Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 26 2016, @04:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the where-did-THOSE-come-from? dept.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fbi-uncovered-at-least-14900-more-documents-in-clinton-email-investigation/2016/08/22/36745578-6643-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html

The FBI's year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.

Justice Department lawyers said last week that the State Department would review and turn over Clinton's work-related emails to a conservative legal group. The records are among "tens of thousands" of documents found by the FBI in its probe and turned over to the State Department, Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said Monday in court.

The 14,900 Clinton documents are nearly 50 percent more than the roughly 30,000 emails that Clinton's lawyers deemed work-related and returned to the department in December 2014.

Lawyers for the State Department and Judicial Watch, the legal group, are negotiating a plan for the release of the emails in a civil public records lawsuit before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington.

In a statement after a hearing at the U.S. district courthouse in Washington, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the group was pleased that Boasberg rejected the department's proposal to begin releasing documents weekly on Oct. 14, ordering it instead to prioritize Clinton's emails and to return to court Sept. 22 with a new plan.

"We're pleased the court accelerated the State Department's timing," Fitton said. "We're trying to work with the State Department here, but let's be clear: They have slow-walked and stonewalled the release of these records. They've had many of them since July 25 ... and not one record has yet been released, and we don't understand why that's the case."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:27AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:27AM (#393384)

    Clearly, you are not a lawyer. If you were, you might grasp that the entire classification system and the rules for handling classified information is entirely under the discretion and authority of the President. While Federal laws can and do prescribe punishments for breaking the rules, the rules themselves are flexible and are often updated by executive order from the President. Here's the tricky part -- As Secretary of State, Clinton was acting under the authority of the President with the power to classify and de-classify any documents that originated within the office of the Secretary of State. She's also receiving documents from other Secretaries who also have the authority to de-classify information originating within their own departments before sending to her private e-mail server. This classifying/de-classifying doesn't have to be a formal process -- it can be on a whim. Presidents have disclosed classified information on LIVE TV before, but can't be prosecuted b/c clearly they gave themselves the authority to disclose the information -- and that authority sits solely with their office.

    The reason the FBI didn't choose to prosecute is because the criteria for successful prosecution is so high as to be practically impossible. They'd have to find something that was either sent by her that was classified by a separate office and have that office confirm it was classified at the time, or they'd have to nail down specifically which classified documents were received by her, prove she knew they existed and not reported. Anyone they put on the stand to corroborate that info could easily lie and the case thrown out.

    There are lengthy legal opinions online that delve into the precedents of the requirements of the allegations you make, and the bar is set very high to begin with -- but especially so for a member of the President's Cabinet who has delegated authority from the President regarding the very creation, handling, and de-classifying of information. Any average Joe would be screwed, but her authority as Secretary makes it very difficult to prosecute as she or any other Secretary could simply explain they de-classified info immediately before sending it. As it wasn't classified at the time, there was no need to report the transgression. As Secretary of State, nearly all the classified intel would have been from her office and/or the Secretary of Defense. I'd be willing to bet former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta (who served as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff), would be willing to go to bat for Clinton and say whatever might have come from his office to Hillary's server was de-classified by himself personally before sending. Likewise for others. It'd be like trying to nail jello to the wall. Not going to happen.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Interesting=3, Informative=2, Total=5
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday August 26 2016, @02:18PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday August 26 2016, @02:18PM (#393486)

    So let me get this straight. You're saying...

    A) Anybody in the executive branch who screws up in regards to classified communications can have it swept under the rug by Obama saying "eh, whatever." (although I suppose this is technically true of anybody committing any crime via pardon)
    B) It's too much work to prove Hillary screwed up so forget the whole thing.

    I'm getting real tired of hearing people in positions of authority claiming it's too much effort to do the job they're elected/paid for.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by DECbot on Friday August 26 2016, @02:47PM

    by DECbot (832) on Friday August 26 2016, @02:47PM (#393504) Journal

    I completely agree with your assessment. Clinton cannot be nailed for having classified material as she has the authority to determine what is classified and the connections to ensure she won't be caught with classified materials.

    However, where she might be in hot water is the Federal Records Act. She has a responsibility to Congress to keep documents created during her tenure and turn over those documents to Congress. This of course includes email. Using a private email address for official government business is in direct violation of that act. Hillary argues that precedence allowed her to use a private email address as previous Secretaries of the State used private corporate addresses. However, my thought differs on a few counts.

    1. Scope! Previous Secretaries used a private account only for themselves. Any emails to or from government address are compliant with the Records Act as they will be recorded. Hillary provided email accounts to her close staffers for "convenience." Convenience how? Email is fairly convenient as is, so what makes a Clinton supplied email address more convenient? Likely to circumvent the Federal Records Act, it would be very convenient tool to circumvent the law. She is providing support to her inner cabinet to circumvent the law as they are now able to have internal discussions of official business of the State department without compliance to Congress. This is different than deferred Executive authority. Hillary does not have authority from Congress to circumvent the Records Act as the president is not able to differ that authority to her.
    2. Intent! Hillary intended to circumvent the law and created a private server to control the conversation, tone, and legacy of her tenure.
    3. Incompetence! Hillary's server did not meet the minimum security, redundancy, administration, and archival requirements of the federal government. Her predecessors email may not meet the security requirements, but they likely met the redundancy, administration, and perhaps even the archival requirements. It is very rare when professional incompetence saves you from the letter of the law.
    4. Litigate! Perhaps the previous Secretaries of State should be investigated/prosecuted too.

    Americans feel that she has violated the law in regards to classified records. If she had less authority than Secretary of State, she would be breaking the law. Comely is correct that you can prosecute as she has the authority to declassify any State department document on her server, and has the friends to declassify any non-State department document on her server. However, there should be a probe into how she complied with the Records Act. Turning over documents at the end of her tenure does not ensure that she is in compliance. Where are the logs of the emails received? There should be a count of the number of incoming emails and the number of out going emails. Do these numbers remotely match the number of emails turned over to Congress? And was there audits of the server during her tenure to ensure that logs aren't being tampered and emails are periodically and adequately archived? If she had an exception to use a private server for government work, these metrics would need to be in place during her tenure to ensure compliance to the law. Anything less is gross or willful negligence of the law and should be easily prosecuted.

    --
    cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:11PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 26 2016, @04:11PM (#393544) Journal

    You entirely skip over one important detail. Not all those classified documents originated from the State Department. State has no authority to declassify documents that originate from Justice, Army, Navy, or any other agency with authority to classify documents.