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) 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.