Senate Intelligence Committee Forced To Drop 'Terrorist-Activity' Reporting Requirements For Social Media Platforms

Following Congressional Criticism, FBI Leaks Status Update On Recovery Of Clinton Emails To The Press

from the unofficially-the-official-word-on-the-investigation-it-can't-talk-about dept

Wed, Sep 23rd 2015 3:28pm — Tim Cushing

Well, that didn't take long. Shortly after Senator Chuck Grassley raised his voice about the FBI's refusal to share information about its investigation of Hillary Clinton's State Department emails, a status update of sorts has been provided.

The FBI is still holding its "ongoing investigation" cards close to its chest, but it apparently authorized an anonymous, unofficial spokesperson to beat back the heat with the leak of a few details.

The FBI has recovered personal and work-related e-mails from the private computer server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s success at salvaging personal e-mails that Clinton said had been deleted raises the possibility that the Democratic presidential candidate’s correspondence eventually could become public. The disclosure of such e-mails would likely fan the controversy over Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system for official business.

This obviously won't be good news for the presidential hopeful, but it does indicate the FOIA lawsuit brought against the State Department by Judicial Watch might start moving forward again.

The FBI is also attempting to determine how much classified information was stored on Clinton's personal email server. Once that's sorted out, it will presumably be up to the DOJ to decide how much of a wrist slap Clinton's mixing of business and pleasure warrants.

"Computer specialists" quoted by Bloomberg say the FBI should be able to recover most of the deleted emails. This is likely true and the effort deployed probably won't stretch the agency's technical expertise. Clinton's use of a private server had less to do with opsec than just making it more difficult to obtain these emails through public records requests.

And while the FBI would like to keeps its findings to itself until it wraps up the investigation (if for no other reason than to avoid weakening its "ongoing investigation" auto-denial), Del Quentin Wilber of Bloomberg points out Congressional committees can issue subpoenas to obtain information from the agency while the investigation is still underway.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: congress, emails, fbi, hillary clinton, recovery

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 4:22pm

Zzzzzzzzzz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 4:38pm
  
  Re:
  Zzzzzzzzz.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- andy, 24 Sep 2015 @ 1:49am
  
  Re:
  yeah rather boring these days, but i am hoping that if Hillary is destroyed by the release of private emails that she will use her many many contacts to release all of the emails republicans have sent in supposed privacy.
  
  It would be very interesting to read any politicians private emails but republican emails like those of Boner and Cruz and all of the others would i am sure change the political landscape in DC as i a sure it would mean the end of many political careers, there is a reason that private emails are marked as such and if they release Hillary s private emails i sure hope they release all of them for republicans.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 4:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    Let me see if I have this right. Your hero kept top secret email on a private server, contrary to the law. Those emails quite possibly were hacked by the Chinese who seem to be hacking every other government server these days. But hey, you are ok with it because she is part of your party? Why is it, that a Dem cannot do enough wrong to even raise an eyebrow of other Dems, but a Repub does one thing and Dems are ready to fry them? Personally, any one of the parties do wrong and I want to see them prosecuted. I would be for far less so they definitely should be.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - "I would be for far less so they definitely should, 24 Sep 2015 @ 1:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:might have a point but can't understand you
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 3:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Your hero kept top secret email on a private server, contrary to the law.
      
      Has that been determined for sure?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 3:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Never mind, looks like it has.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cynical Me, 23 Sep 2015 @ 4:47pm

Leverage
In case she is elected they need to keep any evidence of significant wrongdoing until after the elections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prisoner 201, 24 Sep 2015 @ 12:12am
  
  Re: Leverage
  Or if they want to influence the election they want to keep the juicy bits to just the right time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 8:06pm

Coronation on hold due to this being the U.S.A. - Doh’
People lost their minds over 18.5 mins of erased Richard Nixon tape.
3700 hrs of Nixon tapes
= .005% missing

63,000 emails on Hillary Clinton’s server
30,000 emails erased by Hilary Clinton
= .476% missing

Who’s lying here?
WaPo is reporting - “State Department’s account of e-mail request differs from Clinton’s”
“…State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton’s characterization. They said the request was not simply about general rec¬ord-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system. They also said they first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their e-mails.”

Another issue is Bryan Pagliano - Fmr Hillary Clinton Staffer
Prior to installing Sec. Clinton's private email server in her home for $5,000, Mr. Pagliano had already received his State Dept Top Security Briefing. So he knew that by installing the server in Sec. Clinton's home, he was helping Sec. Clinton divert her personal, work and Classified (Top Secret, Secret and Confidential) emails away from the US Govt.

Because he knew the emails were being diverted and Sec. Clinton cooperated in conjunction with him, a Conspiracy to Violate the Espionage Laws was formed. When you're in a conspiracy like that, each Conspirator is criminally liable or could be found criminally liable for the crimes of the other.

