US Officials Report No Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke The Law, Will Right-Wing Media Listen?

[Bill USA]

Conservative Media Conspiracy Theories Doused By The Facts

U.S. officials say they have not yet found evidence that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton willfully broke the law with use of her private email or that her server was hacked, according to two new reports, undercutting the conservative witch-hunt for a bombshell in the Democratic presidential front-runner’s email setup.

Prosecutors and FBI officials “have so far found scant evidence that [Hillary Clinton] intended to break classification rules,” according to a May 5 Washington Post report. The article noted that “prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not”:


[blockquote style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;"]Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter

(...)

The involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely. One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.

CNN underscored the findings in the Washington Post article, reporting that “The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.” The reports join the growing chorus of legal experts and government officials who have undermined claims made by right-wing media figures, who have repeatedly scandalized Clinton’s use of a private email server by arguing that she broke the law using her server for State Department emails.

~~
~~

But U.S. officials “dismissed claims (by “Guccifer”) that he was able to breach Clinton’s personal email server,”according to the Post, noting, “investigators have found no evidence to support the assertion.” NBC News also reported that the hacker “could provide no documentation to back up his claims,” and Politico reported that an “internal FBI review of Clinton’s email records did not indicate traces of hacking.”
(more)

Will the Right Wingers listen?? ..of course not! ...http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1898037

[Gomez163]

1. Thank you Sgt. Schultz

[WhiteTara]

2. Will the left wingers listen?

I doubt it. Their minds are made up.

[Actor]

51. So you acknowledge the left are those who will support Hillary, if need be, given

the alternative is a nightmare.

Good, I am the left and a winger I guess, I will do everything humanly possible to make sure that son of a bitch is not president.

[WhiteTara]

52. So will I!

Welcome to DU!

[Press Virginia]

3. I'm sure they can say unnamed officials

Say the FBI will recommend she be indicted

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. "Keep hope alive."

[Press Virginia]

9. She knew she had classified info in her email

It was retained outside the control of the government

Her only defense is incompetence

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. There is a high-low system for transmitting information. She used the high security system when ...

There is a high-low system for transmitting information. She used the high security system when she deemed it appropriate. The information that is now classified was deemed so after the fact.

Don't take DSB's word for it . He's just a random internet poster. But I suspect there will be no indictment.

We will see who is correct in the fullness of time.


Oh, are there FBI officials who believe there will be an indictment? Maybe, but I doubt they are close to the investigation. What I don't doubt is that they are leaking to FOX.

[Press Virginia]

13. How'd she do that without a government email account

and how did the IC IG find e-mails with TS information that was classified when sent?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. The TS information wasn't initiated by her.

And it was incumbent on the person who sent the TS information not to use the low system (e-mail) in any case.

[Press Virginia]

15. It doesn't matter if it was initiated by her

She not only failed to report the security breach, she retained the information on her personal server.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. The person who sent the information is responsible. There will be no indictment but:

[Press Virginia]

17. They're not responsible for her retaining TS

information outside of the government control.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. There will be no indictment but:

[Press Virginia]

19. We'll see.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Thin reed to pin one's hopes on.

[Press Virginia]

22. So are unnamed sources

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Many legal scholars have weighed in and the consensus is she won't be indicted...

Many legal scholars have weighed in and the consensus is she won't be indicted, save some right wing hacks. But don't let a random internet poster stand between you and your most closely held dreams.

[Press Virginia]

24. Pure speculation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Informed speculation but please don't let a random internet poster stand between you and...

Informed speculation but please don't let a random internet poster stand between you and your most closely held dreams.

Thank you in advance.

[Press Virginia]

26. Informed? Did they have access to the

E-mails that were withheld by the government?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Asked and answered .

If you believe she will be indicted there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. But please don't let a random internet poster stand between you and your most closely held dreams.

I have copied this post for future use. It is easier than fashioning a new response for the e-mail truthers.

