FBI asks to make new secret filing in Clinton email case

[w4rma]

Source: The Hill

In the request, which came as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the Justice Department offered for the FBI to provide “additional details” about how it “conducted a reasonable search for records” as part of the open records case and “determined that there were no records responsive.”

“These details supplement defendant’s showing that it conducted a reasonable search, but cannot be disclosed on the public record without compromising information that the FBI seeks to protect,” the department said in a filing late Monday evening.

The FBI currently has possession of the server Clinton used to run her personal email setup as part of an investigation into whether classified information was mishandled.

In a separate filing Monday, the Justice Department refused to detail the nature of the FBI probe connected to Clinton’s machine, except that it was based on a “security referral” from inspectors general at the State Department and federal intelligence agencies.

“[T]he FBI is not required to identify a particular federal statute that it alleges has been violated in connection with the pending investigation, or the target(s) of the investigation,” in order to keep the information secret, it asserted.


Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282454-fbi-asks-to-make-new-secret-filing-in-clinton-email-case

[phazed0]

1. Rut roh! nt

[billhicks76]

11. Why Wont They Just Say Now What's Going To Happen?

There's an election at stake...our national security. They should indicate now what's gong to happen. If they spring this on the public between july and november it could sabotage the electoral process. Im assuming they wont undermine the electoral process and cause a constitutional crisis that could SLIDE Trump in. They have had plenty of time to indicate what they will do...stonewalling is very suspicious and could cause a crisis.

[phazed0]

13. I believe there is an obvious contender on the D side that

doesn't have this problem. Not to mention I can't think of an election in my lifetime where no one seems concerned about a possible indictment... really unbelievable considering the stupid Swift-boat attacks, flip flopping, etc in the past. Now we have an FBi investigation and it's "Shhh" time.

[cstanleytech]

15. Because the focus might not be Hillary but rather someone who ran or had access to the server

or it could even be that they could be investigating someone who hacked into the server and it would be funny as hell they managed to nail some Republican senators for illegally accessing her emails.
Either way though they wont announce anything until they have their ducks all lined up in a row otherwise it puts the investigation at risk no matter who it is they are investigating.

[beastie boy]

22. I am afraid that if they say something now,

you will be disappointed with their response.

It looks to me like they are asking for additional exonerating evidence, and they want to keep it secret.

And how are they supposed to tell you what's going to happen without knowing themselves what's going to happen? Don't you think this will sabotage and undermine the electoral process even more than otherwise? Not to mention that it will discredit the FBI and their investigation.

[valerief]

23. Because in America things happen before they happen. Just ask the media. nt

[GummyBearz]

31. They know how the game works

Pay for play. They are just waiting for their pay, that's all

[ReRe]

2. I read this twice...

... but my comprehension on what it imparts is zilch. Someone with a brain explain it to me. Thanks.

[phazed0]

3. To me...

It seems that one thing has led to another and now there is basis for yet another offense.. IMO. Could be wrong.

[zentrum]

4. After they explain

…..it to you, would you explain it to me?

[ReRe]

6. Just keep reading this thread..

... I haven't seen anything yet that is making sense to me.

[beastie boy]

8. I know you asked for someone with a brain, but maybe this will suffice:

The Justice Dept provided the FBI with some details about how it conducted "a reasonable search" of records that may have a connection to the server and (possibly) how they determined which records were "responsive" (meaning they had some connection to the FOIA request in question) and which were not. Now they are offering the FBI additional details to demonstrate that these details are not "responsive" to the FOIA request in question, but those details contain classified information. The FBI, in turn, is asking the judge to allow to file those details as a "secret declaration", probably meaning it will not be available to the public and/or be subject to FOIA requests. In essence, the FBI is asking to have this information exclusively for the benefit of conducting their investigation.

This is the best I can make of it.

[mercuryblues]

9. The FBI wants

to keep some information, about how it is conducting its investigation under seal. The FBI wants certain parts of its investigation exempt fro Jason Leopold's FOI request.

[LynneSin]

17. It means they haven't found anything to indict Clinton on anything yet...

but give them time they could find something. Kinda like Benghazi

[cstanleytech]

47. Or like I have said before it could be that they are investigating someone who illegally were

provided access to her emails or were illegally provided copies of them which could just as easily explain the length of time for the investigation as well as the grant of immunity to the guy who setup the server if he was involved in selling said access and or copies of said emails.

