SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @12:26PM
> FBI director James Comey stating that Hillary's unclassified email server(s) had 110 known-classified-when-sent emails
That's misleading as fuck. The information in the emails was classified. None of it was marked classified. She didn't originate it, she received it from unclassified sources. Where's the investigation of who leaked it to the people outside of the government that sent it to her?
> As a clearance-holder, Hillary committed a felony by not properly reporting the classified emails she received under 18 USC 793 (f)
Key phrase from your own citation "has reason to believe." The information was not marked. It was sent to her by people outside of the government. She had no reason to believe it was classified.
> 2a. FBI director James Comey described Hillary's conduct as "extremely careless", synonymous with "gross neglegence"
> "Gross negligence" is the legal term for the federal felony
Puhlease! If he had meant gross negligence, he would have said it.
You are literally putting words in his mouth to suit your agenda.
> At this point, it's just a simple game of "Shillary's copy-and-paste whack-a-mole".
Wow. You actually admit to blindly copy-pasting something you don't even understand.
You know what? I am completely unsurprised.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 26 2016, @01:11PM
Key phrase from your own citation "has reason to believe." The information was not marked. It was sent to her by people outside of the government. She had no reason to believe it was classified.
Sad to see people excuse felony-level criminal negligence on such flimsy grounds. And there's still the matter of why Clinton used a private email server.
Puhlease! If he had meant gross negligence, he would have said it.
He did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @01:34PM
Colin Powell, the previous Secretary of State, advised her to. [nbcnews.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:20PM
Powell came out soon after, and said, "You're not pinning that on me!" Powell reminded us that the lying bitch lies.
http://www.drudge.com/news/202478/colin-powell-dont-pin-hillarys-email [drudge.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:05PM
That's a creative interpretation. Of course she is trying to pin it on him. He said "here's a bunch of reasons to do it" but he didn't literally tell her to do it. His own office confirmed that he did it. That's the kind of legalism practically everyone with power uses to avoid bad press - if you can't deny the accusation, deny some other accusation and hope nobody reads very carefully.
A spokeswoman for Powell's office issued a statement following the Times' story: "General Powell has no recollection of the dinner conversation. He did write former Secretary Clinton an email memo describing his use of his personal AOL email account for unclassified messages and how it vastly improved communications within the State Department."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:40PM
If I tell you to rob the Kwik-E-Mart and you do, then you are still the one responsible for the robbery. (I may be charged as an accessory to the crime, but that would be in addition to your own criminal charges.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:43PM
And if using a private email server were an actual crime and not just retrospective bad choice your analogy would mean something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @10:03PM
Using a private, unclassified email server to send, receive, and store classified information is a crime.
Thanks for playing, tho.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:09PM
> Thanks for playing, tho.
Proceed with your recursion. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @02:56PM
> Sad to see people excuse felony-level criminal negligence on such flimsy grounds.
WTF? Are you so blinded by partisanship that you choose to deny the language of the statute?
>> Puhlease! If he had meant gross negligence, he would have said it.
>
> He did.
If he actually said "gross negligence" why did the AC not quote that?
Tell you what, you can make a fool of me: just link to proof he actually said "gross negligence."
Come on man, you are so confident he said it, what's stopping you from rubbing it in my face?
Oh yeah... You don't live in the real world, that's why.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:02PM
The more I [soylentnews.org] have the misfortune to learn about the US legal system, the more I learn how far it departs from reality.
USian normies mostly operate on the basis of observable reality: the "sun comes up", work needs doing, bills need paying, etc. Hillary Clinton, like most high-level politicians and lawyers, appears to live life as if it were entirely contained within a courtroom, a courtroom where "reality" is whatever bullcrap the lawyer can get the judge to sign off on (assuming the judge(s) weren't already bought [wethepeoplefoundation.org]).
- Gross negligence defined: "carelessness in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others [...] [thefreedictionary.com]". Comey's exact words to describe Hillary Clinton and cronies' conduct in regards to their handling of classified information was "extremely careless [youtube.com]".
- SECRET classified information is defined as information whose improper release would cause "serious damage" to national security, and only gets more dire on the Top Secret and Special Access Program [youtube.com] classification levels (such as was found on Hillary's unclassfied email server(s).)
- Hillary Clinton was extremely careless in her mishandling of classified information that, at minimum, could cause "serious damage" to US national security. Ergo, Hillary Clinton feloniously violated federal law. It seems only proper to get her (and related parties) in front of a judge to have one of them swift, impartial trials.
In response to the previously tried-and-true "Baffle Them With Bullshit" approach continuously flung in our direction, we normies are, by and large, loudly echoing the old saying "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. [youtube.com]"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:09PM
> Comey's exact words to describe Hillary Clinton and cronies' conduct in regards to their handling of classified information was "extremely careless".
