US Government Officials tell CNN: NO evidence against HRC so far as top aides interviewed.

[NewsCenter28]

Last edited Thu May 5, 2016, 05:53 PM - Edit history (4)

Great news!

CNN)Some of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin, have provided interviews to federal investigators, as the FBI probe into the security of her private email server nears completion, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/index.html

[MoonRiver]

1. Hopefully this will be wrapped up soon so she can just concentrate on the election.

[scscholar]

35. The FBI already confirmed they were delaying...

until after the election in order to cause even more problems. They are so political. So political.

[MoonRiver]

65. UGH!

[IdaBriggs]

2. Link? Thanks! nt

[NewsCenter28]

3. Sorry! http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/index.html

[IdaBriggs]

12. Found it, but it's not all roses...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/index.html

(CNN) Some of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin, have provided interviews to federal investigators, as the FBI probe into the security of her private email server nears completion, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.

In recent weeks, multiple aides have been interviewed -- some more than once, the officials said. A date for an FBI interview of Clinton has not been set, these officials said, but is expected in the coming weeks. Abedin has cooperated with the probe, the officials said. Lawyers for Abedin declined to comment. The officials say the interviews of Clinton and her aides would be a routine part of an investigation like this.

The probe remains focused on the security of the server and the handling of classified information and hasn't expanded to other matters, the officials said. Spokesmen for the FBI and Justice Department declined to comment. The Clinton campaign has not yet responded to CNN's request for comment. David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, had no comment. (more at link)

So, no FBI or DOJ leaks, and no one else can be briefed at this stage. Also, multiple FBI interviews.

I would NOT want to be Hillary Clinton at the moment.

[synergie]

18. Why? You seem to be trying very hard to make something out of a whole bunch of nothing.

Even your best efforts a bolding, doesn't seem to back up anything though.

Multiple FBI interviews is nothing for anyone to be worried about, since they keep telling you that there is no criminal violations here, or even security ones.

[NWCorona]

20. Actually it was a good post.

And if you think being called back multiple time is nothing then you might be in for a surprise. There's only a few reasons to do that and none of them are good.

[OilemFirchen]

58. Beg pardon?

Multiple interviews are quite common - usually to corroborate testimony adduced later or to clarify statements on the record.

There's only a few reasons to do that and none of them are good.

Fascinating!

[NWCorona]

63. Yes because holes or other issues come up through other

Interviews. It's not like the FBI is going in blind.

Also just because they are common doesn't mean they are good.

[OilemFirchen]

64. C'mon. You made a ridiculous assertion. Own up to it.

It's very common to recall an interviewee to corroborate or clarify testimony. This isn't Perry Mason, where a new witness drops a bombshell implicating someone. It's likely nothing more than filling in gaps.

To jump to the conclusion that routine recalls represent something "bad" is nothing more than an attempt to satisfy your desire for a negative outcome. To state, as you did, that it's always bad is cringeworthy.

[NWCorona]

66. Yes it's common but you are making it seem that

Being repeatedly brought into the FBI is a good thing. The fact is any good lawyer will tell their client to not even think about sitting down to give an interview.

So can you tell me how being asked to give an interview with the FBI is a good thing?

That's not to say I'm not putting an emphasis on the negative. I admit my biases freely but it's not like I'm making up lies. I also don't want Hillary to go to jail or praising her down fall. I just seen how wrong this was from jump.

[pmorlan1]

50. Doesn't Sound Good

with people getting multiple interviews. I do hope they are correct that the investigation is wrapping up and that we might finally hear from the FBI sooner rather than later.

[Maedhros]

4. "Willfully" is irrelevant. [n/t]

[arcane1]

11. It would be most relevant if it were you or I. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for us.

[synergie]

19. If laws were passed yesteday about something that you did 4 years ago, you'd be

pretty upset about being accused of violating a non-existent law after the fact. But it's okay, we don't expect that you'd hold Hillary to the standards you'd hold for yourself or any other human being in existence.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. The framers of the Constitution in their infinite wisdom prohibited ex post facto laws.

Committed revolutionaries, especially keyboard ones, dismiss such things as more bourgeois claptrap.

