2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe full Comey statement.
Although the end result is extremely good for us, a lot of what he said is actually quite brutal. Before everyone continues the mockery I'm seeing in other threads about how the whole thing was just made up, you should read his statement carefully. He basically confirms a lot of the things people said regarding the extremely careless handling of protected information.
After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.
This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.
I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.
So, first, what we have done:
The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clintons use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.
Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.
I have so far used the singular term, e-mail server, in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back togetherto gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government workhas been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.
For example, when one of Secretary Clintons original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didnt remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the servers unusedor slackspace. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.
FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely owner of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as up-classifying).
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were up-classified to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.
With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been up-classified.
I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government accountor even a commercial account like Gmailthere was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clintons system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.
It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as personal by Secretary Clintons lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.
The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clintons personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.
It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.
And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clintons personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.
Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
Thats what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clintons position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later up-classified e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Governmentor even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked classified in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clintons personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clintons use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clintons personal e-mail account.
So thats what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:
In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we dont normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a persons actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigationincluding people in governmentbut none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldnt be prouder to be part of this organization.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Mods: I'm assuming by the way that as this is a public FBI statement the normal 3 paragraphs rule is not relevant. Please delete if this is not so.
underpants
(182,613 posts)THE DIDNT READ THE CONTENT! The wingers will scream.
MFM008
(19,803 posts)OF NO CHARGES.
patricia92243
(12,592 posts)and go over what was said.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...but there aren't ramifications of that? What would happen if I did these same things?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)At a minimum my clearance and everyone I worked with involved would have been revoked, and as my rank and position required a clearance I would have been separated from the military.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...maybe you'd end up alright!
MineralMan
(146,255 posts)Myself included. I know that I observed a lot of careless activity with regard to classified information during the time when I was involved with that sort of thing. Only rarely was any of it actually punished, although people were advised about it from time to time.
Sloppy habits and corner-cutting are just as prevalent in the Top Secret and beyond community, too, just as they are pretty much everywhere. Fortunately, mistakes and sloppy security practices rarely lead to actual bad things happening.
I'd tell you about some of the things I saw happen, but that would be a violation of my security clearance, too. So, I'll just have to leave it at that.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I continue to hold a clearance...
joshcryer
(62,266 posts)...and that Snowden was able to dump the NSA intelligence proves no system is perfect.
MineralMan
(146,255 posts)Intentional, too, with malice aforethought. That's a very different thing, isn't it?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Because I saw people who had clearances revoked for sloppy behavior as well as people who had them revoked for being aware of it and failing to act on it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)SMH.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I've seen lots of your other posts.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Many of us former Sanders supporters are now fully behind Secretary Clinton. I don't particularly like the way she deals with a lot of things, but she's our nominee and she's a million times better than any GOP candidate.
What you seem to struggle with though is that while today's headline is a relief, today was not a good day for Democrats. Comey says some very harsh things and they will be used as campaign material throughout the general. Rather than just idiot GOP faces spouting nonsense, they can now directly quote the head of the FBI criticizing her. That is not a cause for celebration if you want a Democrat in the White House next year, and the idea that we don't care about that is frankly offensive.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Like when you called Clinton supporters "sleazy" not too long ago.
Also, Comey is a republican.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)I asked if people thought the campaign using a media outlet owned by David Brock to run positive stories felt sleazy. That is nothing like calling supporters sleazy.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)There is no agenda for anyone here now apart from beating Donald Trump, and if can't get over the primary then maybe you need to do some growing up.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)He said:
What that means is:
I don't really like the outcome of this, so I am going to give the public and the media my opinion and see if I can keep things stirred up.
All he really should have said is:
Sancho
(9,067 posts)He didn't say the emails were MARKED or WHY Hillary engaged in a dialog over some unnamed topic. It may be that she was not nearby a secure location - and just like "24", someone said, "they are going to set off an atomic bomb". She took a chance and whipped out the BB and a drone took out the bad guys!! She can't tell the story because it's TOP SECRET. Comey can say she was "reckless" even though she is not allowed to explain the circumstances!!!
It's a sucker punch - no matter what the "topic" of a handful emails over many thousands of transactions!!! She either had good reason to break protocol (and authority) or else the topic of the exchange was some dumbass classification that no one had any idea was sensitive. After 55,000 emails, Hillary obviously understood the system.
Hell, you could take 50,000 posts on DU and run them by the FBI and chances are there would be many dialogs on sensitive subjects, that many never had any idea was secret. Haha...start with UFOs??!!
Finally, Comey didn't say, but she had the ability to encrypt email. Actually, she also could have used email that at the time could trace anyone who opened it (to spot hackers). Also, even Comey might not be aware of a CIA operation to purposely send fake communications. There are numerous reasons for a very small number of conversations to contain sensitive information even though not marked SECRET.
Hillary nor her staff nor the Dept. of State is free to discuss most topics or operations, so Comey can stand up and spout trash without pushback. Comey is an ASS!