FBI Publishes Clinton Email Investigation Documents; More Bad News On Documents Mishandling, FOIA Compliance
from the nothing-in-here-says-I-should-be-trusted-with-MORE-classified-info dept
The FBI generally likes to keep as much information as possible out of the public's hands, so its decision to release its files on the Hillary Clinton email investigation are probably best viewed as a one-off, rather than the leading edge of a new era of transparency.
The agency certainly couldn't pretend there isn't significant public interest in the content of the investigative files. The outcome of a presidential election could very well hinge on the voting public's interpretation of the documents' content.
And the FBI certainly has an interest in clearing the air of any hints of politically-motivated favoritism. That the investigation occurred at all does some damage to Clinton's credibility, while the decision not to pursue prosecution doesn't do much for the FBI's.
A closer look at the investigative documents simply gives more credence to the FBI's assertion that it found evidence of stupidity, but not criminal intent. At worst, the private email server allowed Hillary Clinton to better avoid FOIA requests (an effect now nullified by the State Department's ongoing release of nearly every email it's been able to recover) -- something that's a civil violation, rather than a criminal one. From the Washington Post's Matt Zapotosky and Rosalind Helderman's dive into the FBI's docs: [PDF vol. 1, PDF vol. 2]
Clinton told the FBI that she used the private server for convenience, not to evade public record laws. But the documents show that former secretary of state Colin Powell appeared to advise her early in her term that private email could give her more control over her communications in the face of public inquiries.
In January 2009, according to the FBI, Clinton contacted Powell, who also used a personal email account during his time in office, to ask about his use of a BlackBerry. According to the FBI, Powell “warned Clinton that if it became ‘public’ that Clinton had a BlackBerry, and she used it to ‘do business,’ her e-mails could become ‘official record[s] and subject to the law.’”
“Be very careful,” Powell advised Clinton, according to the FBI. “I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.”
Clinton's defense of her private email server was that she was using it for convenience and figured any public records requirements were being met by third-party recipients using official government email accounts. Supposedly, this indicates she wasn't trying to duck FOIA requests. However, this explanation doesn't really mesh with her decision to give staffers email addresses on her private server. Once that happened, there were no third parties preserving records. It was all left up to Clinton. Plenty of efforts were made -- deletion, destruction of devices, etc. -- to purge emails that possibly should have been preserved as public records.
The only criminal issue would have been the mishandling of sensitive information, something Clinton did regularly. But the FBI found no evidence of maliciousness. Just a surprising amount of stupidity from someone who should have known better.
Clinton told FBI agents that she did not know much about how the government classified information. For instance, she said she did not pay attention to the difference between levels of classification, like “top secret” and “secret,” indicating she took “all classified information seriously.” When shown an email she received in which a paragraph had been marked with a “C,” a standard way of indicating it included “confidential” information, Clinton at first speculated to agents that the marking was indicating that email contained bullet points in alphabetical order.
Clinton may have pled ignorance when questioned by the FBI, but these statements directly contradict assertions she made to reporters on Monday:
“I went into the State Department understanding classification. I’ve been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for years before I was Secretary of State. I take classification seriously. The fact I couldn’t remember certain meetings, whether or not they had occurred, doesn’t in any way affect the treatment I had and still have of classified material.”
Clinton says she "understands" classification -- certainly a much different self-assessment than she presented to FBI interviewers. She then says nothing "affects the treatment" of sensitive material. She always handled it "seriously." I certainly hope that word isn't meant to define actions like these:
The FBI’s report traced the history of Clinton’s private server use, detailing ad hoc efforts to backup data and respond to requests for records. In one instance, after Clinton left office, someone created a personal Gmail account to move an archive of Clinton’s email on a laptop to a server run by Platte River Networks, a company Clinton had hired. The person then attempted to ship the laptop back to another person connected to Clinton.
According the FBI report, the laptop, which had not been wiped, got lost in transit. And the FBI would come to find on the Gmail account dozens of classified emails.
While Hillary Clinton may not be directly responsible for a laptop full of email (some of them sensitive) being lost in transit, it was her decision to cobble together a personal email server that led to this mishap. Additionally, while the FBI may not have found any evidence of breach by malicious entities, the private server undoubtedly made an attractive target. With Clinton in sole control of her end of official communications, any breach may have either gone unnoticed or undisclosed for far longer than a similar attack on government-owned servers. This is just another way Clinton sacrificed accountability for "simplicity" by setting up her own server.
The denials contained in the FBI report are expected. No one in a similar position is going to admit they set up a personal server to route around FOIA requests and/or more restrictive official government policies. Even if that's not criminal activity, it's still a bad look for a presidential candidate. More concerning is Clinton's blase attitude towards handling sensitive information, something she'll be seeing even more of if elected.