[Maedhros]

30. That's my point: whether Hillary 'willfully' put the data at risk, or did so inadvertently,

the law has been broken.

[arcane1]

32. Just like it's not a war crime to bomb a hospital if it's a "mistake"

Different rules for them.

[Maedhros]

38. Well, yeah. Duh.

Greewald did a whole piece on this:

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/

When it comes to low-level government employees with no power, the Obama administration has purposely prosecuted them as harshly as possible to the point of vindictiveness: It has notoriously prosecuted more individuals under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined.

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ’s claims that he “mishandled” classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, “a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials” despite no “evidence he intended to distribute them.” Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.

In the light of these new Clinton revelations, the very same people who spent years justifying this obsessive assault are now scampering for reasons why a huge exception should be made for the Democratic Party front-runner. Fascinatingly, one of the most vocal defenders of this Obama DOJ record of persecution has been Hillary Clinton herself.

[DrDan]

13. "willfully" is the key to determining whether a criminal act took place

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. No soup for you. Read the statute

§1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, §808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, §4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809.)
Amendments
2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273 substituted “under this title” for “not more than $1,000,”.

[Petrushka]

45. Negligence is relevant. (n/t)

[The Second Stone]

62. No, it is of supreme importance in interpreting the law

and whether charges can be brought. Intent matters.

[snagglepuss]

5. What a load of bunk. The FBI aren't commenting so who are these "officials"?

[Dragonfli]

24. Some of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin /nt

[hrmjustin]

6. Good! I believed it was a mistake but never criminal.

[jillan]

7. "so far"

[Thinkingabout]

8. This will probably be the end result, though disappointing to those who wanted so badly to carry

This scandal far, it will not happen. Bernie Sanders probably said it best, "I am sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails".

[Joob]

9. Doesn't that suggest she did though? Just with Incompetence.... NT

[DrDan]

10. this is gonna break the hearts of some here

[Stuckinthebush]

16. Sadly, that is true

It amazes me how many here at DU seem to get excited about the possibility of Clinton willfully violating the law - against all evidence.

[ContinentalOp]

15. No evidence yet?

Don't worry, just keep on digging. Whatever it takes. Need a blank check? No problem! If you need an extra hand we can see if our man Ken Starr is available.

[NWCorona]

17. There's one problem

The source isn't coming from the FBI and to think that they would give that info out before the investigation is over is foolish. It seems to me that this is coming from the campaign.

I think it's odd that they keep on mentioning these officials but fail to name any. Regardless if true. This will be a big relief for team Clinton.

And then there's this.

"Spokesmen for the FBI and Justice Department declined to comment"

The timing of this is suspect considering the Guccifer story.

[mcar]

21. More and more proof it's a nothingburger

[mooseprime]

23. it would probably be better for all concerned

if we all just forgot clinton's every mistake and lapse of judgment...especially because there are already too many to remember. so far my favorites have been:

--voting for use of cluster bombs in civilian areas (waaaaay abuela of her)
--IWR "birth defects from depleted uranium and burn pits until the end of time!"
--1:1 relationship between foundation donations and unprecedented arms sales to the ME
--selling fracking all over the world - poisoned ground water galore!
--evolving so quickly on issues she has a new position every other day (where are we on coal today?)
--the "gold standard" of trade agreements!

i used to have a job where we handled classified materials. getting everything back in the safe was no joking matter. i can only imagine what my boss's reaction would have been to my asking whether it would be OK to keep that stuff on a server at home.


getting away with murder is not the same thing as not being guilty of it

the way we know clinton has become a full-on republican is that nothing, absolutely nothing, can possibly disqualify her from whatever she wants to do

sickening. supporting this kind of stuff is not only un-Democratic, it's unpatriotic. shame.

