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

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:47 PM Jun 2016

Preview of the FBI report.

It will be a huge detailed report but here is a summary of critical findings as it pertains to Hillary Clinton:

-- Former SOS Clinton's personal email server was not appropriately secured for classified communications.
-- We found no direct evidence the server was compromised or broken into or hacked.
-- Use of a private server for her SOS communications wouldn't have been approved had she requested guidance.
-- There were numerous emails that contained classified information.
-- All of the emails that contained classified information were not marked as classified at the time.
-- There were messages the SOS should have known contained classified information even though not marked.
-- We found no evidence the SOS deliberately or knowingly sent or requested classified messages.
-- The SOS was negligent and broke rules and procedures regarding proper handling of classified information.
-- However we found no evidence there was gross negligence or that she did this knowingly or willingly.
-- Therefore we do not recommend any legal action against former SOS Clinton.

My take... not official.

71 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Preview of the FBI report. (Original Post) DCBob Jun 2016 OP
you are way closer to being right on this.... beachbum bob Jun 2016 #1
LOL. Funny, funny, funny. floriduck Jun 2016 #31
What we do know for certain is that Hillary's lawyer was Gen Petraeus's lawyer in his case. politicaljunkie41910 Jun 2016 #59
He got off without jail time, so his lawyer isn't half bad. But, he won't become President, either. leveymg Jun 2016 #62
What Petraeus did was willful and intentional which makes what he did much worse than politicaljunkie41910 Jun 2016 #64
No, it's the other way around. The exposure of classified materials in HRCs case is far worse. leveymg Jun 2016 #65
That's your opinion. I'll stick to mine. I worked many years in the environment and I know how politicaljunkie41910 Jun 2016 #67
Baloney Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #69
The damn investigation has gone on for 9 months. Either they have something or they don't still_one Jun 2016 #2
I suspect its going to come out in the next few weeks during the down time before the convention. DCBob Jun 2016 #3
I hope you are right Bob. This has gone on too long, and it is ridiculous. I also think your OP still_one Jun 2016 #5
Comey is being super careful and cautious.. for good reason. DCBob Jun 2016 #8
Comey has been reported as hating the Clintons 1-on-1 conversations. May be the opposite ashtonelijah Jun 2016 #14
That is what is a concern to me, that this is no longer and investigation, but a political maneuver still_one Jun 2016 #20
I'm getting frustrated too democrattotheend Jun 2016 #21
Isn't that the same stuff we hear every single time something is released? ismnotwasm Jun 2016 #4
Your credibility on this matter is shot when you use kcjohn1 Jun 2016 #6
I guess you will be leaving on June 16 Gomez163 Jun 2016 #7
Here is what President Obama said about this matter.. DCBob Jun 2016 #10
OMG, from a RIGHT WING SOUCE. floriduck Jun 2016 #32
Obama is the source.. Fox News Interview. DCBob Jun 2016 #34
Journalists file multiple FOIA requests for the same document because tandem5 Jun 2016 #28
Was the report leaked by e-mail? JonathanRackham Jun 2016 #9
Nope.. my prediction.. DCBob Jun 2016 #12
There is absolutely no way LoverOfLiberty Jun 2016 #11
Very good point. DCBob Jun 2016 #13
I was just telling my husband the very same thing! MoonRiver Jun 2016 #17
That sums up my feelings as well Proud Liberal Dem Jun 2016 #18
3. It helps the United States of America. senz Jun 2016 #23
Agreed, that seems pretty obvious. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #55
That is a very likely outcome Gothmog Jun 2016 #15
I just wish they would issue their report, so the country can move on. MoonRiver Jun 2016 #16
Exactly.. they do owe it to the nation to put this matter to rest.. DCBob Jun 2016 #19
I don't think they have interviewed her yet yeoman6987 Jun 2016 #27
They may not interview her if they think they have everything they need. DCBob Jun 2016 #46
I do, too. One thing is certain: PJMcK Jun 2016 #54
Agreed, this is getting a little ridiculous. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #58
I hope the FBI is also looking into the Foundation. senz Jun 2016 #22
So not a preview of the report, just an opinion piece. Kentonio Jun 2016 #24
That sounds pretty close to what it will actually be. MineralMan Jun 2016 #25
Your first point is a truism. tandem5 Jun 2016 #26
Res ipsa loquitur DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #29
Precisely. DCBob Jun 2016 #36
Wow I Somehow Missed That Stallion Jun 2016 #48
yes, mens rhea; "guilty mind" DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #63
That's as good as official since there will be no significant penalties. oasis Jun 2016 #30
FYI... these are my predictions.. no official source. DCBob Jun 2016 #35
I'm sure Hillary's already put the issue in her rear view mirror. oasis Jun 2016 #41
Yep. DCBob Jun 2016 #43
She did not do it knowingly or willingly? Skwmom Jun 2016 #33
Gross negligence. DCBob Jun 2016 #40
Using your own private service in your closet is not serious carelessness? PLUS, with the importance Skwmom Jun 2016 #47
Intent. DCBob Jun 2016 #49
She was aware that her Blackberry and server were uncertified for classified info, was warned leveymg Jun 2016 #60
You best hurry and gets this crap out of your system.. DCBob Jun 2016 #68
Incompetent rather than criminal? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #37
Not incompetent.. just didn't follow all the rules and regs perfectly. DCBob Jun 2016 #44
I suspect you are correct. NT Adrahil Jun 2016 #38
Key words: not official. Vinca Jun 2016 #39
Doesn't mean: not correct. DCBob Jun 2016 #42
Meh Tarc Jun 2016 #45
Sounds as though you've followed the case closely. kstewart33 Jun 2016 #50
Have to to keep up with the "indictment fairy" believers! DCBob Jun 2016 #52
Congrats! You just made a gross negligence case under 18 USC 793(f)(1) and (2). That's two felonies! leveymg Jun 2016 #51
What will you spend your time on when this all goes away?? DCBob Jun 2016 #53
Still hoping for the "absolution fairy" I guess tk2kewl Jun 2016 #66
I am only hoping the report comes out as soon as possible.. DCBob Jun 2016 #71
Only if you have no idea what gross negligence is. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #57
I have a hint 4U. If you want to know the prevailing standard, look at similar cases. Here's two. leveymg Jun 2016 #61
These cases are not similar. DCBob Jun 2016 #70
I read your OP and this instantly sprang to mind - Juicy_Bellows Jun 2016 #56

