Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email

[onehandle]

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: New York Times

It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.

But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.

The Justice Department has not decided if it will open an investigation, senior officials said. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign declined to comment.

At issue are thousands of pages of State Department emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account. Mrs. Clinton has said she used the account because it was more convenient, but it also shielded her correspondence from congressional and Freedom of Information Act requests.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/politics/criminal-inquiry-sought-in-hillary-clintons-use-of-email.html

---

Sounds like Republicans are twisting the arms of a couple of inspectors general to get more information from the State Department. Nothing more than politics.

On Edit: The New York Times lied its asses off. I have left the original lying version here. Geek Tragedy posted a good thread on their journalistic crimes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251472339

[elleng]

1. sought by two inspectors general

[candelista]

14. +1

I posted that information below. It was left out of the original post.

[elleng]

20. Yes it was,

so read the article to provide info. Didn't find more than that.

[George II]

2. It just never ends, does it?

[underthematrix]

3. I have no words.

[jeff47]

4. My, how totally unexpected.

Btw, you can expect that in the thousands of emails there will be at least one accidental disclosure. It'll be something minor and not very important.

Heck, it will probably be something that was already leaked or otherwise known to the public. For example, something Manning leaked. But everything Manning leaked is still technically classified, and so it's still against the law for someone with a security clearance to discuss it in an unclassified environment. Like her personal email server.

[underthematrix]

24. You should probably READ article AGAIN

Reviw of 3000 emails was the basis for the request for a criminal referral

[jeff47]

53. And that contradicts my post how? (nt)

[tularetom]

5. Oh, well if she said there was no classified information on the account, that should end it

Benghazigate was a fishing expedition and this could turn out to be one as well, but unlike Benghazi, she has nobody to blame for this but herself.

And BTW, its fine to blame it all on republicans, but have you noticed how much of all this drama and scandal has not happened during the seven years Obama has been in office? And the republicans hate him as much as they hate the Clintons.

[deurbano]

6. She was Obama's Sec. of State.

[tularetom]

8. She was indeed, but what's your point?

Obama didn't hold a gun to her head and force her to set up a private e-mail account.

[deurbano]

9. If it's drama, it's his drama, too.

[tularetom]

11. I sorta thought that would be your response

[deurbano]

25. You said there was none of this drama during his seven years as president.

Clinton was the Sec. of State he chose for his administration... and she served as part of his administration... and the "drama" is unfolding during his administration... so if there is drama, it's part of his administration. I actually think it's most likely fabricated "drama," like so many other so-called Clinton dramas. And I DO blame Republicans and the media and Democrats who take the bait. I'm for Sanders, and I already voted for him once when I was living in VT and he ran for governor. I met him on his book tour in 1997 or '98 in Berkeley. I just don't buy the "Clinton drama" as conventional wisdom jazz. (My objections to her candidacy involve her corporatism, support for the surveillance state, hawkishness, etc.)

[underthematrix]

31. John Kerry has a state dept email account

Kerry put a stop to the personal email madness immediately once he learned about it. Yes the President is responsible for those who represent him and when they don't so in an appropriate and professional manner he gets rid of them. The previous director of the SS (accepted her resignation), McCrystal - PBO fired his ass - Petraeus was prosecuted for sharinf classified information inappropriately. I don't think he'll make an exception for HRC. President Obama actually has a moral compass.

I don't think it is fabricated drama. I feel so sad for her. The Office of the Inspector's General operates independent of the department it reviews. I assume when IG heard about the private email account they started their inquiry.

My sister and I were laughing about Bernie. We would never vote for him. He is NOT a Democrat. But the fun part will be reading your reaction when all those shoes start dropping.

[deurbano]

37. It will be fun to read MY reaction? I hope you have back-up entertainment since I have no stake in

this situation, and I am highly unlikely to react at all. (Notice my low post count, even though I've been here since 2002.) I said it's most likely fabricated, like previous "dramas," but whether that turns out to be true or not, my point was she was part of Obama's administration at the time.

[karynnj]

58. Obama could not fire Clinton - it would have killed his Presidency as it would

have created an earthquake like rift in the Democratic party. That said, he knew what he was getting when he nominated her. She was as high profile a SoS as one could have and it insured that the Clinton interest and the Obama interest were aligned at least thru 2012. Two VERY major pluses before you even mention her intelligence and abilities, that are pretty obvious.