[silvershadow]

25. 14 recs with no link? What's up? Link please.. nt

[NWCorona]

29. There's a link it's just a little down thread. nt

[silvershadow]

31. You mean that copy and paste? nt

[NWCorona]

36. I didn't look to see if they are the same actually. nt

[silvershadow]

37. yeah, there is no link. The copy/paste takes me to an unrelated Google page. nt

[NewsCenter28]

40. I am so sorry-here is the link.

I am so very sorry, Silvershadow. The last thing that I wanted to do was confuse a fellow DUer comrade in arms. It was a breaking story so no article appeared originally. I tried to update with a link but again I am so sorry that it didn't work for you. I didn't mean to upset you. My sincerest apologies again for the confusion and it will never ever happen again. Again, I am so sorry

P.S: Also updated OP.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/index.html

[silvershadow]

43. Oh *that? That just says status quo, she still hasn't been cleared. ok. nt

[Progressive dog]

26. I wonder which group this will anger more.

nt

[Justice]

27. One thing to say, let's wait + see, but some on this thread are upset that HRC may be in clear.

[basselope]

28. Pretty bad news for Clinton.

The fact that they have to focus on the word "Willfully", means they are finding violations and now just seeing if this is another one of her classic "Oopsies"

[Adrahil]

67. Not necessarily.

If unmarked classified data was sent to her, she might be in possession of classified data without her knowledge. Happens more than you might think.

[basselope]

69. It still showcases the sloppiness.

[Adrahil]

70. Of the person who sent it? Sure.

Of the person receiving it? That's silly. No one is obligated to review the classification guides for every incoming email. That would be ridiculous.

[NWCorona]

33. Did Hillary lie when just this week she was asked if any of her aides have been

interviewed or contacted by the FBI and she said no?

Maybe they all happened this week but the reports say that some of her aides have been interviewed multiple times.

[BootinUp]

41. You're not going to give up on this are you?

It will be her second term and you'll still be saying lock her up, lol.

[NWCorona]

44. Find one post by me where I advocate for Hillary to be locked up. I'll wait

I the mean time care to answer my original question as it appears that she did lie.

[BootinUp]

46. I don't need to see you put it in exactly those words when

you express a desire to see her found guilty of a federal crime. As far as whether she lied recently about this investigation, it doesn't seem likely to me, no. But I am sure you will keep us updated.

[NWCorona]

51. So in other words.. You don't have shit to backup your shit talking. nt

[BootinUp]

53. Read it any way you desire. nt

[Jackie Wilson Said]

34. WHen Hillary isnt indicted, I bet nary a single email story promoter around here will apologize

[seabeyond]

49. Oh no, they will keep on harping on her getting arrested and thrown in the hole, regardless. Nt

[JonLeibowitz]

56. Why would they? Decline to Prosecute doesn't imply innocence.

The default legal status is "not guilty" not "innocent".

At least that is what I learned in my civics class.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

57. The GOP propaganda network is doing fine on DU.

[Adrahil]

68. Of course not.... they will claim she was protected by her fellow oligarchs.

Make no mistake, they've decided already. Now it's just about shaping the narrative to fit their predetermined conclusions. Expect no apologies.

[CanadaexPat]

39. The headline is misleading.

The FBI hasn't said anything.

[NewsCenter28]

42. Sorry you are right

Again, I apologize and updated. My apologies for confusing you! I just assumed that senior U.S officials must be D.O.J or FBI.

[CanadaexPat]

48. The way they do the attributions is confusing.

[Ash_F]

52. Who are they though?

If not DoJ or FBI how would they have access to that info? Is this an anonymous leak?

[seabeyond]

47. Isn't that great news Sanders people? No evidence of wrong doing whatsoever. Aren't we all relieved.

[Lucinda]

60. :)

[Press Virginia]

54. What an odd article. The same week the DOJ claims response to a FOIA request

would prematurely reveal evidence gathered in a LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION, we get a story from CNN that's its just a security review and there's no evidence of law breaking.....

[frylock]

55. "US Government Officials"

Serial wtf? Which "US Government Officials", and how would they know?

[FourScore]

72. Unless they are with the DOJ, they wouldn't know. But doesn't it sound impressive?

CNN just did a live breaking news story on this!! Impressive!

Except it doesn't mean diddly-squat.

[frylock]

73. I'm guessing State Department flunkies playing CYA.

Did you see this?

State Dept. to Withhold Docs Related to Clinton E-Mail Security Until After Election

[Lucinda]

61. And their wont be any. It was always just wishful thinking by some...

[Adrahil]

71. Trey Gowdy and a few folks here! ;) NT