politicaljunkie41910

(3,335 posts)
59. What we do know for certain is that Hillary's lawyer was Gen Petraeus's lawyer in his case.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:22 PM
Jun 2016

As Petraeus's lawyer, he knows the facts and evidence of both cases;
he knows the laws applicable to both cases;
he knows the facts surrounding ALL previously prosecuted cases and cases not prosecuted regarding unlawful disclosures and unlawful removal of classified materials ;
he knows that Comey knows what he knows.

There will not be an indictment.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
62. He got off without jail time, so his lawyer isn't half bad. But, he won't become President, either.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:43 PM
Jun 2016

As I said, not half bad.

Petraeus was charged under felony 18 USC Sec 793(e), pled down to Sec 1924.

politicaljunkie41910

(3,335 posts)
64. What Petraeus did was willful and intentional which makes what he did much worse than
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:55 PM
Jun 2016

Hillary's use of a server. Also, I know many here don't seem to care, but I will keep saying it, because I know it's true. The originator of a classified document is responsible for ensuring that the document is properly marked, not the receiver. Only fool would accept responsibility for a document not properly marked for which they were not the author/originator of. I know I wouldn't.

politicaljunkie41910

(3,335 posts)
67. That's your opinion. I'll stick to mine. I worked many years in the environment and I know how
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:16 PM
Jun 2016

difficult and crappy the equipment could be to use. This doesn't mean that one can just ignore policies and procedures; it just means that there may be extinuating circumstances. Also, someone else posted some regulations here previously including one that said that the head of an agency can change the policy. If HRC as the SoS was not the head of the State Dept, than she has to be pretty darn close to being it. There is likely to be lots of things about this case that you and I don't know about. I'm just not willing to rush to judgement like many here are because I know that there is always more to the story than meets the eye.