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: email, foia, hillary clinton
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Shouldn't this alone disqualify her from being a presidential candidate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
She Should be in Jail
Any one that deals with that type of information knows that maliciousness doesn't come into the equation when they come to take your clearance and job away.
If it was malicious, then that is know as treason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If being a fool disqualified someone from the Presidency, imagine how many past presidents we would need to go back and retroactively strip of their title....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: She Should be in Jail
None of that is to say that there was no potential crime here, whether malice was a factor or not. But we should be more careful than we are about using words like "treason" which only heat up the rhetoric to unhelpful levels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WTF?!?!
Since WHEN has that ever mattered when breaking the law?
"I'm sorry your Honor, but I is stupid."
"In that case, you're free to go! Straight to prison! Psyche!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stupidity is not a defense. She went through training, she consulted Powell, she even set up accounts for her people so they could break the law. Stupid or not, she still needs to face the music. I don't think it should stop there. If it was illegal when Powell was secretary, and he consulted to help her break the law, then I would argue that not only does he need to face the music as well, but both of them should be looking at conspiracy charges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: She Should be in Jail
"giving them aid and comfort" from your link.
When you give out and you know you give out information that aides an enemy of the US, then it is treason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
just try this yourself.
The fact that she was only given a finger wag for stupid, irresponsible, intentional, and dangerous behavior is just more evidence of the system protecting itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WTF?!?!
Stupidity is often a sufficient reason for at least lowering the punishment when dealing with some passivity crimes (Not doing something, that you are bound to do by law etc.).
I would discard both of those ideas. If you stand on either of those sides you are too far into the thicked to see the light. Also, not wanting to vote for someone should never be an excuse for voting for a specific opponent...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Really??
One of my duties in the "field" was to assure radio frequency sheets were secured, Now, by the "book" they were considered "confidential" as such show be on a classified read board with cover sheet. Most Officers in the Field would just have them in their pockets. If I found out they would get in trouble. UCMJ punishment at the least. If a frequency sheet was unaccounted for that person was subject to 6 months is jail.
this is ONLY for radio frequencies, not even the encryption that goes along with them. No one cared what the "intent" was..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh... stupidity. Well that's ok then. Was Petraeus stupid too? Had no criminal intent?
Then they should let Snowden claim he had no criminal intent either and should be a free man. Both latter cases knew damn well what they were doing was WRONG. Period.
What Snowden did he knew he was right for the better of society.
Evildoers with connections walk free and shit... may become President. While the person that does it for social justice has been exiled from his homeland.
Go Merika!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: She Should be in Jail
"Giving them aid and comfort" is subordinate to "adhering to their enemies", which carries an implied change of allegiance. It also requires that the act in question was "overt", meaning that the person had to intentionally take those actions with the intent of damaging the United States. Or, as summarized here,Charges of treason have been filed only a few dozen times in US history (none since World War II) and only a handful have resulted in convictions... it's a very restrictively defined offense and very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. (Which, as I said, was intentional.) Many other very similar types of offense exist and are prosecuted (successfully) a lot more often.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: She Should be in Jail
Also Bush II, Cheney, Rove and anyone else connected to the Bush White House email controversy, tens of millions of White House emails sent through private servers. Millions of them lost.
And Jeb!, who as governor used his own server against the rules and as Florida governor to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants.
You might want to at least consider 2016 candidates Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal, who each have their own email scandals. Mitt Romney too.
And of course all those Congressman who claim that they "don't use email", while having their aides use their private accounts to avoid FOIA requests.
Or...
You could ask why it's been standard procedure for pretty much everyone to avoid government email servers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Federal; Records Act
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bull crap
More matter how they twist the story and foil TRUTHS before the public know that TRUTH MUST surface one.She didn't do it intentionally is the story of the gods,bull crap.she is a bloody liar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So in a nutshell:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: She Should be in Jail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: She Should be in Jail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: She Should be in Jail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can tell how the author of this article feels about her.
The government will ever go after Hillary, because Hillary is the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Will she sell out American interests for a bigger bank account if she became president.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: just try this yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well, except for Trump of course:
- Trump no longer does business with many US banks. Instead he "has steadied and rebuilt his financial empire with a heavy reliance on capital from Russia" according to a lawsuit uncovered by the New York Times.
- Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman until recently, has spent decades as a political adviser in eastern Europe. He worked closely with Putin-supported former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych who was ousted from power in 2014.
- Trump's foreign policy advisor Carter Page has "deep and continuing financial and employment ties" to Gazprom, Russia's trillion dollar energy company.
- Researchers have concluded that the national committee was breached by two Russian intelligence agencies in a deliberate attempt to influence the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. Trump has even publicly urged Russia to cyber-invade the United States to find and publish the hacked emails.