[msanthrope]

21. It means the FBI/Justice doesn't want to disclose details of the search.

I'd expect that in any case.

[dorkzilla]

25. ReRe, maybe this response from an esteemed attorney

at another site will explain.

Here is basically what happened. Vice News filed an FOIA request to get information about the FBI investigation of the Clinton email/server. Sometime earlier this year, the DoJ filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging they were not required to produce these documents. Two weeks ago Vice News filed a well argued Response to the DoJ's Motion for Summary Judgment. In its Response, Vice News argued that case precedent required the DoJ to actually prove an investigation was ongoing or otherwise the DoJ was required to produce all of the documentation Vice News had requested.

So this sealed document is obviously the DoJ's Reply to Vice News' Response. And it is filed under seal because the DoJ does not want the public to know whether an investigation of the Clinton email/server scandal actually exists. In this sealed filing, the DoJ presumably must tell the judge one way or another whether such an investigation exists. But filing under seal is not going to fool anybody. If no investigation exists, the DoJ will have to produce FOIA documents, if an investigation does exist, they won't.

So if Vice News gets the documents we know no investigation exists and if they don't, we know one does. Based on a sealed response, I think it is fair to say that an investigation exists, or they would just have handed over the documents. I can't see there being any kind of Reply that would be ambiguous about the existence of an investigation. We just don't know the details of it.

I also think that Vice News if it files some kind of Objection to the filing under seal will give us further clue that an investigation does in fact exist. They will not file their objection under seal.

[LarryNM]

26. +1,000 n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

35. I wasn't aware that the 'investigation' wasn't an officially known element.

I thought the FBI already announced they were 'investigating' when they cleared up the terminology by pointing to the I in their name?

[dorkzilla]

39. Sorry, I responded then deleted because it we easier to start over

The DOJ was trying to basically block Vice's ability to get their hands on some of the documentation of the FBI investigation. Dept of Justice tried to argue that they didn't need to give over said documents and Vice presented relevant legal precedent to argue that they needed to present evidence of an ongoing investigation, otherwise it had to hand over the documents.

The DOJ apparently presented the judge with proof, but it was under seal so we won't know, at least in the short term, what that proof actually was.

[ReRe]

38. Thanks, dorkzilla

Still confusing, but basically it's a secret ("sealed&quot message between DOJ and VICE News. Is anyone else upset that the DOJ is purposely and deliberately hiding information from the American public? And I agree that in spite of all the sneaky sealed secret business, that the whole exercise proves that there IS an investigation ongoing. The whole thing was meant to be confusing.

[dorkzilla]

40. Actually is sealed bet the DOJ and the judge

Vice was just told "sorry, can't show ya!!" but you're supposition is most probably correct that they have things they don't wish to be widely known. It's bureaucratic obfuscation at the least but to my mind it points to someone being up the proverbial creek sans paddle.

[vdogg]

5. The FOIA is for all of the emails

The FBI is stating that it conducted a reasonable search, and turned over all emails it could find, but it doesn't want to give details as to how this search was conducted.

[Sancho]

7. Hillary's IT man worked for a company who specialized in encryption...

we don't know, but one reason to give him immunity was to get the encryption key to emails that they could not read. Like asking Apple to break into a phone. That's just one possible speculation.

It may be they agreed (or can't) reveal the encryption software (proprietary?) or something to the public. Chances are the personal emails that the Clinton's wanted to keep are there, because we know the server was backed up by Google and McAfee. They may or may not be readable without decoding.

[phazed0]

12. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.

Apple phones are easy to break. Period. That whole episode was to get carte-blanche access anytime they need using a backdoor (although, via snowden, we already know the US Gov't has full access using nefarious methods.)

Take exhibit #1 where the FBI gets a third party to hack the phone (duh!).

And here's DriveSavers doing data recovery from encrypted iPhones all day, everyday:

Once you know how microcontrollers and microchips, I2C bus, etc all work.. it's the same all over.. Apple is not special, they use the same hardware as everyone else.