Demsrule86

(68,539 posts)
69. Baloney
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:36 PM
Jun 2016

What Petraeus did was way worse and he was lucky to escape jail...Hillary thing has no intent is right wing crap...state has the worst email...was hacked multiple time...the irony is the info was safer with Hillary.

still_one

(92,117 posts)
2. The damn investigation has gone on for 9 months. Either they have something or they don't
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:51 PM
Jun 2016

Obviously they are getting paid by the hour, and not by the job.

The last sentence is sarcasm on my part

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
3. I suspect its going to come out in the next few weeks during the down time before the convention.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:54 PM
Jun 2016

still_one

(92,117 posts)
5. I hope you are right Bob. This has gone on too long, and it is ridiculous. I also think your OP
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:56 PM
Jun 2016

is right on


DCBob

(24,689 posts)
8. Comey is being super careful and cautious.. for good reason.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:59 PM
Jun 2016

This is a super high profile case and he doesnt want to be seen as being influenced by politics at all. The longer he drags this on the more it appears he is being careful and complete. He has no incentive to get it done fast... however, at some point it gets ridiculous and I think we are near that point.

ashtonelijah

(340 posts)
14. Comey has been reported as hating the Clintons 1-on-1 conversations. May be the opposite
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:11 PM
Jun 2016

He's dragging it out to keep the question mark dangling over Hillary's head.

At least, it could begin to appear that way.

democrattotheend

(11,605 posts)
21. I'm getting frustrated too
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:44 PM
Jun 2016

I've accepted that Hillary will be the nominee but I am concerned about the cloud of an FBI investigation hanging over her. Even if she is ultimately exonerated, the longer the GOP gets to tell people she is under investigation the worse it is.

kcjohn1

(751 posts)
6. Your credibility on this matter is shot when you use
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:57 PM
Jun 2016

Clinton talking points.

All of the emails that contained classified information were not marked as classified at the time


This is irrelevant and shows lack of knowledge of classified material. It doesn't become classified on designation but at the source. For example the report about her discussing through email approval of drone strike doesn't need to be designated classified to be top secret, the information itself is secret and everyone who has access to that should know it.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
10. Here is what President Obama said about this matter..
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:05 PM
Jun 2016

“What I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are — there’s classified, and then there’s classified, There’s stuff that is really top-secret, top-secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open-source.”

-- President Obama (4/10/16, Fox News)

tandem5

(2,072 posts)
28. Journalists file multiple FOIA requests for the same document because
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:27 PM
Jun 2016

they know there's a chance each fulfilled request will have different redactions and what was blacked out on one will be fully revealed on another. I only mention this to provide a perspective on the fluidity of secrecy.

LoverOfLiberty

(1,438 posts)
11. There is absolutely no way
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:05 PM
Jun 2016

that Obama, Biden and Warren would have endorsed Clinton yesterday if they were not certain that there would be no indictment.

The only people talking indictment are the ones who want it to happen so that:

1. It helps Republicans

or

2. It helps Bernie Sanders

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,402 posts)
18. That sums up my feelings as well
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:17 PM
Jun 2016

I would think (or hope anyway) that Hillary would've dropped out long ago (or possibly not even have run) if she knew that she had done something wrong and was likely going to face charges. Also, I would imagine that superdelegates would have been dumping her like a hot rock throughout the primary if they believed that there is a serious chance of her being indicted. Neither she, nor any of the other people referenced are too stupid/naive to endorse her if they believed that she was under serious threat of indictment.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
27. I don't think they have interviewed her yet
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:25 PM
Jun 2016

I doubt this is finished before October. Just putting the report together will take a month with all the reviews it will go through ensuring every word is grammatically correct and spelled right.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
46. They may not interview her if they think they have everything they need.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:10 PM
Jun 2016

Which they very well might.