It is entirely possible that Obama did not know that she had a private email server and was not using state.gov. I know there were emails exchanged by top officials, but in the emails showing that it was their office communicating with hers to get the email address. It is entirely likely that the offices maintained the address book - so to - say Axelrod, the mail was from "Hillary Clinton". Not to mention, it did seem like a lot of email was funneled through Cheryl Mills, who I think was on the email system. That, in fact, might have made it take longer before the FOIA people in state (career professionals) realized that a chunk of what should have been there - wasn't. When they realised that they were missing stuff, they likely had to move this information up to people who could do something about it. From the NYT article, it went up to Kerry's chief of staff who had to negotiate with Clinton to get it -- and they then gave it to them on paper. To add insult to injury, when this all came out, Clinton to get out of trouble asked the state department to put all 55,000 pages online -- a huge amount of extra work given the need to redact what has to be redacted. (Not to mention, even if they do everything perfectly, this will be said to prove nothing, because Clinton chose what too give them.

What this has done is that it has laid the Obama administration and the State Department open to claims that they moved slowly on this. In fact, Clinton hid stuff for her 4 years and made it as difficult as possible for the SD. I agree with your comments on the inspector general and add that there was ongoing criticism that until 2013 - the State Department did not have that position filled for 4 years. I agree that this merits review - if only to be used to establish rules that lead to transparency.

I don't laugh at Bernie. If you listen to his positions, you might be surprised to find that he is closer to FDR (or maybe Eleanor) than Clinton is -- though her positions have shifted since 2008 to closer to Berne's. I don't think he will get the nomination, but if he did are you honestly telling me you would vote instead for the Republican or not vote?

[pnwmom]

7. You're kidding, right? President Obama appointed her to be his Secretary of State

and he was well aware that she was using the personal account because she sent him emails through it.

[tularetom]

10. No I'm not kidding and as I asked the other poster, what's your point?

This aint Benghazi, something is really sort of rotten in Denmark here. Are you attempting to drag the president into this?

Yes he responded to emails she sent him through the private account but he eventually ended the practice of cabinet members transacting government business through private servers (which apparently was limited to SoS Clinton).

[pnwmom]

15. This is a kerfuffle, just like Benghazi. Even the Rethugs admitted she didn't break any law

by using a personal account. And her personal account using President Clinton's server turned out to be more secure than the .gov accounts that Wikileaks got hold of.

[underthematrix]

17. You do realize the President doesn't personally email her. He has a staff does that

[pnwmom]

39. That's quite an assertion. Where's your link for that? Here's mine:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/us/russian-hackers-read-obamas-unclassified-emails-officials-say.html

Officials did not disclose the number of Mr. Obama’s emails that were harvested by hackers, nor the sensitivity of their content. The president’s email account itself does not appear to have been hacked. Aides say that most of Mr. Obama’s classified briefings — such as the morning Presidential Daily Brief — are delivered orally or on paper (sometimes supplemented by an iPad system connected to classified networks) and that they are usually confined to the Oval Office or the Situation Room.

Still, the fact that Mr. Obama’s communications were among those hit by the hackers — who are presumed to be linked to the Russian government, if not working for it — has been one of the most closely held findings of the inquiry. Senior White House officials have known for months about the depth of the intrusion.

SNIP

Mr. Obama is no stranger to computer-network attacks: His 2008 campaign was hit by Chinese hackers. Nonetheless, he has long been a frequent user of email, and publicly fought the Secret Service in 2009 to retain his BlackBerry, a topic he has joked about in public. He was issued a special smartphone, and the list of those he can exchange emails with is highly restricted.

[underthematrix]

34. He doesn't send and recieve emails. His staff does that Geez

[underthematrix]

36. How would the President know she was using a private email account SOLELY

ro do SOS business. The President doesn't personally email his leadership or staff. He has staff to do that.

[pnwmom]

38. What difference would that make? He knew she was using it as SOS to talk to HIM.

And it isn't true that Obama doesn't personally email. He does. And he also sends text on a Blackberry.

[karynnj]

59. Not necessarily

Look at the emails used to prove that Axelrod should have known. What is clear is that as HRC and Axelrod speak, the emails are between Huma Abedin and a person in his office speaking about the address. I would not be surprised - for either of them - is the email's address book was handled by the office. Not to mention, other Secretaries SOMETIMES used other emails - so he might have thought nothing of it.

This is reality.

Pros for Clinton:
There was no clear rule or law saying that you could not do this

Cons for Clinton
It was clearly done to give her as much control over her email as possible, hiding some of it from FOIA that should have been able to include it. (They did have anything that went to a State.gov account. Had everyone working for her been on State.gov, there would still have been emails to non government people that were work related. The fact that her closest aides were also on her server makes it worse.)

