FBI: No intentional wrongdoing on part of Clinton emails

The Director of the FBI, James Comey, has issued his bureau's report on the email controversy surrounding Ms. Clinton's use of a private email server: no intentional wrongdoing.

The Bureau did find that the State Department was "careless" in the handling of email communications, it concluded that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case!

There was never any there, there.  Move along folks, it's all a Reflublican ruse,

Statement by FBI Director James B.Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.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 Clinton’s 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 together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t 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 server’s unused—or“slack”—space. 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 thee-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 account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of here-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s 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 were covered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s 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 Clinton’s 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 notable 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 Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involvedin 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.That’s 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 Clinton’s 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. Government—or 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 Clinton’s 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 Clinton’s 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 Clinton’s personal e-mail account.So that’s 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 don’t 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 person’s 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 investigation—including people in government—but 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 couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

FBI’s Comey: No charges appropriate in Clinton email case

FBI Director James Comey makes a statement at FBI Headquarters on Tuesday; Hillary Clinton addresses the the U.S. Conference of Mayors last week.

(Photos: Michael Conroy/AP, Cliff Owen/AP)

In a bombshell announcement, FBI Director James Comey accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday of having been “extremely careless” in handling classified information on her private email server but recommended that she not face criminal charges.

“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,” Comey said in a televised statement from FBI headquarters. “Although there is evidence of potential violation of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

The announcement, which came hours before Clinton was to hold her first joint campaign rally with President Obama, did not quiet the political firestorm surrounding her decision to use a private server for her official work email during her time at the State Department.

“As the Secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again,” the Clinton campaign said in a written statement. “We are glad that this matter is now resolved.”

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump immediately denounced the news on Twitter.

“The system is rigged,” he said. “Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment.”

The announcement came after the FBI interviewed Clinton at its headquarters on Saturday for three and a half hours, the culmination of a yearlong investigation that has dogged her presidential campaign and fueled her sky-high disapproval ratings.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Friday that she would accept the recommendations of the FBI and senior Justice Department prosecutors. Lynch made that pledge as she tried to dampen the controversy over a meeting with former President Bill Clinton earlier in the week.

While Comey stopped short of recommending that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee face criminal charges, the widely respected FBI chief painted an unsparing picture of her controversial and unprecedented use of a private email server to do government work. While other past secretaries of state had used private, commercially available email, none had set up a private server.

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” he said.

Clinton sent and received emails that concerned matters that were classified at the top-secret special access program level at the time of the communications, he said. That flatly contradicted the former first lady’s public assertion that she never sent or received classified information.

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” Comey said.

Comey also said “it is possible that hostile actors gained access” to Clinton’s private email account, noting that her use of that system was widely known and that she sent and received work emails “in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.”

The FBI chief explained the decision not to recommend charges by saying that previous cases that were prosecuted involved a blend of clearly intentional mishandling of national secrets, or disloyalty to the U.S., or obstruction of justice. “But we do not see those things here,” he said.

Still, Comey said, individuals found to have done what Clinton and her senior aides did rarely face “no consequences.”

Instead, “those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions,” he said.

But with Clinton and her top aides out of government, that seemed unlikely to occur.

Wow. I never expected that.

eddie wrote:Wow. I never expected that.

I would have expected much more of a partisan witch-hunt from Comey, seeing as he was appointed by Bush and donated to McCain and then Romney.

I did expect it, at least to the extent that Comey would attempt to 'split the baby' (remember Solomon?). Had he said there was totally no wrongdoing, there would have been an outpouring of exceptions. By saying it was carelessness, he is leading up to saying there is absolutely no cause for criminal action.

Hillary did nothing wrong in using a personal server. Republican Colin Powell did it. Republican Connie Rice did it. Ignoring their own duplicity, Republicans in the House over-brayed that it was criminal.

It was a practice that fell right in with developing technology. It occurred at a time when people were just becoming aware about vulnerabilities in connection with Internet communication. There's was absolutely no intent, which is the allegation of Repfibicans.

