the rest of what he said in his announcement of that final decision, it may as well be considered "damning with faith praise."

Here's what he said:

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.
​

So what's all that mean?

• It means Mrs. Clinton avoids prosecution.
• It means that Mrs. Clinton was wrong about having turned over her emails, but per Mr. Comey's remarks above, it was simple error not malfeasance.
• It may mean she is a less-good Presidential candidate.
• It definitely means the GOP have plenty to say about her judgement about the handling of emails.
• It means Trump will tweet about all sorts of correlations with regard to other events and persons that don't actually correlate to the "Clinton email" matter.
• It means the Clinton campaign will be "bobbing and weaving" for months to refute whatever fallacious accusations get made by the opposition.

What I think right now:

• I think politically, things may have been better politically speaking were charges recommended, not because I think Mrs. Clinton should be charged, but because an indictment being recommended would almost certainly result in Sen. Sanders becoming the Democratic nominee.
• Bernie Sanders' efforts to garner the Democratic Presidential nomination may not fold.
• I think people will debate whether the FBI was right about there being no intent on Mrs. Clinton's part to break the law or to withhold emails (obstruct justice), but I know, at least for the moment, they'll be doing so without the benefit of the information the FBI examined.
  • Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly said her email handling was a mistake and she has apologized for it.
  • Mrs. Clinton stated she didn't intentionally send/receive classified emails.
• "Flexible" Principles -- I know too that the people who routinely "go with" the principle of "charged or accused but not formally charged, therefore guilty," hypocritically/conveniently will discard that principle in consideration of this matter and not "go with" "not charged, therefore not-guilty." Some examples may be found in discussions noted below. I'm sure if one looks in the Politics subforum, one can find plenty of instances where folks assign or conclude one is at fault/wrong/guilty absent a trial and conviction:
  • CDZ - Guilty until proven innocent. Is that really where we are as a nation?
    
  • CDZ - Is There a Solution to The Failed Corrupt US Justice System?
  • AP reporting Hillary did not turn over email...Preempting the Wikileaks email dump
    
  • CDZ - Trump and Narcissism...How is it we've not heard much about this in the news???

He states this in the beginning...

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.


Goes on to list there was improperly stored, transmitted and deleted classified information on several personal systems...so improperly handled that is more likely than not that foreign governments got that information.....

And he will not push for charges......

Remember.....

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.


What did comey say again?

making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,

After an ARB investigation, Inspection General review, and finally an FBI investigation, 5 lawsuits and associated investigations by Judicial Watch, two House investigations, and one Senate Investigation, it was determined that 110 classified emails out of 30,000 emails passed through Clinton's personal server, there was no evidence that the server was hacked, no intent to violate the law, and no recommendation that anyone be prosecuted.

The bill for FBI investigation will top 20 million and it's estimated that the cost of all the other investigations and probes will at least equal that. And what did we really learn. The FBI summed it up when they said "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." The lack of security culture has existed in the State Dept. long before Clinton took office. One good thing that will probably come out of all this is the State Department will clean up their act, if they haven't already.

She had a private server......he said she was negligent...which is a felony...he stated that in his speech....He stated that....intentionally or in a grossly negligent way and he showed she was grossly negligent in every aspect of how she handled her email.....

Then he said he wasn't pushing for charges....

Lie to yourself...she is guilty.......

 

[2aguy]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges and then didnt

it is as if he was saying i would if i could

??? Did you read carefully (or hear) the whole address Dir. Comey gave? If there were a case for which charges should have been brought, the FBI's recommendation would have differed.

You have some nerve to tacitly assert Dir. Comey wished he could do something he didn't do. The man is among the few in the public's eye who has a level of integrity whereby he looks objectively at the facts before him and decides based on them, not based on what he'd like to see happen.

Moreover, do you have any understanding of the nature of the charges that would have had to be brought? My guess is you don't, and I'm not holding against you that you don't. I'm holding against you the temerity you've shown in the first sentence above by making that remark having an uninformed opinion and knowing you don't know that much about the theory and practice of law, yet making that assertion.

Why have I that level of disdain for your remark and derision for your having made it? Because the charges the DOJ could bring are of a class called "specific intent" charges/crimes that must conform to the concept of mens rea. Mens rea is a very basic level of criminal law theory not to understand and yet have an opinion about why charges are or are not brought in a very specific situation, namely the one involving Mrs. Clinton and that's gone on for as long as it has, thus giving anyone who cares to have an opinion ample opportunity to become fully informed so as to have a well informed standpoint.