- Trump has often praised Putin and promises to pull the US out of NATO. He's told the New York Times that he might not honour NATO commitments should Russia invade Baltic states.
- The Republican National Committee shifted their stance on Russia under pressure from Trump staff in the days leading up to the convention in Cleveland, softening their position on the invasion of Crimea and Western Ukraine and weakening their support for Ukraine.
- My favorite: George Stephanopoulos questioned Trump about that last point. Trump's defense of Putin - who has already invaded Crimea and western Ukraine: "He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want."
- Reported here on Techdirt: Putin's Internet Trolls Are Stoking The Vitriolic Fire By Posing As Trump Supporters
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: She Should be in Jail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: She Should be in Jail
Let the guards look the other way... they would not last long... as they are cowards and their word is no good... and that is all that really matters!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The FBI’s Secret War
Excerpt below is from AntiWar.com webpage titled:
The FBI’s Secret War
Sixty years ago, the FBI launched COINTELPRO.
Its mission was simple: destroy the Left.
The idea that a tyrannical government is secretly plotting against US citizens is a popular and longstanding belief among much of the American far right. The scenario has many variations, but the basics are that politicians, threatened by a potentially rebellious populace, are watching and listening in on them, working to undermine them and readying for the day they will wrench away their freedoms.
But this scenario isn’t merely a paranoid fantasy dreamed up in the deepest corners of the alt-right – it’s relatively recent history. Instead of gun-toting “sovereign citizens” and Confederate-flag-waving patriot groups serving as the targets, however, the US government largely targeted segments of the Left for widespread surveillance, disruption, “neutralization,” and eventually destruction.
This was the COINTELPRO program, whose first operations were launched by the FBI sixty years ago this month.
http://original.antiwar.com/Branko_Marcetic/2016/09/05/fbis-secret-war/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Church Committee
Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities
Despite these numerous challenges, the Church Committee investigated and identified a wide range of intelligence abuses by federal agencies, including the CIA, FBI, Internal Revenue Service, and National Security Agency. In the course of their work, investigators identified programs that had never before been known to the American public, including NSA’s Projects SHAMROCK and MINARET, programs which monitored wire communications to and from the United States and shared some of that data with other intelligence agencies. Committee staff researched the FBI’s long-running program of “covert action designed to disrupt and discredit the activities of groups and individuals deemed a threat to the social order,” known as COINTELPRO. The FBI included among the program’s many targets organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and individuals such as Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as local, state, and federal elected officials.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/investigations/ChurchCommittee.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: just try this yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: just try this yourself.
And then there was the secret meeting between Lynch and (Bill) Clinton days before her interview, which we only found out about by accident.
That was just "stupid" too I suppose.
Disappointing, TD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hillary Clinton Broke the Law
Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information
(tt) "Violation" means:
(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;
(2) any knowing, willful, or negligent action to classify or continue the classification of information contrary to the requirements of this order or its implementing directives; or
(3) any knowing, willful, or negligent action to create or continue a special access program contrary to the requirements of this order.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-infor mation
Using FBI's Grand Pooh-bah J Edgar Comey's own words from his 5Jul16 news conference titled Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System:
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.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey -on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
According to Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information, posted above, a violation of the law has occurred when a person negligently handles classified information.
Hillary Clinton broke the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
By law, all government servers transmissions are recorded for posterity. You just have to know who did the send to get a open copy. That's the hard part of open government.
Oh, and by the way. It's not illegal for her to use her private server in government, or bad things would have happened to the group prior to these shenanigans. And nothing is ever heard of them, except in passing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OMG, you are kidding, right? The FBI is one of the biggest political power players around, and the timing of this release can only contribute to the Republican frenzy about "crooked hillary". Coming a very short time before the Presidential vote, it's a red hot bombshell that could shape the future of the country.
It should be pointed out that the FBI likely considers that a future with Trump around would be a happy free for all for law enforcement, not quite Philippines level but certainly the various agencies would have much more Presidential support to push the boundries to deal with drugs, immigrants, and terrorism. Hillary is much more "steady hand" and that isn't as good for the FBI or the other three letter agencies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Federal; Records Act
Nevermind that the people who investigated the matter don't agree, just string her up! Mob justice with a side of far-right hysteria! huzzah! Things are so simple this way!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hillary and Classified Material
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/best-of-clinton-fbi-report-227692
Elsewhere the article goes on:On the face of it that statement is implying that she NEVER received ANY classified material (or at least considered herself to have receive such material) whilst using her private server, which surely beggars belief.
Elsewhere the article notes:That implies that she considers the buck stops with her underlings, not with her, to decide such matters, and therefore if anyone is to blame for such material ending on in her email it is them.
