BREAKING: Clinton (Likely) Skates Over E-mail Issue.
I just watched FBI Director James Comey provide excruciating detail over how the FBI conducted the FBI investigation into SOS Clinton’s e-mails, the findings of the investigation, and what the FBI concluded.
The Bottom Line: While the Secretary of State was ‘extremely careless’ in her use of e-mail, and while some of the e-mails that went out from her private server were of utmost secrecy and placed confidential documents at risk, he ultimately determined that ‘no reasonable prosecutor’ was likely to bring a case based on the facts at hand. He said that he would submit his findings to the Department of Justice. Since the AG has stated that she would honor the findings of the investigation, this almost certainly means no indictment.
Having said that, anyone who watches Comey’s press conference can hardly feel comfortable with the SOS’ carelessness in this matter. He also destroyed her oft-stated claim that no secret or confidential e-mails went out over her server. That statement is no longer ‘operative’.
Now, can we all agree that Bill Clinton needs to disappear for the remainder of the campaign? Comey is a total straight shooter, this would have been the outcome regardless of the ‘chance meeting’, so all Bill accomplished was to underline why people like me who have no nostalgia for the Clinton years feel uncomfortable about Hillary, even though we’ll vote for her. Seriously, what is wrong with that guy?
Comey’s comments were very damning…smells like gross negligence which is a chargeable offense. Comey used the expression “very careless” or “extremely careless.” He also insinuated that hostile foreign actors probably hacked into these emails but it cant be proven for a fact. A lower level person held accountable would have NEVER gotten a pass on this one.
If Repubs keep the House the first thing they will do is form the “House Permanent Committee to Investigate Hillary Clinton.”
I don’t think he implied that the accounts were hacked, just that they could have been hacked w/o anyone knowing it.
110 classified documents, 7 top secret. Diametrically opposite to what Hillary claimed. Wasn’t Bill supposed to be the careless one?
You can use a lot of words to describe today’s announcement. ‘Exonerated’ is not one of them.
Hillary’s email was probably safer on her server than on the State Department’s.
There are no recommended charges, no indictments so this does look like an exoneration. What is left is a messy and outside of policy management of email which is what we had at the beginning of this thing.
It depends on what ‘is’ is.
I’ll merely repeat: 110 classified documents. 8, as it turns out, Top Secret. In direct contradiction to what she said, most likely not under oath, so I guess lying was OK.
Anyone who bothered to watch Comey’s address knows that this was far from an exoneration. Just one more meme for the ‘not trustworthy’ file.
110 documents out of 30,000. .0037% of all of those emails.
If all you are left with is what you started with, with no possibility of jail time, you got an exoneration. Comey was clearly serious, but also clearly had nothin’. Anyone who bothered to watch what he said would know that he did note that she did not intentionally send or receive classified information.
He also used the term ‘extremely careless’. Oh, and 8 Top Secret e-mails. Gee, ONLY eight. And her lying about nothing classified every appearing on her server. But, the Hillary-Bots have spoken. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Yes, the carelessness was baked into this cake, so it isn’t new. And you demonstrate here on the regular that your memory isn’t 100% — so not remembering a handful of documents out of more than 30,000 is a problem? I don’t know how many emails I get over multiple email addresses over a year, but I’m very certain that I would not have perfect memory of every single one of them.
I’ll buy that when she says, “Oops, I forgot about those Top Secret e-mails.” That’s not just casual forgetfulness…she’s the SOS making categorical claims about an important point and is proven wrong.
The point here is that this is yet another unforced error that goes to her trustworthiness when it comes to the voters. Not people like me who will vote for her.
I just don’t get this assertion that any criticism of her is unfair and should be ignored. It needs to be addressed by the campaign. She is a more tarnished candidate today than she was yesterday. I think this hurts her with the millennials who were headed in her direction.
Of course, putting Elizabeth Warren on the ticket could change that in a hurry.
There is also the issue of were those 8 top secret emails actually top secret at the time she sent them. Some of her classified/top secret emails were deemed as such after she had sent them.
The FBI, like all law enforcement, isn’t going to go out and say simply “we got nothin’ and we wasted a lot of time and manpower on this so lets move on.” So Comeys statement is about as good as you are going to get from someone trying to justify spending months investigating nothing.