[Press Virginia]

33. I said "we'll see". I'm not making proclamations

based on anonymous sources and a story that has gone from "no malicious intent" to "no willful intent" based on unnamed "us officials" familiar with the investigation.

Then again, I recognize the flaw in her claims that nothing was marked classified.....which was the story she settled on after her first claim fell apart.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. "I said "we'll see". I'm not making proclamations."

"Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul - and sings the tunes without the words - and never stops at all."

[NWCorona]

62. That is true but are you aware that Hillary HAD a duty to fill out an electronic spillage report for

the TS info you speak of?

[Bill USA]

58. None of the emails containing Classified info were classified at the time she received them.

they all were classified as the DoS looked at the emails in the last year.

Even if they were classified at the time, that doesn't mean there would inevitably be a prosecution...

[link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-e-mail-scandal-that-isnt/2015/08/27/b1cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html|The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t]

Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this “scandal” is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it’s not something a prosecutor would take to court.

[div style="background:#ddddff;"]“It’s common” that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information.

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

“It’s common knowledge that the classified communications system is impossible and isn’t used,” said one former high-level Justice Department official. Several former prosecutors said flatly that such sloppy, unauthorized practices, although technically violations of law, wouldn’t normally lead to criminal cases.

(more)

[ebayfool]

48. Do you have a link about this high security system? I haven't seen anything like that mentioned ...

anywhere.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Here

There is a high-low system for transmitting information. She used the high security system when she deemed it appropriate. The information that is now classified was deemed so after the fact.

-DemocratSinceBirth

How did Clinton receive and consume classified information?

The Secretary's office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types.

A separate, closed email system was used by the State Department for the purpose of handling classified communications, which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system.


https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

[ebayfool]

55. How did she use that separate, closed email system without a .gov email address?

Ty for the link, btw.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. I guess we will know when she is indicted or not.

Wow. You can even vote on it:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511929144

[ebayfool]

59. Ok. That was enlightening. Or something. Or not.

I do keep trying to see this from the Clinton supporter's eyes, by asking questions. You did give me one substantive answer - a link. TY for that. If you could have gone that one step further, you would have made some progress with me. I really would like to be shown evidence that I'm wrong. It would make me, at least, less concerned about the prospect of her prevailing in her bid for the WH.

But not one supporter is willing to follow through when I talk to them.

"I guess we will know ...". Is that an 'I dunno'? Is that a 'I can show you but I'm not gonna?' It is a discussion board, and I'm really trying to discuss. Am I wasting my time and yours?

I saw the Muttley, btw. Don't be picking on the Muttley! He's an Amurikan Icon for pete's sake!

[Bill USA]

60. check out link....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1930259

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. Those that have a vested interest in her being indicted will find information to support their view.

Those that have a vested interest in her being indicted will find information to support their view, motivated reasoning and all that.

I am confident she will not be indicted.

We will all know in the fullness of time.

[ebayfool]

64. .

"I guess we will know ...". Is that an 'I dunno'? Is that a 'I can show you but I'm not gonna?' It is a discussion board, and I'm really trying to discuss. Am I wasting my time and yours?


Okay. I get it. All of the above. Sometimes it's just not worth the effort. Apologies for wasting your time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. If you do a search you will see I have hundreds of posts on e-mails.

There reaches a point where a person tires of discussing the same thing.

[Hoyt]

53. Not surprising from one who still thinks George Zimmerman is a law-abiding gun owner.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Who here was pro George Zimmerman ?

[Press Virginia]

69. I do?

[Mike Nelson]

4. No, but...

...they accomplished their task. They hold all this up and portray her as "scandal-ridden" although she's apparently quite clean for a politician. They squealed "A-ha!" when her fingerprints were found on her Rose Law Firm records. They could just have easily found my fingerprints on my car door handle.