PJMcK

(22,026 posts)
54. I do, too. One thing is certain:
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:12 PM
Jun 2016

If the FBI report exonerates Hillary Clinton or if she isn't indicted, Republicans will say that the investigation was a whitewash. And if she is indicted, they'll scream for her head.

That's what Republicans always do.

Vote a straight Democratic ticket in November. Let's get rid of these treasonous bastards!

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
22. I hope the FBI is also looking into the Foundation.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:51 PM
Jun 2016

That is where the corruption -- the size, the sheer scale of it -- becomes visible.

This country cannot have that.

And certainly not in the White House.

Horrible mistake.

MineralMan

(146,284 posts)
25. That sounds pretty close to what it will actually be.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:13 PM
Jun 2016

No indictment recommendation. No recommendation for criminal prosecution. Game over.

tandem5

(2,072 posts)
26. Your first point is a truism.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:15 PM
Jun 2016

Her private email served as an alternative to the government system which was also not suitable for classified information. You can make the case that perhaps it was not secure enough for non classified, but sensitive material, but that's a far more ambiguous topic.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
29. Res ipsa loquitur
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:28 PM
Jun 2016

But then there was a moment where former Governor Weld shattered Republican dreams and Donald Trump's talking points about Hillary Clinton's email.

Weld changed the topic they were discussing and brought up the whole Hillary email hoo-ha, telling Chuck Todd it is going nowhere. When pressed by Todd on why he thought so, Weld replied, "I'm speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There's no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there's no indictment."

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/libertarian-vp-candidate-blows-republicans

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
33. She did not do it knowingly or willingly?
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:44 PM
Jun 2016



And if that isn't grossly negligent what in the hell is?

And since when did the penalty for not following security procedures depend on whether or not they could find evidence of hacking? On it's face that sounds downright stupid.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
40. Gross negligence.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:05 PM
Jun 2016
Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Negligence is the opposite of diligence, or being careful. The standard of ordinary negligence is what conduct deviates from the proverbial "reasonable person." By analogy, if somebody has been grossly negligent, that means they have fallen so far below the ordinary standard of care that one can expect, to warrant the label of being "gross." Prosser and Keeton describe gross negligence as being "the want of even slight or scant care", and note it as having been described as a lack of care that even a careless person would use. They further note that while some jurisdictions equate the culpability of gross negligence with that of recklessness, most simply differentiate it from simple negligence in its degree.[1]

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

============

What Hillary did is nowhere near gross negligence.

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
47. Using your own private service in your closet is not serious carelessness? PLUS, with the importance
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:18 PM
Jun 2016

of national security it makes NO sense that the only way you would be held accountable is if they could find evidence of hacking. With such an important of national security that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
49. Intent.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:25 PM
Jun 2016

She did not intend to use the server for classified information. It was for personal use and non-classified departmental use. The fact some classified information may have passed through it by mistake or accidentally is not a felony.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
60. She was aware that her Blackberry and server were uncertified for classified info, was warned
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:33 PM
Jun 2016

by a ranking NSA security officer not to continue using her Blackberry, and instead she hooked it up to her uncer

NSA told her not to use her Blackberry, and when they refused to clone an Obama phone for her, she talked to to her lawyer and okayed the switchover from an ATT email to Clintonemail.com. That became manifestly illegal the moment the first classified message traversed the server, and that outcome was foreseeable by any reasonable person.

She even encouraged Blumenthal to "keep 'em coming" when he sent her information he identified as foreign government sourced, and forwarded them to others. Some of these messages were NSA and CIA sourced information illegally taken directly off the most highly classified Interagency System.

She was trained to recognize classified information, and knew she was supposed to report its mishandling or unauthorized transmission by others, but continued to continence repeated and systematic security breaches by others on her network. Sorry, that is a violation of felony law, 18 USC Sec. 793(f), to be precise.



kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
50. Sounds as though you've followed the case closely.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:30 PM
Jun 2016

Thanks for your analysis. If you see anything interesting from here on, please post.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
51. Congrats! You just made a gross negligence case under 18 USC 793(f)(1) and (2). That's two felonies!
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:56 PM
Jun 2016

Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Link, show DCBob here the big prize he just won!