Sec. Clinton paid Bryan Pagliano to break US law and he must have know that he was breaking the law which explains the reason for his lawyers telling Congressman Gowdy's committee, when you call Mr. Pagliano to the witness stand, he's going to Assert his 5th amendment right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 4:21am
  
  Re: Coronation on hold due to this being the U.S.A. - Doh’
  Look, there is no room for facts when a Dem is involved. They only reason this is being allowed to move forward, at least for the moment, is because the Pres does not like the Clintons. No other Dem has even been investigated (i.e., the IRS) until now. Frankly, I will be surprised if anything comes of this.
  
  As to her claim that she did not handle top secret email, that is pure BS. If she, as the head of the State Dept, did not send and receive top secret email, then who in that department did? If she didn't, then she must not have even been working there. Everyone knows she is lying, but Dems don't mind lies from their own party so likely little will come of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft, 25 Sep 2015 @ 5:43am
    
    Re: Re: Coronation on hold due to this being the U.S.A. - Doh’
    Lying is not a partisan thing. Both sides do it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2015 @ 8:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Coronation on hold due to this being the U.S.A. - Doh’
      ... a lot. (constantly)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guardian, 23 Sep 2015 @ 8:16pm

people delete email all time ...dont you
i do so , to keep my emails sorted i keep those of import by moving to dirs/folders and then copy pasting them to files i can encrypt, what do you do with email you keep?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 4:25am
  
  Re: people delete email all time ...dont you
  Are your emails that you delete public property subject to FOIA requests, required by law to be kept for a certain amount of time?
  
  Some of these things are not like the others, some of these things do not belong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 8:40pm

Missing the point
I've noticed most of the comments here so far are concentrating on Hillary's emails.

I'm looking at this story as more of the FBI's disrespecting the Congress. Yes, I know they deserve disrespect, but the point is not from the FBI; i.e., telling Congress to go pound sand and then releasing the status update "anonymously".

If I were Senator Grassley, I'd be demanding an non-anonymous report under oath from an official FBI spokesman in front of a Congressional committee and I'd demand an investigation into who authorized that anonymous leak.

In other words, I'd cause the FBI as much Congressional pain and suffering as one Senator can cause. It's bad enough the FBI doesn't feel they're responsible to the public, but heads need to roll if they don't feel they're responsible to the Congress. At this point they're essentially a rogue agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:36pm
  
  Re: Missing the point
  It's funny, but if you or I told Congress to go pound it, we'd be in jail for Contempt of Congress (which I actually have a LOT of, but that's beside the point). But when the FBI does it, all Congress does is whine like a little bitch. Throw those FBI guys in jail for a few months and light a fire under the asses left.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:25pm
  
  Re: Missing the point
  Hillary's actions are important, but so are the FBI's.
  
  Congress needs to subpoena the FBI director to testify. If he refuses to provide the information, hold him in contempt and throw him in jail. I do believe that's the procedure we've established for government functionaries who refuse to comply with court orders or congressional subpoenas and who order their employees to also not comply.
  
  Leaking to the media isn't good enough. For one thing, there's nothing at all stopping the FBI from lying to the media, while lying before Congress is a crime. (Funnily enough, I think it's the same ultra-generic law that makes it a crime to lie to the FBI.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - andy, 24 Sep 2015 @ 1:56am
    
    Re: Re: Missing the point
    Oh come on republicans have admitted lying to congress on many occasions, congress is just a bunch of old idiots that are disliked by over 90% of the population as they are not doing there jobs as they have been paid to do and voted into power to do. If anything Cruz should be on charges for trying to shut down the government for absolutely no other reason than to shut it down, yes that is a fact he knows that shutting down the government will do absolutely nothing for his cause or for any state he is supposedly supporting by doing this shutdown nonsense.
    
    he should be charged with treason and shot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 4:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
      The Republicans and Democrats both suck. Lets not turn this into a partizan whine party. The focus here should be on the actions of the FBI and Hillary. The fact that Hillary is a Democrat is irrelevant unless your trying to push one party or another.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
        AMEN!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 12:07am

4 people died because she couldn't be bothered to do her job. She has stated she is dead broke because she only has multi millions. There are multiple scandals from Hilary, aside from this 1. If she gets elected I will publicly call every person that votes for her an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jim, 24 Sep 2015 @ 7:19am
  
  Re:
  Wrong state has no security forces under its control. Africom did. And the protection of embassies falls to the local commander, who is fed intelligence by the local CIA agency. Who are not responsible to the local state department. So Hillary was responsible, for black budget items like security? Blame the right people. Congress. The four died because CIA said hold back, who was in charge then? He betrayed us then, and was probably in bed with his press hooker.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 24 Sep 2015 @ 1:29am

Ongoing investigation
As I pointed out in the last story about this: the FBI didn't refuse to "comment on an ongoing investigation" in their response, they glomar'd its entire existence. Reading their initial response, they would have had no comment if they closed their investigation, or decided not to investigate at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Channel 48, 24 Sep 2015 @ 4:51am

So...
My only question is: Why is someone who has an ongoing investigation with the FBI allowed to be a presidential candidate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 5:53am
  
  Re: So...
  Because otherwise the Federal Government would be granted the power to withhold ANY Presidential candidates. So it is better that she is legally eligible and the public can decide if someone with an open investigation is who they want for a leader.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - wayout, 24 Sep 2015 @ 6:14am
    
    Re: Re: So...
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that there are quite a number of high level Federal jobs (the president being the highest of course WITH security clearance) where you are disqualified for the position as long as you have an ongoing investigation.
    Since the outcome could/can effect you ability to hold or obtain the level of security clearance needed...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 6:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: So...
      There is one piece you are missing... she hasn't been charged with anything.
      