I just don’t get this assertion that any criticism of her is unfair and should be ignored.
No one here is making that case.
But that doesn’t change the fact that after all of the drama of this investigation, we are exactly where we started.
she’s the SOS making categorical claims about an important point and is proven wrong.
I have security clearances and couldn’t swear to the status of specific emails or even that I never forwarded one of them to someone who shouldn’t have seen it. Particularly since the last time I used any of that was years back. Unless you are working in a specifically closed network environment, I don’t know how you could.
Boy, the apologists are out in force. There were e-mails that were subsequently, I think the word Comey used was, ‘upgraded’ to more significant status, but he made clear that those weren’t among the flagged e-mails he criticized.
I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone could watch Comey’s address and come away with the conclusion that ‘he’s got nothin’. If those of you who are rushing to the defense of the candidate have not yet seen what he said, I encourage you to do so.
Are my critical thinking skills that out of whack? Maybe, but I don’t think so.
The GOP is using its mind control apparatus on you El Som. Fight it!
Oh, believe me, I’ve been trying to stay way from the surrogates on both sides.
I think this is a pretty good piece on what maybe got Hillary into this mess in the first place, and what she might do well to learn from it. Recommended for supporters and agnostics alike:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/07/05/what-hillary-clinton-needs-to-learn-from-her-email-mess/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
In retrospect, I think Bernie Sanders should have cared a little more about the damn emails!
It’s a teachable moment, but not a punishable one. Instead of targeting Hillary, how about doing something constructive like passing a clear law about document storage, or expanding FOIA to cover modern methods of communication.
“In retrospect, I think Bernie Sanders should have cared a little more about the damn emails!”
Or his taxes.
This email stuff ended exactly the way every other right wing nonsense has. With nothing.
I have a question, El Som. What exactly has Hillary done (and be specific) to deem her untrustworthy (and crooked?) (two favorite words of the GOP, btw)? I understand thinking she’s not “progressive” enough and disagreeing on certain policies, but what has she actually done to merit the term?
Please disabuse yourself of the notion that this story is being kept alive by Bernie supporters. The media LOVES this story. Have you heard Andrea Mitchell wax rhapsodic about how much trouble the Clinton campaign is in? It will chill you to the bone.
“This email stuff ended exactly the way every other right wing nonsense has. With nothing.”
That’s 120% wishful thinking. Whistling passed the graveyard, etc.
Just goes to show you there are two sets of rules. One for you and I and 1 for the elite few.
I’m not playing your game anymore, Pandora.
Answer me this. Why is a lying scum like Donald Trump deemed more trustworthy than Hillary Clinton in EVERY reputable poll?
Are my critical thinking skills that out of whack? Maybe, but I don’t think so.
Well, yes, but this is not a unique case.
Is there an indictment scheduled? No
Are there recommended charges? No
If the Director of the FBI he doesn’t have either of these, then there’s nothing. Even you can’t articulate what he has.
So we are back where we started — stupid, sloppy and out of policy email management.
I’ve articulated it all day long. Your response–your typical condescending smugness.
There is no point in even having a conversation with the Hillary Bots b/c it takes two to have a conversation.
I’m not playing a game. I asked a question. You can’t answer it. Fine.
Oh, please. This is the same game you played during the Sanders/Clinton Wars. ‘Answer my question, and be specific, otherwise you’re full of shit.’ Even when we answered your questions, you claimed we didn’t answer your questions hence, we were full of shit.
OK, I’ll bite one last time. The Wall Street speeches she won’t release. Her categorical and public claims that no sensitive information appeared on her e-mail servers. The lawyerly manner in which she answers most questions. I can go on, but I’m sure I have not answered your question to your satisfaction.
But, you know, you and the Clinton supporters might do well to ponder why Trump, of all people, is deemed significantly more trustworthy than Clinton. Why do YOU suppose that is?
I’m sick of these games. How about a real conversation instead of this Gotcha bullshit that rendered this site unreadable for about two months?
There is no point in even having a conversation with the Hillary Bots b/c it takes two to have a conversation.