[bahrbearian]

31. Iraq, Honduras, Haiti, Libya, Syria, Server in the basement, all repug-generated faux scandal ?

[hlthe2b]

5. With respect to your last statement...

Months of self-professed progressive DUers seemingly frothing at the thought of charges coming and taking every opportunity to post the latest prediction (from- predictably-- far RW sources) leave me asking the same of them....

I have never posted a negative comment about any of the original three Democratic candidates (nor of their supporters)--nor do I hold such negative views. So, while I can understand supporting one's favorite, I just have never understood the ugly vitriol the past many months targeting the Dem candidates,... That said, the ugly vitriol against Secretary Clinton has been so damned reminiscent of the RW bombardment of past decades, that it simply left me beyond incredulous.

It will be interesting to see the response... I suppose many are going to have a lot of reality to absorb on this score.

[leveymg]

6. There's a major difference between no evidence and "scant evidence", as the WaPo actually stated

WaPo/CNN ran a preemptive leak with a lot of backspin. Read it closely and it says the FBI has

evidence that HRC had intent to violate the law. Both reports used virtually identical language:

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules


Note the modifier "scant", and then read the sentence again.

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so found evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules

When you read the headlines through the lens of the actual law, finding "scant evidence" and "evidence" are exactly the same. The FBI has found evidence of intent to break classification rules.

Now, how can that be? Doesn't every criminal statute require proof that the defendant intended to break the law? No, some laws, like those related to negligence do not require proof of intentional lawbreaking or that actual harm be done. A common example is operating under the influence of alcohol. The mere fact that a policeman finds one behind the wheel with a blood alcohol level over a certain percentage is enough to convict. Parts of the Espionage Act are like that. Even though they involve negligence rather than intent to commit a crime, they are still felonies. She is not off the hook.

Add that to the fact the State Department and the Intelligence Community IGs have already found more than 2,000 items of classified information found on her server, 104 of which she sent herself, and 22 found to be information that was Top Secret.

The modifier "scant" is spin. She can be convicted of two major felonies enumerated within the Espionage Act without specific intent to violate classification rules, as was explained at length here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511898037

The Felony statute at at Sec. 793 enumerates six separate crimes. The first three, (a)-(c), require the prosecution to show intent to violate the law and to cause harm to the national security. However, two, subsection (e) and (f) apply merely on the basis of mishandling classified materials without actual intent to or the effect of exposing secrets or to violate the law. The standard articulated in (e) is even lower, requiring merely that the defendant acted with "

The standard articulated in (f), meanwhile, requires nothing more than

She was given notice by NSA not to use her Blackberry, but continued to use it hooked up to her unauthorized private server. She received Classified information from Blumenthal, who told her it was classified, but instead of reporting him as the statute at (f)(2) commands, she replied, "Keep 'em coming." She didn't report the apparent violation of information security. That was a direct violation of that part of the law, which requires a mere showing of "extreme . Furthermore, contrary to campaign spin, paragraph one of her signed Classified Information Nondisclose Agreement states, "classified information is marked or unmarked classified information."

She violated her security oath and that should be enough to disqualify her from seeking office that requires a security clearance. HRC isn't out of the frying pan.

[pmorlan1]

30. Thank you

for actually providing the facts.

[IdaBriggs]

46. Stop making sense -- it confuses the uninformed!

Well done, by the way!

[scscholar]

8. And on Facebook, some of my nuttier friends...

are claiming the FBI is going to interview her.

[arcane1]

27. That is being claimed in the OP as well n/t

[silvershadow]

54. This whole meme the OP espouses has actually been debunked here on DU.

They probably have the poster hidden, so they don't know what we do.

[6chars]

10. Now that she has been declared innocent, can we

all just accept that she IS going to be the nominee and the only chance to stop Trump?

[Dragonfli]

28. WaPo has the power to declare her innocent? Wow, you just blew my mind, I thought they were

a newspaper citing sources they never did manage to get the names of.

I did not know they had such power over our legal system, I thought we had Federal Investigators, prosecutos and judges for such things.

