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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RDANGELO

(3,433 posts)
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 09:16 AM Jul 2016

Loretta Lynch to accept DOJ, FBI recommendations on Clinton emails

Source: CNN

Attorney General Loretta Lynch will accept the "determinations and findings" of the FBI and career prosecutors who are investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, a Justice Department official said Friday.

Lynch is expected to discuss her handling of the case at an event Friday morning in Aspen, Colorado.
The news of Lynch's decision, which sources told CNN has been in the works for months, was first reported by The New York Times.
The assurances from the official follow criticism stemming from a private meeting Lynch had with former President Bill Clinton at a Phoenix airport earlier this week.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/politics/lynch-to-accept-guidance-from-fbi-on-clinton-email-probe/index.html

41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Loretta Lynch to accept DOJ, FBI recommendations on Clinton emails (Original Post) RDANGELO Jul 2016 OP
In other words nothing has changed since she took over as AG. Much ado about nothing. George II Jul 2016 #1
The intention seems to be that she wants to assure people that she will not be influenced tk2kewl Jul 2016 #5
I agree but it is a sad statement of the dysfunction in our government due to conflicts of interest. JudyM Jul 2016 #7
But what makes you think she's necessarily rubber-stamping the FBI case? forest444 Jul 2016 #8
She is saying she's going to rubber stamp it. She also likely has a good idea of the facts and has JudyM Jul 2016 #11
I see. Thanks. forest444 Jul 2016 #12
She said she would follow their decision rather than make an independent assessment. Yo_Mama Jul 2016 #21
Yes, the fallout of this is not good LiberalLovinLug Jul 2016 #10
No, actually it's quite interesting. She had complete control over the decision to prosecute. Bob41213 Jul 2016 #9
She said right off the bat shortly after she took over the job (maybe even during.... George II Jul 2016 #23
Ok, I missed the emphasis of your original email but... Bob41213 Jul 2016 #33
I'm sure Obama doesn't want to get caught in Hillary's email problem. Why would he? jalan48 Jul 2016 #2
NYT today: "investigators have concluded that the server was used to send classified information" leveymg Jul 2016 #3
That is not news... we have all known that for months. DCBob Jul 2016 #28
Bob. No. It doesn't matter if it was set up with that intent, the only question was whether any leveymg Jul 2016 #29
Nothing was marked as classified at the time when she received it. DCBob Jul 2016 #30
Bob. No. The IGs of the Intelligence Community and State Dept stated just the opposite, here> leveymg Jul 2016 #32
You still dont get it. Its all about intent and awareness. DCBob Jul 2016 #34
Removal of marking is not a mitigating factor... TipTok Jul 2016 #40
Question BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #4
boy howdy, was that meeting stupid Charlie Brown Jul 2016 #6
If it was planned, yes it was stupid. Of course I doubt they planned it since that airport is a cstanleytech Jul 2016 #14
Planned or not, he should have known better. B2G Jul 2016 #15
You mean Lynch? cstanleytech Jul 2016 #17
No, I mean Clinton. B2G Jul 2016 #18
Ahh. cstanleytech Jul 2016 #20
The AG is guarded by security. former9thward Jul 2016 #35
Unless she's come out as transgender greiner3 Jul 2016 #27
Congress awaits the FBI's decision lovuian Jul 2016 #13
Specifically, the GOP is awaiting the FBI's decision. LastLiberal in PalmSprings Jul 2016 #16
Bingo!! And the Republican voter base loves to swill up the lies and bullshit they spew. cstanleytech Jul 2016 #19
Ohhhh NO,,, EMAILS,,,,, Oh the horror of it all!,,Drink! Cryptoad Jul 2016 #22
Her fate still lies in the hands of a federal grand jury PDittie Jul 2016 #24
There is another option, and they've had a year to work out the details and timing of a succession leveymg Jul 2016 #25
Good point. Any predictions as to whom? PDittie Jul 2016 #36
That's been obvious since the start. nt leveymg Jul 2016 #37
Even if the grand jury decides not to go on... TipTok Jul 2016 #41
Of course she will.. because nothing like an indictment is going be recommended. DCBob Jul 2016 #26
Let's keep talking about it though MFM008 Jul 2016 #31
Hillary has done nothing wrong except make a small mistake nest Jul 2016 #38
Powell had a private email account. Doctor Who Jul 2016 #39
 

tk2kewl

(18,133 posts)
5. The intention seems to be that she wants to assure people that she will not be influenced
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 10:43 AM
Jul 2016

By her meeting with Bill.