There were rules that should have resulted in her giving the emails to State -- and not 2 years after she left office - after negotiating with State before doing so -- on paper - to further slow things down.

Benghazi investigations are excessive, but the Congress had the right to investigate. This is another case where a claim of cover up - even when absolutely nothing was really covered up - can hurt. In this case, because of what she did with the email, it is Hillary Clinton personally - not the State Department - who should be blamed. Like it or not, those emails should have been discoverable.

[candelista]

19. Any of her email with foreign ministers would/should be classified.

And of course she used email to communicate with her opposite numbers in other countries. What else would she use? Diplomatic pouch? How about the Pony Express?

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

46. The State Dept/government email system is hours slow...

... at times, thus many in government use Google email accounts for near real time messaging. Is this just another thing that the GOP has defunded (IT systems at State Department)...

[HFRN]

51. even if a federal employee never handles classified info

ALL emails are public info

[candelista]

12. The original poster omitted the first 4 paragraphs of the NYT story

WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.

It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.

But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/politics/criminal-inquiry-sought-in-hillary-clintons-use-of-email.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0

[4139]

13. I don't understand why she took this risk...

I just don't

[pnwmom]

18. The government system was a clunky, slow, antique and if she had been using it

her emails would have turned up on Wikileaks with other .gov emails.

[DesMoinesDem]

76. What other government emails? Please provide a link. Thanks.

[candelista]

23. It could finish her.

If there is a criminal prosecution, that is. Imagine trying to get elected while being prosecuted!

But I doubt that the Justice Department will follow through. They will face a lot of heat from the Rethuglipukes if they don't, though. Gonna be a big fight.

[underthematrix]

26. Rick Perry was indicted in TEXAS

[candelista]

27. He ain't doin' so well, didja notice?

Besides, why are you comparing Hillary with that Repukelithug?

[underthematrix]

35. I'm not comparing HRC to the GOPKLAN

I'm just saying there is someone running who has been indicted. There's nothing like that with HRC - yet.

[Beauregard]

40. Mayor Curley of Boston was elected Alderman from jail.

Anything that happens is possible.

[blm]

16. Have they also called for criminal investigation of Colin Powell, Condi Rice who also used private

email accounts, or is it only deserving of criminal investigation when a Democrat follows suit?

[underthematrix]

21. I think these people and some others used both.

The key here is they used BOTH. Also, this is something that came up when Romney vacated the gov' office in MA. He took all of the compuetr hard drives from his office. I thought that should have brought a criminal inquiry but it didn't. But it does beg the question of why she would do this knowing the GOP KLAN have it in for her.

[blm]

28. Why? Because her predecessors did it, too.

I'm a longtime Clinton critic here, and I don't fault her on this since those who held the office before did the same. Kerry does not - but then, Kerry's operating style tends to be stringent once a rule is set in place.

[tularetom]

44. The Democrats have had seven years to open criminal investigations of Powell, Rice

and the rest of the Bush/Cheney war criminal syndicate. For a lot worse things than emails by the way. Some of us have been figuratively screaming at Obama the whole time to do something about it and all we got told was "look forward".

"Billy did it too" wasn't a valid defense when we got busted for something in the third grade, and it is pretty much meaningless in this case.

[blm]

64. Not meant to be - point is that it was acceptable behavior then and when it became

legally unacceptable for the Sec of State to do this, Kerry was at the helm.

And I am posting this as a longtime Clinton critic.

I don't jump on RW bandwagons to play their tunes.

[jeff47]

56. Using private email is not the issue in this OP. Classified information is.

So if you want a "Republicans don't get punished" angle, you're going to need to go with Petraeus.

[blm]

62. Hw would anyone know if Powell and Rice weren't put through the same scrutiny? Oh yeah...

they're trusted Republicans.

[jeff47]

63. Well, absent any evidence they did it, they get presumption of innocence.

OTOH, we've got a Republican who DID leak massive amounts of classified information who got a slap on the wrist.

[blm]

65. LOL - Powell said he did it and thought nothing of it because it was never an issue.

No Republican has asked for further scrutiny of Powell or Rice's personal email accounts.

IOKIYAR.

[jeff47]

67. No, Powell said that about using personal email, not about leaking classified.

Different issues.

[blm]

71. HOW WOULD ANYONE KNOW? Same issue.

Clinton said she didn't, Powell said he didn't, Rice said she didn't.

Apparently you agree with Republicans in Congress who only want one SoS, Clinton, scrutinized.

[jeff47]

72. :facepalm:

Apparently you agree with Republicans in Congress who only want Clinton scrutinized.