It's the classic, look over there, not over here! Repuglicans spend $-billions on such charades. With ISIS on the attack, and infrastructure in this country falling apart, would that they would bother to govern.

On second thought...vote Democrat.

Most people I know in the UK (from all over), dislike Trump, but most think he'll win.

eddie wrote:Most people I know in the UK (from all over), dislike Trump, but most think he'll win.

They should think again:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

After BREXIT, who trusts polls?

eddie wrote:After BREXIT, who trusts polls?

This is a weighted-by-reputation amalgamation of practically every poll that's been conducted thus far, though. It wouldn't be unusual at all for a few polls here and there to be off, but it would be shocking if they were all completely inaccurate.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Most people I know in the UK (from all over), dislike Trump, but most think he'll win.

They should think again:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I don't know who you know, eds, but they aren't making any sense. Trump is trailing by some 12-points, and has about a 70-point unfavorable rating. He has left the closed waters of the primary races, and hit the open seas of the general election. The whole opposition--the much larger Democratic Party--is aligned against him. Indeed, the principals of his own party won't back him. He's all alone out there, with this quirky following.

Even from my perch it hurts to watch.

eddie wrote:After BREXIT, who trusts polls?

Remember, the election is just the final poll.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

They should think again:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I don't know who you know, eds, but they aren't making any sense.  Trump is trailing by some 12-points, and has about a 70-point unfavorable rating.  He has left the closed waters of the primary races, and hit the open seas of the general election.  The whole opposition--the much larger Democratic Party--is aligned against him.  Indeed, the principals of his own party won't back him.  He's all alone out there, with this quirky following.

Even from my perch it hurts to watch.

There were two parrots sitting on a perch...

One says to the other...

"Can you smell fish...!?"

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Wow. I never expected that.

I would have expected much more of a partisan witch-hunt from Comey, seeing as he was appointed by Bush and donated to McCain and then Romney.

Which is why I was temped to give FBI-Director, Comey; a standing ovation for ...
a.) the way that he clearly stated his 'I've not spoken with any one in government prior to this media moment'
b.) explained that he and all of his dedicated personnel went by the 'Letter of the Law' regarding those emails: what was classified - when they were dated - from where they were sent & received - what was the topic of discussion - what was classified as 'Top Secret' and if any of those specifics were in the title messages
c.) despite his admonishments for HRC - her staff and the other Government officials that "should have known better then to have sent classified &/or TOP SECRET" emails to & from her personal servers - the risk that they all took while she was in those foreign countries was shocking - and yet our own governments Secured Data Base System for IRS/NOAA/USPS/US Coast Guard/State Department/White House ...have all had their "protected servers HACKED"

Exactly. Who would trust Clinton to be in charge of a nuclear button if she can't control her outbox?

eddie wrote:Exactly. Who would trust Clinton to be in charge of a nuclear button if she can't control her outbox?

You would prefer someone like Nero, who would set the whole thing on fire solely for a whim?

As I say, these are two unpopular candidates.  They depend more on who they surround themselves with...a whole party, or one person's sons and sons-in-law, who are essentially 'yes-men' after all.

Hillary doesn't have malice in mind.  Trump aims his focus on destructiveness, with an equal amount of stupidity and carelessness.  He is a reactor, not an actor.  He is thin-skinned, with low impulse-control.  I'd rather have a not-so-computer-savvy president, than one with so much personality confusion.

You got a point. And Trump has such bad hair too.

Why is she above the law?

eddie wrote:Why is she above the law?

This greasy chap just doesn’t get it. Comey said the State Department was careless. And I believe it…it was even worse under the Bush administration. Both Colin Powell and Condi Rice used private servers, when they were Secretary of State.

This guy is just repeating ‘lost & late’ Republican arguments from 3 – 4 years ago. Nothing happened. There’s no there, there.

Is this what serves as 'contemporary' news on British TV?

