Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Intel Community and DOS IGs found that HRC "emails were not retroactively classified" [View all]justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)16. Here's information that's much more current
From the Chicago Tribune (sort of a post-mortem opinion piece):
Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating 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.
That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn't enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like Gen. David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.
...
Just to be clear: I'm not defending Clinton's decision to use her own email for work, and house it on a private server. That was a mistake. It violated State Department policy. She shouldn't have done it. But acknowledging that is very different from saying she broke the law or jeopardized national security. As of now there is zero evidence that she did either.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-private-server-20160509-story.html
That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn't enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like Gen. David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.
...
Just to be clear: I'm not defending Clinton's decision to use her own email for work, and house it on a private server. That was a mistake. It violated State Department policy. She shouldn't have done it. But acknowledging that is very different from saying she broke the law or jeopardized national security. As of now there is zero evidence that she did either.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-private-server-20160509-story.html
And a story from PolitiFact:
Heres what we know about the investigation so far.
The FBI is conducting an investigation. (Its the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after all.)
Inspectors General from the State Department and the intelligence community referred the case to the Executive Branch in July 2015. The referral memo made clear that the Inspectors General were not suggesting that anyone involved in Clintons email setup committed a crime. Rather, they were following their statutory obligation to inform the intelligence community about any potential security breach namely, that Clinton possibly held classified information on her email server located outside secure government facilities*.
Clinton says she never knowingly sent or received classified information, a possibly criminal action.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/12/fbis-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/
The FBI is conducting an investigation. (Its the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after all.)
Inspectors General from the State Department and the intelligence community referred the case to the Executive Branch in July 2015. The referral memo made clear that the Inspectors General were not suggesting that anyone involved in Clintons email setup committed a crime. Rather, they were following their statutory obligation to inform the intelligence community about any potential security breach namely, that Clinton possibly held classified information on her email server located outside secure government facilities*.
Clinton says she never knowingly sent or received classified information, a possibly criminal action.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/12/fbis-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/
*emphasis mine
Y'all seem to be missing the big part of this story/investigation: Did Hillary Clinton INTEND to break the law or just skirt the rules? If it's just skirt the rules, there will never be an indictment on that matter and how they can they truly prove that she intended to break the law? Think of her what you will but I'm sorry, I just don't see Hillary Clinton intending to break espionage laws. If she's that great an evil mastermind, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. We'd never know anything about the emails.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
113 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Intel Community and DOS IGs found that HRC "emails were not retroactively classified" [View all]
leveymg
Jun 2016
OP
Brock, Obama, et al Just Trying To Get Her To Safety... In The WHITE HOUSE... Where She Will Be Safe
CorporatistNation
Jun 2016
#99
Every federal agency is supposed to have one. Hillary never appointed hers. The current DOS IG has
leveymg
Jun 2016
#18
Your OP is what's called in football terms, a "Hail Mary", a last second attempt at victory.
brush
Jun 2016
#79
There's no clinch here. She may be presumed to be the nominee, but that's not a clinch.
Zen Democrat
Jun 2016
#85
MSNBC has already said they will declared her the presumptive nominee tomorrow . . .
brush
Jun 2016
#89
where did you get the information that another report from a different IG would be issued?
Voice for Peace
Jun 2016
#5
That was a Joint Statement with the DOS on the emails that DOS first released last summer
leveymg
Jun 2016
#20
That is correct. The Joint Statement above is from last July. The IG Report is imminent, perhaps
leveymg
Jun 2016
#73
Here's the same Joint Statement as posted by the office of the Director of National Intelligence
leveymg
Jun 2016
#23
WaPo (03/10/16) HRC campaign fears "the two (IG) offices issue a report that is damaging to Clinton"
leveymg
Jun 2016
#110
it's unfathomable to me that indictment would not be recommended by Comey
Voice for Peace
Jun 2016
#111
Hence Hillary's shift in stance from "not classified" to "not *marked* classified".
winter is coming
Jun 2016
#7
This is a Dept State and Intel Coimmunity statement the Clinton campaign misrepresented. Censor it?
leveymg
Jun 2016
#26
Have you promoted yourself to official timekeeper? You add so much to discussion with all these
JudyM
Jun 2016
#38
They probably thought it necessary to keep the Clinton campaign machine together. This was the only
leveymg
Jun 2016
#50
According to Paul, and I've also read it, the FBI has had a complete set of all 60,000 emails
leveymg
Jun 2016
#83
I actually don't expect the FBI Report will make a recommendation. But it will confirm the IC IG
leveymg
Jun 2016
#65
Actually, Tyler Drumheller's sources had active security clearances and took classified materials
leveymg
Jun 2016
#57
That's somebody's opinion an Op-ed and spin from a discredited advocacy site. Specific intent isn't
leveymg
Jun 2016
#28
How about arrogant? Out of touch with reality? Both seem very possible to me.
Seeinghope
Jun 2016
#59
Deutch was not prosecuted and Petraeus knowingly gave away classified material.
randome
Jun 2016
#17
Neither of them became the Democratic Party nominee for President, either. Meh to you.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#30
Cavalier about classified information, lies about it, and then wants to be elected POTUS.
senz
Jun 2016
#31
Hillary is going to find "the end of the line" a lot more uncomfortable than Bernie.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#44
My sources tell me that Democrat Since Birth does indeed wear your scorn as a medal.
Trust Buster
Jun 2016
#87
"rather these emails contained classified information WHEN THEY WERE GENERATED"
antigop
Jun 2016
#94