P.S. - Bob, you need to add that Secretary Clinton had an affirmative duty under 793(f)(2) to report unauthorized possession and transmission of classified information by Blumenthal, but the Secretary failed in that duty. That was felony 2.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
71. I am only hoping the report comes out as soon as possible..
Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:59 AM
Jun 2016

so we can put this nonsense to rest.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
61. I have a hint 4U. If you want to know the prevailing standard, look at similar cases. Here's two.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:38 PM
Jun 2016

There is abundant precedent for the prosecution of heads of federal agencies for classified information violations. Both CIA Director Petraeus and Deutch were cited for felony violations of Espionage Act Sec 793.

Petraeus plead down to Sec. 1924, a Misdemeanor, while Deutch was referred for prosecution by the CIA IG, but Attorney General Reno ran out the clock without convening a Grand Jury and Deutch was pardoned on Bill Clinton's last day. Both of them were found to have committed acts of mishandling classified materials. Deutch hooked up CIA laptops to his home internet, which was a chargeable offense under the law as it stood in 1996, and as it remains today.

Here's what the Deutch CIA IG Report found in 2000. (The forthcoming Clinton Intelligence Community IG Report will likely contain very similar findings): https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html

WHAT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AGREEMENTS, AND POLICIES HAVE POTENTIAL APPLICATION?

109. (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 793, "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifies in paragraph (f):

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,... or information, relating to national defense ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

110. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, "Disclosure of classified information" specifies in part:

Whoever, knowingly and willfully ... uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ... any classified information ... obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

111. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" specifies:

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 not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

112. (U) The National Security Act of 1947, CIA Act of 1949, and Executive Order (E.O.) 12333 establish the legal duty and responsibility of the DCI, as head of the United States intelligence community and primary advisor to the President and the National Security Council on national foreign intelligence, to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.

113. (U) Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 1/ 16, effective July 19, 1988, "Security Policy for Uniform Protection of Intelligence Processed in Automated Information Systems and Networks," reiterates the statutory authority and responsibilities assigned to the DCI for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, E.O.s 12333 and 12356, and National Security Decision Directive 145 and cites these authorities as the basis for the security of classified intelligence, communicated or stored in automated information systems and networks.

114. (U) DCID 1/21, effective July 29, 1994, "Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) specifies in paragraph 2:

All must be stored within accredited SCIFs. Accreditaticn is the formal affirmation that the proposed facility meets physical security standards imposed by the DCI in the physical security standards manual that supplements this directive.

115. (U/ /FOUO) Headquarters Regulation (HR) 10-23, Storage of Classified Information or Materials. Section C (1)specifies:

Individual employees are responsible for securing classified information or material in their possession in designated equipment and areas when not being maintained under immediate personal control in approved work areas.

116. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-24, "Accountability and Handling of Collateral Classified Material," prescribes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities associated with the accountability and handling of collateral classified material. The section concerning individual employee responsibilities states:

Agency personnel are responsible for ensuring that all classified material is handled in a secure manner and that unauthorized persons are not afforded access to such material.

117. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-25, "Accountability and Handling of Classified Material Requiring Special Control," sets forth policy, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the transmission, control, and storage of Restricted Data, treaty organization information, cryptographic materials, and Sensitive Compartmented Information. The section states:

Individuals authorized access to special control materials are responsible for observing the security requirements that govern the transmission, control, and storage of said materials. Further, they are responsible for ensuring that only persons having appropriate clearances or access approvals are permitted access to such materials or to the equipment and facilities in which they are stored.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
70. These cases are not similar.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:40 PM
Jun 2016

Petraeus was providing classified information to his mistress and purposely trying to hide his actions using fake email addresses and hidden folders. This indicates he knew what he was doing was wrong.. thus knowingly and willingly... which is illegal. Hillary did nothing like that.

Deutch was repeatedly reckless with government classified equipment that he knew contained marked classified information. That is gross negligence which is a felony. Hillary did nothing like that.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Preview of the FBI report...