Quill, these are all being shared by Americans lol

eddie wrote:

Quill, these are all being shared by Americans lol

Ahh...but the one on the left was a blatant fraud, actionable under criminal statutes.  It was based on a knowing lie, set up and told by the producers of the video.  The one on the right was carelessness undertaken by two Republican Secretaries of State and one Democratic Secretary of State.

It's a totally false equivalency.  As the Director made clear, you can't bring a criminal charge for carelessness. You can, however, for knowing fraud.

Carelessness. I see.

  Or reverse it.  Voting for Hillary is like eating broccoli because otherwise you would have to eat a dog turd.  It's not a matter of 'hate'.  It's a matter of the unpleasant vs. the unconscionable

Lol quill. The fact is she wil get in because there was no one else to vote for.

I like broccoli.

Ben Reilly wrote:I like broccoli.

You would.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I like broccoli.

You would.

Broccoli is a noble vegetable and deserves a defender.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I like broccoli.

You would.

Broccoli is a noble vegetable and deserves a defender.

It looks like a tree and tastes rubbish unless it's in a Thai curry.

eddie wrote:Lol quill. The fact is she wil get in because there was no one else to vote for.

Xactly.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

You would.

Broccoli is a noble vegetable and deserves a defender.

So are brussels sprouts. My favorites.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I like broccoli.

You would.

Broccoli is a noble vegetable and deserves a defender.

It looks like a tree and tastes rubbish unless it's in a Thai curry.

Looks are unimportant, and it tastes just fine with a little butter and salt.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

It looks like a tree and tastes rubbish unless it's in a Thai curry.

Looks are unimportant, and it tastes just fine with a little butter and salt.

Yeah, but not overcooked. Only al dente.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

It looks like a tree and tastes rubbish unless it's in a Thai curry.

Looks are unimportant, and it tastes just fine with a little butter and salt.

Yeah, but not overcooked.  Only al dente.

Yes. Overlooked veg is rank.

Quill I love Brussels sprouts. Boiled then baked in the oven with paprika and butter.

Blanched, then baked in a mustard sauce, sprinkled with crumbled zorgonzola cheese and bacon bits, en casserole

Original Quill wrote:Blanched, then baked in a mustard sauce, sprinkled with crumbled zorgonzola cheese and bacon bits, en casserole

Yes I used to add bacon when I ate meat. It's nice with black olives in place of bacon too.

Black olives. Interesting...I'll have to try that.

Original Quill wrote:Black olives.  Interesting...I'll have to try that.

Chop them small otherwise the smell overpowers everything else.

Black olives are one of the great things we are blessed with in our pitifully short existence.

Green ones, too.

Yep. And great on a pizza.

FBI Director Comey was grilled by Congress today. They want to make out a conspiracy that the administration is covering for Hillary. The problem with that is, Comey is a Reflublican, one of the heroes under GWB. Now he's a villain to them?

It's desperation. I can't believe that the Repuglicans are milking this so much. Nothing happened. It's all coulda, shoulda... No Russian spies, etc.

Original Quill wrote:FBI Director Comey was grilled by Congress today.  They want to make out a conspiracy that the administration is covering for Hillary.  The problem with that is, Comey is a Reflublican, one of the heroes under GWB.  Now he's a villain to them?

It's desperation.  I can't believe that the Repuglicans  are milking this so much.  Nothing happened.  It's all coulda, shoulda...  No Russian spies, etc.

Our regional Repug's have wallowed in the lackadaisical mind-set of 'I don't need to do my job - I can just avoid doing anything pro-active - I'm just filling this seat and getting paid for my time in office + benefits' ...so now they need another cross to burn/worthless cause to carry on with and waste more time & money while doing that!

Original Quill wrote:FBI Director Comey was grilled by Congress today.  They want to make out a conspiracy that the administration is covering for Hillary.  The problem with that is, Comey is a Reflublican, one of the heroes under GWB.  Now he's a villain to them?

It's desperation.  I can't believe that the Repuglicans  are milking this so much.  Nothing happened.  It's all coulda, shoulda...  No Russian spies, etc.

If it were Trump's name and not Clinton's in this story, your post would be quite different Mr Quill.