Why dd they not release the not guilty findings? Never mind, I forgot, they have the power to do so themselves and "don't need no stinking badges".

[VOX]

12. The RW m.o. is to keep pounding away on the false negatives...

So that after unlimited, highly partisan hearings, committees, investigations, etc., etc., the idea of Hillary as a candidate (even with no lawbreaking found) will evoke a negative emotional response in the minds of as many voters as possible.

If HRC doesn't become the Democratic presidential candidate, all that email-Benghazi-scandal-crap will quickly cease. It's all right-wing theater.

[bahrbearian]

32. Iraq, Honduras, Haiti, Libya, Syria, Server in the basement, all repug-generated faux scandal ?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. No, some of that is left-wing generated faux scandal too. N.T.

[NCTraveler]

20. No. They are desperate and fear her. Nt

[Sheepshank]

34. to hell with the RW media...will Sanders Supporters listen? Bet not. nt

[Lucinda]

36. That's the more important question...

[DCBob]

37. The RW media will always ignore the truth to push their agenda.

But it won't matter Hillary will win in the end.

[Marr]

38. This is Cheney-esque. It's a report of a report that cited an unnamed source. /nt

[winter is coming]

39. And it's being pushed, hard, as fact. Interesting, don't you think? n/t

[Marr]

41. I certainly do.

People don't try to muddy the waters this hard when the facts flatter them.

[840high]

40. Unrec - not factual.

[iandhr]

42. Will DU listen?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

43. K&R a 5th rec for publicity

[Bill USA]

44. people think if they keep repeating the nonsense, it will come true...LOL!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1926160

[IdaBriggs]

45. Nameless officials directly contradicting Lying Hillary --

Who should we believe? I'll wait for the official verdict from the FBI and the DOJ, thank you, and not the spin-masters from the Hillary Camp.

[Bill USA]

49. IG of the Intelligence Community & Dept of State - "not a criminal referral"

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the refe rral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials.

Law Professor Explains Why Hillary Clinton "Won't Be Indicted And Shouldn't Be" Over Her Email Server

University of Michigan Professor of Law and Sociology and former Department of Homeland Security classification expert Richard Lempert debunked common right-wing talking points about the FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a personal server for government emails to explain why Clinton "won't be indicted and shouldn't be."

Right-wing media have hyped the idea of an imminent criminal indictment over Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server despite experts consistently debunking claims that Clinton violated the law. In a March piece for American Prospect, Lempert wrote that Clinton's email use did not constitute criminal conduct, noting that relevant law says one must "knowingly and willfully" disclose "certain categories of classified information" to violate the statutes regarding the disclosure of classified information. Lempert explained that Clinton "would have had to know she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States." He also noted that heads of agencies, such as Secretary of State, "have considerable authority with respect to classified information," including declassifying material their agency has classified (emphasis original):

[blockquote style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;"]What constitutes criminal conduct with respect to the disclosure of classified information?

Relevant law is found in several statutes. To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: "Whoever knowingly and willfully ... [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned."

The most important words in this statute are the ones I have italicized. To violate this statute, Secretary Clinton would have had to know that she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States or that she was handling it in a way (e.g. by not keeping it adequately secure) that was at least arguably prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.

(...)

Heads of agencies have considerable authority with respect to classified information, including authority to approve some exceptions to rules regarding how classified information should be handled and authority to declassify material their agency has classified.

(more)

here's the link to the whole article in the American Prospect:

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis - There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.

News reports suggest that the FBI is nearing the end of its inquiry into the legal issues surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal server for government emails and into the legal ramifications of classified information found in messages to and from her. Most of the reporting—and virtually all political discussion—reads as if reporters and pundits know little about the rules regarding the classification of information and what they imply not just for the likelihood of a Clinton indictment but also for whether she violated other rules regarding the proper handling of classified information, whether or not the violations constitute crimes.