Reading. You really need to try it. Maybe lay off the caffeine some too.

Now, if I only wanted Clinton scrutinized, why the fuck would I keep pointing you to a Republican who got away with leaking classified information?

[blm]

73. Facts remain the same - Clinton said she didn't, Powell said he didn't, Rice said she didn't.

Which SoS should be singled out for scrutiny?

[msongs]

22. well obviously HRC and the repubs are hatching a plot to generate publicity for HRC lol nt

[candelista]

29. Is there "no such thing" as bad publicity?

In Hollywood, that might be true, but I don't know about politics. It's a little different.

[Beauregard]

32. Both Inspectors General are Obama appointees.

Not agents of the Republican Party.

[SunSeeker]

43. Got a link? That was not mentioned in the article.

Also, being Obama appointees does not necessarily mean they aren't Republicans.

[Beauregard]

60. Links here:

Created in 1989, the statutory Inspector General (IG) is responsible for independent oversight of the CIA. The IG is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and may only be removed from office by the president.

https://www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/inspector-general

The State Department and USAID haven’t had an inspector general for over five years, and a growing chorus of lawmakers in both parties want new Secretary of State John Kerry to do something about it.

"As you begin your tenure, we would like to raise an issue essential to the proper functioning of the Department of State. For more than five years, since January 16, 2008, the Department has lacked a presidentially-nominated, Senate-confirmed Inspector General."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/02/05/congress-calls-on-kerry-to-appoint-a-state-department-inspector-general/

[SunSeeker]

66. That does not address who these two are. nt

[Beauregard]

69. I answered your question.

My links establish that these IGs were Obama appointess, which is what you asked about in your first post.

It took some time to find these links.

You are welcome.

Now you have a new question, which you did not raise before. You want to know exactly who they are.

This time, let your fingers do the walking. I am not your research assistant.

[SunSeeker]

70. No you did not. I asked about these two, not the Inspector General. nt

[junior college]

30. I reckon Republicans are doing anything

they can to disrupt Hillary's campaign. They know that they will never, ever take the White House again without a scandal or a big attack on American soil.

[Beauregard]

33. More from the NYT story about classified information in the emails

In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them.

In a second memo to Mr. Kennedy, sent on July 17, the inspectors general said that at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information. The inspectors general did not identify the email or reveal its substance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/politics/criminal-inquiry-is-sought-in-hillary-clinton-email-account.html

[SunSeeker]

45. But was that email classified when Hillary sent or received it?

There is no evidence any of the emails on Hillary's server were classified at the time Hillary sent them or received them. She has always maintained that she did not store classified emails on her server. Some of the emails were subsequently made classified by the State Department, like emails about who was suspected of involvement in the Benghazi attack, but no one has come up with any emails that were classified at the time they were sent or received by Hillary using her server.

I imagine that the State Department may have missed labeling some as classified in their subsequent review, as part of preparing productions in response to FOIA and Benghazi committee document demands. We're talking hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. Some are going to be mistakenly released by the State Department, which is overwhelmed with document demands. I'm surprised these two inspectors only came up with one.

[Purveyor]

42. If Hillary Clinton wishes to put this matter behind her and perhaps improve her negatives, she

should produce the servers that contained said email to forensics and let it be done.

[OakCliffDem]

47. Democrats do not need this kind of baggage in a Presidential campaign

Bernie Sanders is the superior candidate.

[JDPriestly]

49. Right. This is just another one of the issues that Hillary's nomination will thrust

upon the entire Democratic Party and all its candidates.

Here is the problem. Classified information, it seems to me, should be encrypted if sent via e-mail.

Hillary's private account, I assume was not encrypted.

That means it could have been read by hackers if her account was hacked.

As Secretary of State, as a Secretary of State who condemned the leaks of for example Edward Snowden, wouldn't she have taken great care to make sure that her e-mails could not be leaked and hacked?

How could a secretary of state not presume that at least some of her e-mails would contain classified information? How could she not think that information should be protected from hackers through encryption?

Was her account capable of encryption? Did she encrypt her e-mails?

If the State Department system was not sophisticated and usable and good enough, what did she do to get that system changed?

These seem to me to be fair questions to ask in this situation. And Hillary may have good answers for them.

But, still, you are right. Her candidacy will be an endless chain of crazy, deluded distractions because people don't trust Hillary or the Clintons. The craziest, nuttiest, most unbelievable stories circulate out there about them. And then there are the true ones like her early futures trading based apparently on tips from a friend, Bill's girlfriends (no longer a problem at his age, I presume -- but then who knows? How about a White House in which the First Gentleman is the subject of scandal? I'm joking of course.) The Dlintons will again be accused of all kinds of things most of which aren't true. We just don't need that.