It's not cool to be "loud, strong and wrong."
-- Barrack Obama, adapted by me​

No....he had integrity when he was going after republicans...but listening to what he said...about the negligence in handling classified information....which is by itself a felony....and then he didn't push for charges....

the man has no integrity....he is a slime.....

Rudy Guiliani describes exactly how this guy is a slime in his inteviews today...and he likes comey and used to be his boss...

 

[Flopper]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges

and then didnt

it is as if he was saying

i would if i could

That may be how you interpreted it but it wasn't how the director interpreted it. He said, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He clearly stated that there was no intent to violate the law. Furthermore there was no 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. They simple did not find enough evidence to prosecution.

 

[Flopper]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges and then didnt

it is as if he was saying i would if i could

??? Did you read carefully (or hear) the whole address Dir. Comey gave? If there were a case for which charges should have been brought, the FBI's recommendation would have differed.

You have some nerve to tacitly assert Dir. Comey wished he could do something he didn't do. The man is among the few in the public's eye who has a level of integrity whereby he looks objectively at the facts before him and decides based on them, not based on what he'd like to see happen.

Moreover, do you have any understanding of the nature of the charges that would have had to be brought? My guess is you don't, and I'm not holding against you that you don't. I'm holding against you the temerity you've shown in the first sentence above by making that remark having an uninformed opinion and knowing you don't know that much about the theory and practice of law, yet making that assertion.

Why have I that level of disdain for your remark and derision for your having made it? Because the charges the DOJ could bring are of a class called "specific intent" charges/crimes that must conform to the concept of mens rea. Mens rea is a very basic level of criminal law theory not to understand and yet have an opinion about why charges are or are not brought in a very specific situation, namely the one involving Mrs. Clinton and that's gone on for as long as it has, thus giving anyone who cares to have an opinion ample opportunity to become fully informed so as to have a well informed standpoint.

It's not cool to be "loud, strong and wrong."
-- Barrack Obama, adapted by me​

According to 18 US Code 793 Section F charges could had been brought due to gross neglance. Neglance does not require intent.

You would never be able to prove the Secretary was grossly negligent. Legally speaking, gross negligence goes well beyond being negligent which is failure to exercise reasonable care. Furthermore, you would have to show that it would lead to grave injure or harm. Since the FBI could not find any evidence that the server had been hacked, there would be no evidence of injury or harm.

The statue does not apply.

 

[JoeMoma]

the guy layed out a complete case for bringing charges and then didnt

it is as if he was saying i would if i could

??? Did you read carefully (or hear) the whole address Dir. Comey gave? If there were a case for which charges should have been brought, the FBI's recommendation would have differed.

You have some nerve to tacitly assert Dir. Comey wished he could do something he didn't do. The man is among the few in the public's eye who has a level of integrity whereby he looks objectively at the facts before him and decides based on them, not based on what he'd like to see happen.

Moreover, do you have any understanding of the nature of the charges that would have had to be brought? My guess is you don't, and I'm not holding against you that you don't. I'm holding against you the temerity you've shown in the first sentence above by making that remark having an uninformed opinion and knowing you don't know that much about the theory and practice of law, yet making that assertion.

Why have I that level of disdain for your remark and derision for your having made it? Because the charges the DOJ could bring are of a class called "specific intent" charges/crimes that must conform to the concept of mens rea. Mens rea is a very basic level of criminal law theory not to understand and yet have an opinion about why charges are or are not brought in a very specific situation, namely the one involving Mrs. Clinton and that's gone on for as long as it has, thus giving anyone who cares to have an opinion ample opportunity to become fully informed so as to have a well informed standpoint.

It's not cool to be "loud, strong and wrong."
-- Barrack Obama, adapted by me​

According to 18 US Code 793 Section F charges could had been brought due to gross neglance. Neglance does not require intent.

You would never be able to prove the Secretary was grossly negligent. Legally speaking, gross negligence goes well beyond being negligent which is failure to exercise reasonable care. Furthermore, you would have to show that it would lead to grave injure or harm. Since the FBI could not find any evidence that the server had been hacked, there would be no evidence of injury or harm.

The statue does not apply.

It definitely does not apply this time......for Clinton.