As far as your ideas about encryption, well, I thought it was pretty much common knowledge now that encryption is essentially only good for non-gov't entities. Gov't has been "weakening" encryption for it's own needs so that it can be brute forced fairly easily using supercomputers (or even less-powered machines):
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security
http://www.rsaconference.com/blogs/can-a-government-encryption-backdoor-and-privacy-coexist
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3040206/security/attack-against-tls-shows-the-pitfalls-of-weakening-encryption.html

So, no, to me your premise is not correct at all.

[Sancho]

18. The phone thing was just a legal example....

...and no, it's not easy to break into some encryption. Even the FBI might find it easier to ask for an encryption key rather than try to PROVE to a federal judge that they had the right to break into the Sec. of State and Ex. President's computer for an FOIA request!! That might be the reason for immunity. They don't seem to be telling the public.

They likely do not have evidence for such a warrant. I know the encryption that some current companies use would take a lot of effort to break in...and it might self-delete (like iPhones).

[phazed0]

28. I'm sorry but you are ignorant on the issue at hand.

That's not a put down whatsoever, so please don't take it as such.

You obviously didn't view the post with the videos in it, for if you did, you would know why your first statement is not logical. An encryption key only applies to a single person/computer - not to all of that encryption technique for the world. No need to be classified even if the key was revealed - basic computer security 101 stuff here. Look it up, it's an issue you need to take seriously.

Let us not forget that this came about because a low-level hacker got Hillary's email, which prompted response and inquiries into whether or not classified docs existed on her previously unknown server... and it looks like there were *some*. The problem with her emails is that security was severely lacking... not that it was super secure. Therefore, because of that and the fact that she was supposed to basically CC all of her emails to the Gov't (By law), but didn't. Why not? Hmmm..

Again, "it might self delete (like iPhones)" - You don't understand the technology.. so hows the iPhone going to reset when 'I' keep resetting the counter? Hmm... Let me refer you to a company that specializes in retrieving data from cell-phones (including iPhones) without encryption keys or passwords:

http://www.drivesaversdatarecovery.com/

or another one I use in MY computer shop:
http://www.gillware.com

So your going to argue that the FBI is incapable of doing the same thing these legal, US companies do? Ridiculous.

Most of the time you don't need to break the encryption, you simply break the security of the computer/device (Not encryption).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard

[Sancho]

29. No. You don't understand

She sent personal emails that were encrypted. Nothing to do with .gov emails. They use a key on both ends.

[phazed0]

30. Really, if you're not going to bother educating yourself then we may as well stop here...

The algorithm described by AES is a symmetric-key algorithm, meaning the same key is used for both encrypting and decrypting the data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard

Doh!

Here's the rest of the Hillary email probelm as described by VICE and the Inspector General, so that you can brush up on what it is you're defending:
https://news.vice.com/article/inspector-general-state-department-report-hillary-clinton-private-email
https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-additional-details-hillary-clinton-email-probe-secret-declaration

VICE should be a good source, no?

[Sancho]

32. You aren't following..and of course we don't know what the FBI is saying to the judge.

We are pretty sure that there is nothing missing on the server. The Clinton's regularly backed it up locally and had a professional service also at the time.

Besides turning over the server, Hillary's lawyers gave a thumb drive copy of all .gov emails (that they had collected). There's also 90% in the system. They likely have copies of personal email, but we don't know if they turned those over.

The FBI wants to assure the judge they have done a though investigation - that may include inspecting personal email (not ever handed over to the state dept) that was sent with some unknown encryption software. I'm speculating that they may have some emails from years ago from somewhere that may be encrypted. Maybe sent from the Clinton server, but no longer on the system. Maybe recovered on some backup. Who cares?

It may be possible to get a warrant, but why even bother if the Clintons are cooperating? Who knows what the encryption key is at this point?

Rather than cranking up super computers; just ask the IT tech to get the key and prove they were personal or whatever. Then the investigation is through.

It has nothing to do with taking hardware apart or anything so nefarious. I'm not anyone's lawyer and I'm not defending anyone. I'm just guessing (like many others) what the mysterious report to the court might be about. None of us will likely ever know for sure, unless it becomes public.

I've seen encrypted files and emails. I've sent personal email that was encrypted to lawyers for example. After a few years go by, it can be a real pain to recover archives from old software and systems. Encryption keys are sometimes lost. That is particularly true when it's not something official that is required to be stored.