The problem isn’t the Hillary Bots (whatever that is), but it is that Clinton Derangement Syndrome is not a substitute for articulating an argument. You may not have noticed that your CDS provides the right dogwhistles to only a few of you. The rest of us you actually have to speak to.
When you look at the CNN poll “Who is more honest and trustworthy?” and 45% say Trump, 37% Clinton you can have one of two reactions to that.
You can say, people have been duped by a prolonged GOP effort to knock down Clinton’s trustworthiness numbers, and you’d have a fair point.
Or you could say, she doesn’t do herself any favors, and when Bill meets with the AG in private it seems to fit into a way of doing business that creeps people out. …and you’d have a fair point.
Maybe. I’m not arguing about the trustworthiness thing. I am just focused on the claim that there is something horrible in Comey’s announcement today for Hillary.
Assessments of trustworthiness are up to you. But I am also going to point out that Obama has presided over the cleanest executive branch in my memory. I’m not sure why that doesn’t factor into the trustworthiness assessment. The meeting with Bill was stupid as hell, but a definite outlier in behavior for Obama people. And the meeting was between Bill and the AG. You don’t even know if she had anything to do with it, but somehow Bill’s behavior is about Hillary not doing herself any favors — even though she was a couple of thousand miles away at the time.
Good point. Also – FWIW, I think picking Elizabeth Warren helps Clinton win the trustworthy argument. Among skeptical Dems anyway.
The assessments of trustworthiness I mentioned are those of current American voters, not me. I don’t get the Obama analogy b/c Americans DO find him trustworthy, but they DON’T find Clinton trustworthy. Yes, they worked together in the same administration, but they were also political adversaries before that. I don’t know why his trustworthiness would be transferable, although his strong and active support may help to build her favorables.
As to Clinton Derangement Syndrome, I never mentioned either Benghazi or the e-mail issue during the ‘Wars’ b/c I thought they were both BS. Benghazi is/was. But after I watched Comey’s announcement today and learned a lot that I hadn’t known before, I found it impossible not to believe that Clinton was deserving of the strong criticism she got. I admit that I’m pretty amazed that so few here view it that way. Which makes me wonder, who really has Clinton Derangement Syndrome?
The irony is that one of Hillary’s first jobs was working on the Watergate investigative committee back in the day. She even shared an office with Republican Bill Weld. You’d think she would have learned something about truthfulness from that experience early on……. El Som is right. HIllary hasn’t been straight with the public on a lot of issues in this email matter.
I don’t get the Obama analogy
It wasn’t an analogy.
But after I watched Comey’s announcement today and learned a lot that I hadn’t known before
I learned the number of emails involved, the number of classified emails involved and that most of the classified emails were not marked classified. Otherwise, this is pretty much the same info that has been out there for months.
But I guess because it is new to you we should all be clutching our pearls now.
Well, I certainly didn’t know that she was lying when she said that no classified information ever appeared on her server. I guess you did. Oh, wait, she just didn’t reMEMber, that’s right.
You’re right. I have no idea why voters deem her untrustworthy. I guess it’s just me.
Hillary & Bill have a long track record of deviant behavior.
We Have the Final Word; And It Was Friggin’ Obvious
I certainly didn’t know that she was lying
And Comey made no such charge. But he did note that there was material that was on that server that was classified and not marked as such.
It’s called logic. She unwaveringly asserted that NO CLASSIFIED MATERIAL was ever on her server. It was, including at least 7 Top Secret threads on a non-secure server. According to the NYTimes, it is believed that some of those Top Secret threads dealt with drone strikes. Comey said that even g-mail was more secure than her server.
For how long has this been an issue? Yet she made these assertions w/o even checking whether those assertions were true? She merely misremembered?
OK.
Seriously, Comey’s got nothing worth prosecuting. If he did, he would have done it.
It’s called prosecutorial discretion.
I am not a Hillary defender. I don’t even like her.
Who on here argued that she should be prosecuted?
Eight, zero…they’re only eight apart, in a data set that probably approaches infinity. Cut her some slack.
