FBI investigation of Hillary’s emails is ‘criminal probe’
Source: NY Post
The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clintons unsecured e-mail account is not just a fact-finding venture its a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.
The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.
Its definitely a criminal probe, said the source. Im not sure why theyre not calling it a criminal probe.
The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances, but thats not what this is, the source stressed. In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.
Read more: http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-criminal-probe/
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)on her personal system. This is just a rehash of the now thoroughly discredited NYTimes report, with this "new" story being put out by the NY Post, a right-wing rag owned by Rupert Murdoch. (Do you believe political stories from Rush Limbaugh? If not, then you shouldn't from Murdoch.)
The emails are being examined now to see if some should be RETROACTIVELY classified. This is NOT the same as what the General did. He mishandled information that was already marked classified.
Until it's classified, it's NOT classified. It isn't uncommon for the government to reconsider whether an item should be classified -- but unless and until that is done, it's NOT classified.
From the WA Post story that the NY Post referred to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-looks-into-security-of-clintons-private-e-mail-setup/2015/08/04/2bdd85ec-3aae-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html
The FBIs interest in Clintons e-mail system comes after the intelligence communitys inspector general referred the issue to the Justice Department in July. Intelligence officials expressed concern that some sensitive information was not in the governments possession and could be compromised. The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI is not targeting her.
Kendall confirmed the contact, saying: The government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials. We are actively cooperating.
From NEWSWEEK, about the NYTimes own twisted version of the same story:
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246
In terms of journalism, this is terrible. That the Times article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clintons emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable. That this all comes from a concern about the accidental release of classified informationa fact that goes unmentionedis even worse. In other words, the Times has twisted and turned in a way that makes this story seem like something it most decidedly is not. This is no Clinton scandal. It is no scandal at all. It is about current bureaucratic processes, probably the biggest snooze-fest in all of journalism.
The heavy breathing of deception or incompetence by the Times doesnt stop there. In fact, almost every paragraph at the top of the story is wrong, misleading or fundamentally deceptive.
The third paragraph states: It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them. No, in fact, it is quite clear. All of the memos are about emails that the officials say may not have been properly designated as classified, meaning it would be improper to release them. If a document is marked as classified, it is certainly not difficult to determine if it has been marked as classified. Paragraph three is false.
Paragraph four: But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account. Mmmm-kay. A point that would seem to be reinforced by the fact that this whole issue is about whether emails should have been designated as classified by FOIA officials. The but makes it seem as if there is a contradiction, when in fact the two points are completely consistent.
candelista
(1,986 posts)http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/opinions/cox-clinton-email-controversy/
The Secretary of State is supposed to be able to recognize unmarked classified information and has a duty not to reveal it.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)that she failed to do that.
And this report was written by a right-wing rag, parroting the NYTimes story.
candelista
(1,986 posts)You mean "proven in court"?
Well, she hasn't had a trial yet. But...
"The inspector general of the intelligence community concluded Mrs. Clinton sent at least four emails that included classified information."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-says-she-didnt-use-personal-email-account-to-send-or-receive-secret-data-1437870630
That's four out of forty randomly selected emails. Her attorney also has copies.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)drip... drip... drip...
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)at the emails to double check that none of them might have to be re-classified in light of the FOIA. That's what this is about. Not going after Hillary.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)riversedge
(70,300 posts)been classified
madaboutharry
(40,220 posts)is a Rupert Murdoch rag.
cynzke
(1,254 posts)"Sources" are Republicans on the Benghazi committee. You'd think by now DU'ers would know better than to take the bait.
murielm99
(30,761 posts)This needs to end.
candelista
(1,986 posts)More censorship? When will that end?
BumRushDaShow
(129,454 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Funny, how people like Romney can outright get rid of his state computers, yet he's considered by some to be presidential material.
former9thward
(32,080 posts)They did a "limited sample" and looked at a grand total of 40. And found 4 that should have been classified. That is 10%.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)SOS emails are archived for public view (use the request form) by our gov. I'm still amazed.
IMO, that server was hacked years ago, as were most gov. computers and some on the dark side have seen 'private' emails they would like to expose in public to trash the Clintons, but can't.
You got refuted. Why not admit it?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)so quit trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and trying to start stupid message board arguments with me.
you going to vote for Mrs. Clinton if she wins the primary?
candelista
(1,986 posts)That's a personal attack. Don't you have something better? Can't you give one rational argument?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)server. you need an icon
candelista
(1,986 posts)You can do better than that. Deal with the issue.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Andrej28
(65 posts)Anytime.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)The liberal NYT "stinks of GOP"?
Now that is a stretch.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)I don't mind the personal insult, coming from you.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)liberal newspaper. It isn't.
still_one
(92,396 posts)Peter Schweizer spew his crap with no holds, that said everything about what the Times had become.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)why bother us with this drivel....
candelista
(1,986 posts)That's what the Justice Department does. Okay, once in a while they sue somebody, but not often.
Kingofalldems
(38,476 posts)right wing NY Post in LBN.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Please explain. And tell us where the NYT fits in. They had a "hit piece" on Hillary. Should they be censored or not?
Kingofalldems
(38,476 posts)The New York Post , like Fox, is dedicated to electing republicans. Pretty sure you know that.
candelista
(1,986 posts)I am honored by your comment. And for you to say that you are "pretty sure" I know something! Well, I'll have to go and celebrate.
But actually, the NYT was never proven wrong. It got pushed back, that's all, by a barrage of recriminations from Hillary supporters and her lawyer, David Kendall (he defended General Petraeus against similar criminal charges).
Of course this is a criminal investigation. That's what the FBI does. They do not do computer systems analysis, not unless it's part of a criminal investigation.
Is Hillary the target, or her computer? If the FBI investigates a computer for child porn, they are after the owner. Same with state secrets.
Kingofalldems
(38,476 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)If there is a possibility that classified materials were ending up somewhere they shouldn't be, then a criminal probe seems like something they should be doing. Seems to me calling it a "fact finding" investigation is just what you might call a criminal probe in it's early stages and you don't want to make things look worse than they might be.
candelista
(1,986 posts)There is no other way to spin it, no matter how Hillary supporters may try.
itcfish
(1,828 posts)Murdoch rag? Please...........
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Colin Powell would have had some interesting emails
Ducksworthy
(55 posts)I thought is might be a real paper. Benghazi!
RussBLib
(9,035 posts)when the Clintons have left the political scene.
We will be better off when the right-wing Republicans are no longer controlling the media in a relentless lying attack on any Democrat who gains public support. Has Obama done any better than the Clintons? They have attached him relentlessly since he's been in office. Any Democrat worth their salt is going to get this. It not just the Clintons.
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)Doingto
(135 posts)And is Hillary the target?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
truthisfreedom
(23,155 posts)meh.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)Months ago when I was expressing concern about my own cyber-security, my husband the Data Base Administrator looked up from what he was reading and asked if I wanted a "private email server," because, he said, he could easily do that from our home. I gave him a very funny look. Turns out he hadn't been following the news at all, and was unaware that the term had become a slam on Bill and Hillary.
I decided not to proceed with that for my own use, but I do have to point out that as one federal government and military server/data base after another has been hacked, I have not heard one word about either the Clintons' or Colin Powell's accounts being hacked. Maybe because they were really secure.
I'm sure we would have been told if they had been. Don't you think?