You wrote all that crap, trying to baffle us with bullshit but still all it boils down to is that comey deliberately avoided the term "gross negligence."
Comey didn't say what you wanted him to say, so he must have meant what you wanted him to say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @09:03PM
It's still not raining.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:53AM
but still all it boils down to is that comey deliberately avoided the term "gross negligence."
While simultaneously outlining the acts and behavior that constituted said gross negligence. It doesn't matter that Clinton committed multiple felonies. The FBI wouldn't get anywhere with the case in a hostile administration that would sabotage or destroy any such effort to bring Clinton to justice.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:18PM
Since you were never qualified to handle secret documents, it's easy for you to make excuses for someone who is incompetent to handle them.
Bottom line - whether or not she committed the felonies which we all know she committed, SHE IS INCOMPETENT!!
I use that word as a military person uses the word. She may grasp concepts, but she cannot apply them in an effective manner. "Effective" means, working as designed. In Shrillary's case, secret documents have become public knowledge. INCOMPETENT. Do you understand that word?
Now, do you want to vote for a president who has PROVEN HER INCOMPETENCE?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday August 26 2016, @05:46PM
That's misleading as fuck. The information in the emails was classified. None of it was marked classified.
That isn't what the Director of the FBI said in his testimony to Congress. He admitted under oath that Mrs. Clinton did send documents marked classified at the time she sent them. Which in a sane world would have lead to the followup question of "So tell us again why you choose not to recommend charges if you admit that you know beyond any doubt that a felony was committed?"
Bitch had stuff classified at Top Secret: SAP: NOFORN on that unsecured Microsoft Exchange Server. That level is so secret that no foreigner may see it, not even a friendly head of state like the British Prime Minister or French President. There are probably levels of secret above that but even the existence of it is secret. Basically the only secrets the bitch didn't have on that thing was fucking dead alien level stuff. This batch apparently has stuff so hot that State is 'releasing' some of them to Congress with the entire message body redacted. They are telling this to Congressmen with full clearances on Intelligence and other committees who are supposed to be in the oversight loop on the darkest most black bag stuff the government does.
To prevent FOIA requests that would expose her corruption with the Pay for Play between her, State and the Clinton Foundation she put our important secrets on a crappy Windows box and now Julian Assange gets to decide whether they get splashed around the world. She should get a fair trial, a blindfold, a cigarette and a brick wall. Instead we are waiting to see if half the country is so debased as to make her POTUS.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:27PM
That isn't what the Director of the FBI said in his testimony to Congress. He admitted under oath that Mrs. Clinton did send documents marked classified at the time she sent them.
Again with the misleading.
What he said was that there were three line items marked with marked (C) for confidential, the lowest level of classification. All three of which were appointments from her phone schedule, which are only classified for diplomatic reasons in case she ends up not actually making the phone call then nobody is embarrassed she bailed on a scheduled call with a foreign official. After the call is made, they are always declassified because the fact the call happened is not considered classified.
Comey said two of those items were mismarked, the calls had taken place, the appointments had been declassified, somebody just forgot to remove the (C). He made no comment on the 3rd item but given it that was her schedule, declassifying them was entirely her decision. And frankly, the fact the she was scheduled to make a phone call and didn't actually make it, is about the weakest tea imaginable.
> Bitch had stuff classified at Top Secret: SAP: NOFORN
Maybe so. But it was (a) unmarked (b) sent to her by someone from outside the government who did not have a clearance in the first place. She had no reason to believe it was classified in the first place.
BTW, your breathless enthusiasm reveals that you know nothing about classification. Its not "SAP: NOFORN." "NOFORN" is not a kind of SAP, its a modifier that can be applied to any level of classification, including confidential. FOUO (for official use only) is another frequently modifier.
But, lock that bitch up, amirite!?!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:46PM
This is one of the biggest reasons why Hillary is so disliked. She's acting like lawyer-speak is something which dictates reality, akin to a kid being told not to "be caught with her hand in the cookie jar", only to be caught using tongs to get a cookie and smugly stating, "I didn't use my HANDS!"
Normal people who operate on the principles of observable reality know that mishandling classified information and perjury are the key problems, not whether or not the mishandled classified info was marked as such on Hillary's unclassified email server. (Those of us who have handled classified data before know that its markings are irrelevant in terms of how to handle it when contrasted with the data's actual classification, and the strict marking instructions are meant precisely to help prevent accidents like disclosure. Quibbling about the markings is almost entirely irrelevant when the removal of said markings was done by Hillary and/or her pals, Hillary was still required to report said mishandled classified data, and her failure to do so was a federal crime.)