I'm glad she has made this statement

JudyM

(29,237 posts)
7. I agree but it is a sad statement of the dysfunction in our government due to conflicts of interest.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 11:23 AM
Jul 2016

If her dept's role is to independently evaluate the FBI's case before prosecuting, she's abdicating that responsibility by rubber-stamping. The appropriate thing to do is to recuse herself and have someone under her decide it. But cronyism and inappropriate influence run so deep that a decision not to prosecute would still be viewed as suspect.

There is also the possibility that the FBI has already decided not to proceed with a rec to indict. From everything reported so far that seems less unlikely to me.

This decision will at least speed up the process. If the FBI ever gets around to making a rec...

forest444

(5,902 posts)
8. But what makes you think she's necessarily rubber-stamping the FBI case?
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 11:28 AM
Jul 2016

I 'm pretty sure she's studied and discussed it long and hard, and that she arrived at this conclusion reluctantly - given what's at stake this November.

JudyM

(29,237 posts)
11. She is saying she's going to rubber stamp it. She also likely has a good idea of the facts and has
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 11:35 AM
Jul 2016

reviewed the applicable law as it applies to those facts, as you point out.

Certainly by abdicating responsibility she is letting herself off the hook of an untenable political situation.

She has been saying she has been uninvolved with FBI's process. I find that hard to believe.

forest444

(5,902 posts)
12. I see. Thanks.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 11:39 AM
Jul 2016

It seems, then, she doesn't want to throw the FBI against her - and besides, washing one's hands is certainly not new in politics.

This is going to get interesting.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
21. She said she would follow their decision rather than make an independent assessment.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:11 PM
Jul 2016

I'd call that rubberstamping.

LiberalLovinLug

(14,173 posts)
10. Yes, the fallout of this is not good
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 11:35 AM
Jul 2016

By proclaiming she will 'rubberstamp' any finding by the FBI, there is no wiggle room. Not that its going to happen, but if there are elements within the FBI that are more partisan towards the GOP, here's their chance. Because no matter how damning, she has pre-committed to their findings.

Bob41213

(491 posts)
9. No, actually it's quite interesting. She had complete control over the decision to prosecute.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 11:31 AM
Jul 2016

Take a look at the Petraues case. Petraues lied to the FBI, the FBI recommended he get charged with lying to the FBI among other things. He gets a slap on the wrist because the DOJ decided to charge him with less and completely ignored charging him with lying. I realize Lynch was not in charge there, but it demonstrates the decision is not with the FBI, it's with the DOJ. Lying to the FBI is usually what they nail you for regardless. Just ask Martha Stewart.

Now the only other point to add, is she said I think "the FBI *and* career DOJ attorneys."

George II

(67,782 posts)
23. She said right off the bat shortly after she took over the job (maybe even during....
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:15 PM
Jul 2016

....her confirmation hearing?) that she would not change any recommendations by the FBI.

There is absolutely no comparison between this and the Petraues case.

Bob41213

(491 posts)
33. Ok, I missed the emphasis of your original email but...
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:10 PM
Jul 2016

If you had the original statement, I think it was a lot more qualified than it was this last time. I thought, and please correct me if I'm wrong, she said something like "I'll do what I always do which is look at the recommendation very strongly" whereas now she said something more like "I'll accept whatever they recommend." I just think there was a lot more wiggle room in the original statement.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
3. NYT today: "investigators have concluded that the server was used to send classified information"
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 10:29 AM
Jul 2016

Put that together with the first part of the same paragraph: "The F.B.I. is investigating whether Mrs. Clinton, her aides or anyone else broke the law by setting up a private email server for her to use as secretary of state." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html?_r=0

That much has been known for almost a year when the Intelligence Community and DOS IG's referred the matter to the FBI, issuing a joint statement on July 22, 2015. Here's the bottom-line question, from today's NYT report:

For the Justice Department, the central question is whether the conduct met the legal standard for the crime of mishandling classified information.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
28. That is not news... we have all known that for months.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 01:06 PM
Jul 2016

The question is whether the server was intentionally setup to send classified information or even it wasnt did anyone knowingly and willingly send marked classified information through the server. I am convinced that they cant find any evidence of intent on the part of anyone except probably Sid Blumenthal's insider contact who sent him classified information secretly. If they know who that is, he is probably going to be charged with something.