And to think this woman wants to become president of the United States!
All in all one has to wonder where stupidity, naiveté, and ignorance end and sheer (criminal) negligence begins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Previous Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice also used private accounts for classified emails. Any (likely true) claim that it was done to intentionally avoid FOIA laws, applies to them with equal credibility.
Also Bush II, Cheney, Rove and anyone else connected to the Bush White House email controversy, tens of millions of White House emails sent through private servers. Millions of them lost. White House deputy Jennifer Farley even told Jack Abramoff not to use the official White House system "because it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc." Abramoff responded, "Dammit. It was sent to Susan on her RNC pager and was not supposed to go into the WH system."
Jeb! as governor used his own server against the rules and as Florida governor to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants.
2016 presidential candidates Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal, who each have their own email scandals. Mitt Romney too. You honestly don't believe that avoiding FOIA laws had anything to do with it?
And of course all those Congressman who claim that they "don't use email", while having their aides use their private accounts. "Conveniently" avoiding FOIA requests.
In most if not all cases you can't point to a "specific email" because they haven't been recovered. Or you can (the above Abramoff email exchange for example) but people simply lost interest because they left office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird, I'd take that as an indication she did NOT take all classified information seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's funny how large numbers of people seem to forget all sorts of things they recognize elsewhere when it comes to Hillary, not that i have any interest in defending her.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If you want to point out some kind of perceived favoritism, then consider this. If that idiot Trump had of done the same thing, the media would have expert after expert lined up to state that he's a criminal. If he was having coughing fits, falling down stairs, blood clots in the brain, and weird random epileptic facial seizures, then the media would be parading expert after expert in front of the camera stating that he's got some kind of illness that should disqualify him from being president. So she she gets to be on the receiving end of all that favoritism, and then point at the Republican side and say "but they did it too" when she gets caught breaking the law? I don't think so.
They have all created this mess of a system we have, and the only way to clean it up is to take a hard line, and start holding them accountable. Republican, Democrat, Independent, all of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Revolution
You are currently enduring the rule of a Congress beleaguered by the alt-right on one side and frustrated Progressives on the other, most of whom are in hock to corporate interests in the name of small government, rugged individualism, and "the market," which will "sort it out," whatever "it" is.
This revolution was kicked off by the Powell Memorandum in 1971 and has been enacted piecemeal over the last few decades. What Powell never expected was that people would not only pick it up and run with it but that they'd run wherever they wanted to with it. Result: a hard shift to the Right in which traditionally conservative stances are considered left wing/progressive.
Anarchy doesn't scale, Padpaw. We need governMENT to do the governING and the most successful revolutions are the ones where the administration of the nation has been taken into account — and taken over. As I've said any number of times here, be careful what you wish for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This appears to be a problem for the INS.
The other option, is that the FBI is refusing to prosecute a clear violation of the law, because they are waiting for somebody to become immune to prosecution so they can pass the buck.
Which is as much ignoring the duties of their office, as executing their duties is interference with the elections.
The FBI does not take it's oath to the DNC. The FBI is not responsible for the DNC's failure to raise an unfelonious candidate.
The DNC WILL be able to function with HRC in jail. The possibility of a Candidate being indisposed during the race will be covered in the DNC charter.
So at this point, the FBI is operating independently of the law, and on behalf of the DNC by failing to uphold their oath. Much like the old sheriffs of the south who stood by while the KKK ran amuck.
I understand their reluctance. I wouldn't want to touch that pile of crap either. But... THAT IS THE JOB THEY SIGNED UP FOR.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
She absolutely understands confidentiality..
This is especially true in that all these groups that get hacked are running soon control on all their secrets ans dealings. It's power playing by people who are at their core all of one political persuasion... They are statist, as that is where their power and influence come from. Both major parties want to keep the status quo, no matter that they say. It's all they know, ans it's the rules they play best by.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Federal; Records Act
ROFL... you almost had me there. Next time include the /s.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Rumors of others...who cares with facts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Rumors of others...who cares with facts
NONE of all those other cases involved encryption. Most were against the rules, every bit as much as for Hillary. (Again, this is why I provided links.) There is no more evidence that Hillary's server was hacked than for the others.
Sure, prosecute. But not in an "it's OK when Republicans do it" fashion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: She Should be in Jail
Sorry, but any of us peons with clearances would be in jail, awaiting our day in court. Bail? You've got to be shitting me, we know we wouldn't be allowed out at any price.
However the American nobility have known for a long time that laws don't apply to them. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the nobility keeps expanding, and the rest run the risk of getting their cash & debit cards arrested, because our government needs more money to support the noble causes (& expenses).
[ link to this | view in thread ]