[font size="3"]What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of state’s email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.[/font]
(more)

[IdaBriggs]

56. Apologies for the confusion - the IC AG report you reference is from July 2015.

This is the one I refer to from January 14, 2016

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels. According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”
Link to PDF: https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Ffnn.box.com%2Fs%2F48oj2j79cp73l66p6afj73rkthwlpt5j

Your second one is an opinion piece "based on what he knows" which apparently didn't include the letter I just referenced, and the third is from the same guy under a different website, so the same issue applies. There are also over a dozen opinion pieces from people with better credentials saying the exact opposite of what your guy says, so at the end of the day, it looks like the lawyers will be battling out/she should be too busy testifying at the 38 Civil Lawsuits (so far) to have time for anything else/not including any possible criminal actions.

I thought you were referring to the "nameless sources" who tried to leak "nothing to see here" on Thursday, while directly contradicting Hillary from Tuesday.

TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2016

Clinton: ‘I’m really focused on moving into the general election’, MSNBC, May 3, 2016
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-im-really-focused-moving-the-general-election
(snip)
And Clinton said neither she nor her staff have yet been contacted by the FBI, which is investigating the handling of classified information on the private email server she used a secretary of state. (more at link)

THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2016

First on CNN: FBI interviews Clinton aides including Huma Abedin as part of email probe, CNN, May 5, 2016
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)

Obviously either the "nameless source" or Hillary is lying, and it appears to be Hillary (again) as other sources are now leaking the date and time of Abedin's interviews.

I remain content to trust the FBI to handle the problem. It looks like "unintentionally" endangering national security, evasion of FOIA, accepting monies from foreign governments, and conspiracy to destroy government records so far, but I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to take the Attorney General at her word:

"...that matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents as well as the career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate..."
Link at: http://www.c-span.org/video/?405232-1/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-testimony-fiscal-year-2017-budget

It's not going away.

[Bill USA]

65. "a dozen opinion pieces from people with better credentials saying th exact opposite of what yr guy"

Who is "your guy" the Intelligence Community IG or Dept of State IG?

and who are the "dozens of people with better credentials"..? You don't get much better than an Inspector General.

Re:"Going away" I never said it would "go away" ... the FBI and Justice department will make the final decision.

However, since the IG's of the Intelligence Community and the Dept of state said it the forwarded a "security referral" that means, in a rational World, this is not a criminal investigation.

I'm singularly uninterested in disabusing someone of their religion. So don't take anything I say as anything more than passing along what knowledgeble individuals have to say on the subject.

[font size="3"] Here's some more on the subject from a former "CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information."[/font]


The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t

Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? [font size="3"]After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this “scandal” is overstated.[/font] Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it’s not something a prosecutor would take to court.

“It’s common” that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information.

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

“It’s common knowledge that the classified communications system is impossible and isn’t used,” said one former high-level Justice Department official. Several former prosecutors said flatly that such sloppy, unauthorized practices, although technically violations of law, wouldn’t normally lead to criminal cases.

Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state has been a nagging campaign issue for months. Critics have argued that the most serious problem is possible transmission of classified information through that server. Many of her former top aides have sought legal counsel. But experts in national-security law say there may be less here than it might appear.
(more)

I am quite confident that when the decision is made and she is not indicted, that those whose religion is that Hillary is a demon taking a vacation from hell to destroy life as we know it on Earth will still be enthralled by their faith in the Republican party's rendering of the demon Hillary. Just as the Birthers no doubt are still sure that Obama is an alien who swam to Hawaii when he was a baby and sneaking on shore bought a countereit birth certificate.

[font size="+1"]Scritch, scritch, scritch[/font]

[IdaBriggs]

68. Your IG report is July 2015/mine is January 2016. My sources include

"real people" from DOJ (attorney general) and CURRENT people from the State Department.

I highly recommend you check out the definitive timeline -- http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

[Voice for Peace]

66. Scant ÷ no = prolly a little bit