[phazed0]

34. Mmmkay.... nt

[penndragon69]

10. Proof that she is GUILTY !

[L. Coyote]

14. They found nothing, and they are not going to release more about nothing. So guilty but not charged

Since they are not saying anything about the nothing, we can assume high treason and Bernie will win, right?

[phazed0]

16. Only you would ROFL over an FBI investigation.

Seems to me that if there was nothing found and nothing to find that they would be done already, but OK!

[ToxMarz]

19. If you are trying to find something that doesn't exist

Then your investigation can go on forever on the basis that you just haven't found it yet.

[L. Coyote]

20. Same with believing something's there when there's nada. Nothing yet, so they just haven't found it

is illogical and something to ROFLMAO about too.

[Sunlei]

24. The FBI doesn't want to release 'how' they searched the server.

[NotHardly]

27. Secret searches, laws, warrants, investigations, trials... sounds like any other historical country?

Whether FBI, CIA, or any other local, state or federal law enforcement ... truth is, they are probably coming for all of us, sooner or later. Secret is as secret does. One cannot begin to defend one's self if their prosecution in the press or a system of courts is all done in secret. The real secret is that what they have done, are doing and wish to do (to her and ultimately the rest of us) is to ensure fear, silence, and finally punishment all while hiding truth. Lastly, after so much secrecy those accused can be secretly disappeared. If you have no sympathy for Hillary, you should at least have a bit of enlightened self-interest in these nasty little undemocratic and unAmerican processes.

[phazed0]

33. Yeah, she helped put those practices into place, too. No sympathy.

We've been screaming about this since at least the Bush Jr. era...

"If you have no sympathy for Hillary, you should at least have a bit of enlightened self-interest in these nasty little undemocratic and unAmerican processes."

Why? She is all for those practices.. voting for her only shows your support for such things. What, you conveniently missed this part?

Hillary's Evasive Views on the NSA

This will not do. The answer elides the fact that Clinton has not been a passive actor in surveillance policy. "What the rules are" is something that she was responsible for helping to decide. She served in the United States Senate from 2001 to 2009. She cast votes that enabled the very NSA spying that many now regard as a betrayal. And she knew all about what the NSA wasn't telling the public. To say now that the NSA should've been more transparent raises this question: Why wasn't Clinton among the Democrats working for more transparency?

Wikileaks: Hillary Clinton Ordered Diplomats to Spy on UN re: Guantanamo, HIV, & More

Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered U.S. diplomats, the CIA, and the FBI to spy on highest echelons of UN officialdom, including Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and World Health Organization, the Guardian reports. The U.S. event wanted biometric information of UN officials including DNA and iris scans.

Hillary Clinton Calls for More Surveillance to Fight Terror

Laying out her plan to prevent a terrorist attack on American soil, Hillary Clinton on Thursday called for an “intelligence surge” against terror recruits, including increased surveillance of suspects and greater oversight of social media.

Clinton said she would ask technology companies in Silicon Valley to expand their oversight of posts that could be used to radicalize recruits. Tech companies, she said, should enforce strong service agreements and track questionable content.

She voted in favor of the USA Patriot Act, which ultimately enabled bulk data collection of Americans’ phone records, but said this year she supports the USA Freedom Act, which effectively ended the NSA’s bulk collection of data.

[cstanleytech]

41. Except the NSA was spying on people decades before Bill was govenor

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/nsa-surveillance-anti-vietnam-muhammad-ali-mlk

[phazed0]

42. Going against the constitution... I see you're OK with that.. gotcha. nt

[cstanleytech]

43. Nope just pointing out the absurdity of playing "Blame Hillary"

in light of the fact that its an ongoing problem that dates back long before she or even Bill were even in politics.

[phazed0]

44. That is a ridiculous stance to take. Have at it haas.. you are un-Democratic, it's ok.

You do realize that there is a difference between what is happening in recent history compared to the BS you posted as rebuttal, right? The NSA has had the power to spy on international calls...

[cstanleytech]

45. Uh huh, well welcome to the DU hopefully you will be here once the new rules go into effect.

If not though, take care.

[phazed0]

46. Been here for years, no need to talk down to people...

You like this?

[Mohammed_Lee]

36. I hear the FBI is looking at putting Clinton on Double Secret Probation n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

48. If FBI used "Double Secret", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

We would never have known about this secret FBI request.

Using "Single Secret" is just a way of announcing to the world that they know something, and it's bad, but they're not telling.