@ES “It’s called logic. She unwaveringly asserted that NO CLASSIFIED MATERIAL was ever on her server. It was, including at least 7 Top Secret threads on a non-secure server.”
Oh come on. You’re talking about messages she RECEIVED from other people.
I’ve got about 10,000 email messages in my inbox, and another 3,000 in my junk mail. Nothing seems to be top secret classified. But if there were 7 of them that were, would you call me a liar??
Not only is this not prosecutable, you can’t even make an honest claim that Hillary has lied. Seven emails received from others… Bah!
She probably never even read them…
Wrong. Not seven e-mails. Seven e-mail threads, and those were only the Top Secret ones. Correspondence went both ways. According to the NYTimes, some of those top secret threads were about drone strikes. On an unsecured server.
That’s in addition to 110 classified e-mail threads, not counting the ones that were subsequently ‘up-classified’. Not individual e-mails. Threads.
I’m certainly not calling for her prosecution. But, for the life of me, I can’t understand why otherwise reasonable people are so blase about it.
Plus, it does have a political impact. It may be only temporary, but it serves the ‘untrustworthy’ meme. I don’t understand why people can’t at least understand that.
I hope that the campaign understands that, and takes steps to reassure voters that nothing like that will happen when she’s elected. The WaPo article I linked to earlier in this thread offers some pretty good advice, IMHO. Otherwise voters less inclined than me to vote for her just might go the other way.
I still think it’s much ado about nothing, or very little, if you prefer.
Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who helped Edward Snowden, reminded the media on msnbc that the Obama administration has been very aggressive in going after anyone on breaches of national security matters/ classified info matters, except in this case. Interesting point.
Directly from Comey’s statement:
So if this is the universe of the emails that Comey’s staff reviewed, then in 8 of the email chains marked Top Secret, they found some number of the 110 classified emails. Not separate from the 110 emails, part of that entire universe. And that still works out to 0.0037% of those emails.
And here is a WaPo article I was looking for that goes into some detail on those emails and the security protocol. This came out a couple of months before the State Department IG’s report on the email server and the handling of email throughout the department. Which could explain why you think some of us are blase about this — this material presented by Comey today isn’t especially new.
But…but…but….Benghazi!!! Hillary lied, CIA agents died!
@c “the Obama administration has been very aggressive in going after anyone on breaches of national security matters/ classified info matters, except in this case. Interesting point.”
This wasn’t a breach.
In fact, it seems that the computers at the State Department were breached, not Hillary’s private server. It’s not clear that the foreign spies even knew about Hillary’s server.
Just seems like the Clintons seem to lower the bar on so many things. How is law enforcement ever going to credibly go after low level people now for “extreme carelessness and sloppiness” handling classified and top secret information???
Did anyone notice that both Sanders and Biden crashed on the presidential prediction markets today, and Hillary’s odds of winning actually increased.
So, however bad people think this is, she has seemed to put this whole scandal behind her. She can just ride this out and let others talk about it, as her optimal strategy. And if confronted on the subject, she’ll just say “old news” and “I’ve learned” and that’s about it…
@c “How is law enforcement ever going to credibly go after low level people now for “extreme carelessness and sloppiness” handling classified and top secret information???”
Has it ever?
I believe that the history is that this usually happens in conjunction with another problem, and almost never as a stand alone thing.
I find myself agreeing with LE. If we criminalize extreme carelessness and sloppiness, we won’t be able to build prisons fast enough.
For those who care to read something other than what the Hillary-Bots are tossing out there, might I recommend:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/fbi-findings-damage-many-of-hillary-clintons-claims.html?
and
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-fbi-director-systematically-dismantled-hillary-clintons-email-defense/2016/07/05/55c444ba-42da-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html?
Inconvenient truths, I know. Maybe it’s pointless to, um, point to facts on this site any more.
Yea. I read them both earlier.
Now tell me why I’m supposed to care.
Or tell me why this is going to affect the election in any real way.
When you hear about foreign computer breakins at the State Department where millions of emails, many classified, have been swept up by Chinese and Russians spies, that’s a serious problem with the handling of such classified material. Why was security at State so lackadaisical and why were so few emails encrypted?
Sure Hillary was foolish, but prior to her tenure, insecure and unencrypted private emails and poorly secured computer systems were SOP at State.