Hillary will come out this clean.. other than being chastised for setting up this server in the first place and not perfectly following rules and regs of handling classified information.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
29. Bob. No. It doesn't matter if it was set up with that intent, the only question was whether any
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 02:22 PM
Jul 2016

classified information was sent or received that a reasonable person would conclude was classified and would know it should not have been on an uncertified system.

Sid told her on numerous occasions that the materials were sourced from intel agencies. That and the content that turned out to be Top Secret/SAP CIA and NSA-sourced should have alerted her, and under the law she had a duty to report these breaches to the security department, which she didn't do. Instead, she typed, "Great stuff. Keep it coming." And, Sid kept sending classified information to her over a system she knew wasn't certified.

Do you think she acted reasonably and within the law, as it's contained in Sec 793(f)(2), which makes it a felony not to report such mishandling of classified information? Did she react as a reasonable person with a security clearance was required, Bob?

Just to refresh your memory, here's that section of the Espionage Act. Read it again, please:

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)


(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
30. Nothing was marked as classified at the time when she received it.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 02:39 PM
Jul 2016

You know that. Thats the bottom line.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
32. Bob. No. The IGs of the Intelligence Community and State Dept stated just the opposite, here>
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:01 PM
Jul 2016

Here is the Joint Statement of the Inspector Generals issued a year ago:

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

(If pdf does not come up, go to statement posted at office of the Director of National Intelligence: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/210-press-releases-2015/1232-statement-from-the-inspectors-general-of-the-intelligence-community-and-the-department-of-state-regarding-the-review-of-former-secretary-clinton-s-emails )

July 24, 2015
Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails

Yesterday the Office of the Inspector General ofthe Intelligence Community (IC IG) sent a congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG support to the State Department IG (attached).

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

A lot of people still seem to have missed that one.

Finally, it is not possible that HRC did not know that, as the security agreement she signed on January 22, 2009 stated the same thing:

As used in this Agreement, classified Information is marked or unmarked classified Information,


Here is Hillary's Security Oath and the statute it references, 18 USC Sec. 793. Go ahead and read it. Hillary signed this document on 01/22/09:

?w=500&h=262

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-05069 Doc No. C05833708 Date: 11/05/2015
! I RELEASE IN PART I
B7(C),B6
---------------------------------1REVIEW AUTHORITY:
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT Barbara Nielsen, Senior
Reviewer
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN Hillary Rodham Clinton AND THE UNITED STATES
1. lntending to be legally bound. I hereby accept the obligations contained In this Agreement In consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified Information is marked or unmarked classified Information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards or Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits unauthorized disclosure of lnformation in the Interest of national security; and unclassified Information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided In Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1A(e) of Executive Order 12958 or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified lnformation special confidence and trust have been placed in me by the United States Government .
2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security lndoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this Information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.
3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified Information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will not divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it, or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) 1'9SJ) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that lf I am uncertain about the classification status of Information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the Information is unclassified before I may disclose It, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this may result In the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation by me may constitute a violation, or violations. of Untied States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641. 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50,
United Slates code. and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing In the Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation..
5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations. and emoluments that have resulted, wiII result or may result from any disclosure, publication or revelation of classified Information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement
6. I understand that the United States Government may seek any remedy available to it to enforce this Agreement Including, but not but not limited to application for a court order prohibiting disclosure of Information In breach of this Agreement.
1. I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classified materials which have or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or- that provided me access ID classifled Information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of Sections 793 and/or 1924, § 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.
8. Unless and until I am released In writing by an authorized representative or the United States Government.. I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified lnformation, and at all times thereafter.
9. Each provision of this Agreement is severable. If a court should find provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain In full force and effect.



DCBob

(24,689 posts)
34. You still dont get it. Its all about intent and awareness.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:30 PM
Jul 2016

She simply made a mistake in judgement.. No intent. No crime. No indictment.