      You have to be charged with a crime and under investigation for your comment to be valid.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JoeCool (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        So why hasn't she been charged yet? She's already admitted to using her personal email for all her government work. That's illegal on the face of it, and other government officials have been convicted of the same offense. It doesn't matter whether there was anything "top secret" or not, just simply using a personal account for ANYTHING government related is against the law. The top secret aspect should only come in as making it worse than it already is... icing on the cake as it were.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - wayout, 25 Sep 2015 @ 5:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        "You have to be charged with a crime and under investigation for your comment to be valid."
        
        Um, no, I believe you just have to be under investigation..IF I remember correctly (sometimes suspect), the last time I applied for a Federal job that required security clearance, the application stated "ongoing investigation" and/OR conviction..not both..
        She is being investigated, even if she winds up not being charged, no one knows that (or shouldn't) while the investigation is ongoing, so the candidate is not/should not be eligible for the position until the investigation is complete.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 7:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        She's not applying for a federal job, she's running for an elected position.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 7:01am
  
  Re: So...
  "Why is someone who has an ongoing investigation with the FBI allowed to be a presidential candidate?"
  
  Because the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. There are only three required qualifications to be President: you have to be a natural born citizen, you have to be at least 35 years old, and you have to have been a resident of the US for at least 14 years.
  
  To change or add to these requires a constitutional amendment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 8:13am

Clinton emails
I am an independent, and have not decided who, or what party, I will vote for. However, I am an attorney, and love both the Constitution and fair play - in this case, fair play.

Bush/Cheney regularly sent emails they KNEW were classified in private emails. Clinton sent unclassified (though I hear four were LATER classified - to embarrass her? Don't know) emails. No evidence yet she meant harm, or thought she was doing anything wrong - otherwise for Bush/Cheney. So she MAY be "unreliable" - THEY ARE!

So, why is the "liberal" (aka Murdoch) press interested only in Clinton? Shouldn't we be outraged at Bush/Cheney? Also, they didn't tell anyone - it came out later; just as she didn't tell anyone - came out later; but they KNEW they were sending classified material - not yet determined for her.

Is this what you call "fair and balanced?".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 8:36am
  
  Re: Clinton emails
  OK, one of two possibilities with Hillary and the email server.
  
  One - She is a shrewd, dirty, dishonest, corrupt politician using a personal email server as a means to control and hide information otherwise available for holding her to account for her actions.
  
  or
  
  Two - She is more clueless and incompetent regarding the proper role and usage of communications within government (of the people) than I am.
  
  Either way it exemplifies that she is not be the best we have to offer as a leader of this country.
  
  As for Bush/Cheney yes despicable, not as currently relevant. Nice redirection.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 9:06am
  
  Re: Clinton emails
  So you actually believe that the head of the State Department, in her role, never sent or received classified email? No intelligence reports, nothing? Wow is all I can say to that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 7:37pm
    
    Re: Re: Clinton emails
    So you actually believe that the head of the State Department, in her role, never sent or received classified email?
    
    It's possible she received all that stuff by other means than email. Seems very unlikely she would have sent or received zero classified emails on her private system though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:48pm
  
  Re: Clinton emails
  Pointing out the wrong doing of another and comparing it to the current wrong doing is duplicitous. Hillary's actions need to be judged on their merit against the law, unless you think arguing that “he did it, so why can't she do it” has legal merit.
  
  As a lawyer, you should be aware of the serious violation of the law by Bryan Pagliano - Fmr Hillary Clinton Staffer.
  Prior to installing Sec. Clinton's private email server in her home for $5,000, Mr. Pagliano had already received his State Dept Top Security Briefing. So he knew that by installing the server in Sec. Clinton's home, he was helping Sec. Clinton divert her personal, work and Classified (Top Secret, Secret and Confidential) emails away from the US Govt.
  
  Because he knew the emails were being diverted and Sec. Clinton cooperated in conjunction with him, a Conspiracy to Violate the Espionage Laws was formed. When you're in a conspiracy like that, each Conspirator is criminally liable or could be found criminally liable for the crimes of the other.
  
  Sec. Clinton paid Bryan Pagliano to break US law and he must have know that he was breaking the law which explains the reason for his lawyers telling Congressman Gowdy's committee, when you call Mr. Pagliano to the witness stand, he's going to Assert his 5th amendment right."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erik, 25 Sep 2015 @ 8:20am

State Actor?
I haven't seen this discussed anywhere yet (which doesn't mean that discussion hasn't happened), but why does the concept of Hilary as a state actor not come into play thereby her server (or at least the content) isn't hers but an extension of the State Department and then discoverable by FOIA?

In short, she shouldn't have to turn it over, the gov't should be able to just go get it as their property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]