If anything good comes out of this, I hope its the fixing of the culture at the State Department.
p.s. When you link such articles, get rid of the “?” mark and everything beyond. We don’t need to know how you got there, and I’m sure you’d rather we not know.
You should care because this is going to cost her votes. It’s not Fox News blasting her, it’s the New York Times, Washington Post and the FBI.
This is an election Michael Dukakis would have won in a walk, it’s going to be waaaay to close for comfort.
^All day
Gore should have won, but he was “wooden” and “inauthentic.” People are stupid and the New York Times and Washington Post sell advertising impression to people.
Now the House is going to investigate the investigation. It’s like a Beckett play.
That jackass FBI Director James Comey gave the unprecedented, and unethical press conference to head off an investigation.
Try to do a Republican a favor and see what you get?
“This is an election Michael Dukakis would have won in a walk”
I respectfully disagree. I’ve said repeatedly that the press was going to do everything in their power to make this a horse race. They would be tearing apart any Dem candidate right now. No one would get a pass… because they’re giving the pass to Trump. They are keeping him viable.
Remember, this is the same press that embraced “unskewing” polls in 2012. They actually altered their very own data to create the false narrative that the election was closer than it looked in the polls they freakin’ paid for.
Look at Trump’s last week:
Star of David ad
Praise for Saddam Hussein
Soliciting political donations from foreign dignitaries/politicians
Accusing Loretta Lynch of accepting a bribe from Hillary Clinton (CNN is pondering this claim, btw.)
And he’s still the leader of the Republican party! And the press is giddy.
Take a closer look at some of the polls that everyone is concerned about. (Also, I ignore all national polls because, well, they’re useless.)
At first I thought Bill’s meeting with Lynch was just stupid. But Bill isn’t stupid. What he accomplished was to have Comey give that press conference instead of Lynch. Now I just have to figure out what was gained by that.
And some more analysis:
http://wonkette.com/603709/why-hillary-clinton-will-not-rot-in-jail-for-aggravated-emailing-your-ultimate-emails-wonksplainer
Comey was always going to give that press conference, sheesh.
That Wonkette explainer is hilarious, LG.
hillz@benghazi.lol is something I can see the local BernieBro searching the Internet Wayback Machine for everyday until the election.
. The FBI director said there was no “intent” or “disloyalty to the United States”, in Hillary’s e-mail debacle. Really?… No shit sherlock…. It’s not about her intent to be disloyal to the country; that would be a capital offense subject to the death penalty, right?
Congratulations on the successful obfuscation. It makes no sense at all.
Bill Clinton meets with the Attorney General….FBI interviews Hillary….Hillary is exonerated….all in the same week…perfect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdDMrncAy4U
Actually, David Patraeus had intent but it didn’t rise to the level of treason or espionage. The world isn’t black and white.
Got 99 problems with Hillary, but email ain’t one of ’em.
“Bill Clinton meets with the Attorney General….FBI interviews Hillary….Hillary is exonerated….all in the same week…perfect.”
If Bill Clinton has one true talent, it is driving Republicans completely bonkers.
Amateur analysis aside, Clinton did not intend to remove or retain and classified information at an unauthorized location.
18 U.S. Code § 1924 (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.
In 1983 Jeanne Kirkpatrick, UN Ambassador in a speech exposed the existence of most highly classified (SCI) reconnaissance satellite program. I can name numerous other instances of U.S. Officials who did the same.
I, and many others, had to deal with the aftermath of their loose lips, by restructuring or changing control systems, and finding ways of continuing to protect compromised assets over the years. These officials (both high and low ranking) are rarely prosecuted because of lack of intent. Additionally, many of these public officials operate in the white world but must continually deal with black world information and have to constantly be aware of the slightest slip in word, email, and other forms of communication. It is a continuing challenge for them to do so.
Simply, put there are very few elected officials who have access to classified information that could not be prosecuted, absent the intent laws, including Ronald Reagan, which I personally am aware of, and many others. One of the few that could not be is Obama, because to my knowledge he has never compromised classified information, but then I’m not really in the loop any longer so who knows.