[jeff47]

61. Actually, classified information can't be sent through email

At least, email over the Internet.

The US Government built a separate network called SIPRNet where secret information can be sent using "normal" Internet protocols. It isn't attached to the Internet. It also has all sorts of encryption and other security features.

[JDPriestly]

81. But wouldn't Hillary's use of a private e-mail account considering her knowledge as Secretary

of State permit her inadvertently or intentionally to discuss classified information or even create it without encryption?

I don't really understand this at all. Seems to me that if the secretary of state, say Condoleeze Rice uses a private e-mail account and without thinking makes a comment that reveals classified information, that she has communicated classified information without encryption.

Is it only documents that are classified or is it the information within documents that can e classified?

I think that is where we are perhaps talking about two different things.

[jeff47]

83. Yes. That was the potential scandal.

The (now refuted) claim was that Clinton (probably inadvertently) sent classified information. That doesn't mean she literally attached a classified report to an email, but that she said something in an email that was classified.

Is it only documents that are classified or is it the information within documents that can e classified?

The information within the documents.

[L0oniX]

57. +1

[Laser102]

48. Wait. Powell did the exact same thing.

Why hasn't he been charged? He didn't keep anything. Deleted all his emails and this was during the Iraq war!!! I am so tired of this nonsense! I would like her to testify in front of the American people in order to get her side out. The repugs are scared to death that she will once again make a fool of them. So let's do these things in bits and drabs in order to further tarnish her reputation. The Justice department will have a hard time charging her since there were NO rules in place at that time. Just suggestions. No law, no crime.

[Vinca]

50. Apparently the order came down after Powell's tenure.

Hillary better hope she hasn't got any classified info in that computer. I'm afraid this is a case when being too cautious might have cost her the presidency. Even if nothing is found and she is never charged, the publicity couldn't be any worse for a candidate.

[Laser102]

52. No order. Suggestions that they preserve all State Dept. documents.

By the way, if you think they will not do this to Bernie, all you have to do is look at the Nazi piece in the National journal. I know it's a right wing mag. But never the less. I have already seen, Bernie has a race problem, Bernie is a cranky old man, Bernie is this and that with the NRA. They will do to him what they have done to the Pope. No one will escape the mud. I would rather they take on Hillary who has more cojones then most men. She will make them eat it. Her lawyers are the best in the business. They know how to handle the idiots.

[Vinca]

78. Of course they'll do it to Bernie. That wasn't an anti-Hillary post.

Hillary's biggest problem is that she is and has been "over handled." I'm sure there was a conscious decision to use the private email account in order to protect her from right wing attacks in this election cycle. That was obviously the wrong decision. This might very well cost her the presidency and Democrats the White House. Even if her lawyers make the case that she is 100% innocent, the damage will have been done. She needs to dump the handlers.

[jeff47]

54. No, the private server is not the issue in this OP.

The classified information is.

It's pretty easy to accidentally leak something relatively inconsequential. For example, if Clinton mentioned something in an email that was leaked by Manning, that's a security breach.

Everyone knows about it, but it's still classified. So legally, she'd be in trouble for mentioning it.

[Reter]

55. OK, now drop out

And then endorse Bernie.

[brooklynite]

68. UPDATE: -NOT- a criminal investigation...

@JohnJHarwood: Justice Dept official says "referral" related to Hillary Clinton's email is NOT for a criminal investigation - contradicting earlier reports

[Beacool]

74. Yeah, but the damage is done.

That headline appeared everywhere. I guess that was the point, right?

What happened to the revered NYT? It has become just one step up from another rag.

[oasis]

75. This e-mail crap will blow over. "There's nothing as old as yesterday's news".

Was no big deal from the beginning.

[Beacool]

77. Yes, but it adds to the GOP's talking point that "Hillary can't be trusted".

When they got nothing but clowns in their car they have to find new ways to attack the opponents.

[BooScout]

79. Republican talking heads and their choirs have jumped all over it....

Just another day of slinging shit at Hillary, no matter if its a bunch of lies, and hoping some of it will stick.

The New York Times can kiss my ass. ...what a shoddy bit of yellow journalism.

[oasis]

80. Hillary remains calm throughout. I respectfully suggest we do the same.

[BooScout]

82. Oh I'm calm....

You won't find me tweeting my outrage all over the internet......but I'm gonna bitch about it on DU.