 

TipTok

(2,474 posts)
40. Removal of marking is not a mitigating factor...
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 08:33 AM
Jul 2016

I can't look at my secure system, summarize it on a green system sans marking and the information is no longer classified.

I have the responsibility as a clearance holder to identify and report spillage across systems. If I saw one of my guys talking about an operation green side that was clearly secure side material, it is my duty and responsibility to address it.

Marked or not...

 

BlueNoMatterWho

(880 posts)
4. Question
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 10:35 AM
Jul 2016

In the event that this develops in the way this article predicts it will, does anyone have an idea how long this would drag on with the justice department?

cstanleytech

(26,291 posts)
14. If it was planned, yes it was stupid. Of course I doubt they planned it since that airport is a
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 11:53 AM
Jul 2016

major hub airport which gets alot of traffic routed through it but of course that fact wont stop people from thinking it was some part of a vast left wing conspiracy to protect Hillary.

 

B2G

(9,766 posts)
15. Planned or not, he should have known better.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 11:56 AM
Jul 2016

He WAS the AG of Arkansas, after all.

It's not like he didn't now what he was doing.

 

B2G

(9,766 posts)
18. No, I mean Clinton.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:01 PM
Jul 2016

From everything I've heard, he showed up uninvited...she supposedly didn't know he was coming.

lovuian

(19,362 posts)
13. Congress awaits the FBI's decision
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 11:46 AM
Jul 2016

on the findings but you can bet if there is any opening for Congress to get in on the email action
it will.

16. Specifically, the GOP is awaiting the FBI's decision.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 11:58 AM
Jul 2016

Their attack dogs are ready to go, no matter what the FBI finds.

PDittie

(8,322 posts)
24. Her fate still lies in the hands of a federal grand jury
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:21 PM
Jul 2016

Even if the investigators recommend indictment, the GJ could still no-bill.

IANAL, just somebody who knows that the old adage about indicting a ham sandwich also works in reverse. Here in Texas, a Harris County GJ returned an indictment against a Republican Texas Supreme Court justice for arson, but the county DA -- also a Republican -- declined to prosecute. (Google "David Medina arson&quot .

Either of these outcomes could spark a very loud uproar.

There may also be some protracted negotiations around pleading down a charge of mishandling of classified data, as there were with Sandy Berger and David Petreaus.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
25. There is another option, and they've had a year to work out the details and timing of a succession
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:32 PM
Jul 2016

Look at the case of ex-CIA Director John Deutch. In 1996, he brought CIA laptops home and plugged them into his home Internet. That was discovered, he resigned and the CIA IG referred the matter to Attorney General Reno. She slow-walked it to the end of Bill's second term, and on his last day the President pardoned Deutch.

Of course, John Deutch never was elected President.

On July 22, 2015, after it was determined that Hillary's server contained numerous classified documents, the IGs of the Intelligence Community and State Department referred her case to the FBI for further investigation and findings. It would certainly make sense for the Democratic leadership to have done succession planning, including location and positioning of a successor who stands the possibility of being able to pull this all back together again when, and if, Comey confirms the facts of the referral and that laws were broken.

We are about to find out, and see that process unwind.

 

TipTok

(2,474 posts)
41. Even if the grand jury decides not to go on...
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 08:36 AM
Jul 2016

The recommendation from the FBI will determine how her campaign moves forward.

In the end, the Clintons will weather the scandal, batten down the hatches and move on.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
26. Of course she will.. because nothing like an indictment is going be recommended.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:51 PM
Jul 2016

Such drama over virtually nothing.

nest

(23 posts)
38. Hillary has done nothing wrong except make a small mistake
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 11:00 PM
Jul 2016

Powell had a private server and so did many others. Hillary did not send, mishandle or otherwise compromise any classified information. There is no crime here and Comey will most certainly come out with a statement that exonerates Clinton of all wrongdoing, save for a minor lapse in judgement. We have nothing to worry about because this is a right-wing witch hunt and nothing more.

 

Doctor Who

(147 posts)
39. Powell had a private email account.
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 08:25 AM
Jul 2016

Powell and others had private email accounts. There is a big difference between that and a private server in your house.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Loretta Lynch to accept D...