I wasn’t surprised by the news that the FBI did not find cause to pursue criminal charges involving the handling of emails by Hillary Clinton when she was serving as Secretary of State.
After all the political attacks that followed the recent report of the State Department’s Inspector General, I took the time to read the unclassified, public version of the IG report (“Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements“). It was actually quite interesting, in a weird way.
First of all, despite all the political rhetoric, the investigation wasn’t really about security leaks or mishandling of classified information, although there was discussion of potential cybersecurity issues behind departmental policies.
Instead, the IG was focused on the Federal Records Act, which spells out policies for the retention and archiving of government records. The investigation looked at whether email records were captured by the departmental mail system for archiving, as required by the Federal Records Act and other policies.
…laws and regulations did not prohibit employees from using their personal email accounts for the conduct of official Department business. However, email messages regarding official business sent to or from a personal email account fell within the scope of the Federal Records Act if their contents met the Act’s definition of a record.
Both Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton used private email systems for their own communications, according to the report.
Powell told investigators he used the private email system to communicate with “principal assistants, individual ambassadors, and foreign minister colleagues,” and Powell’s representatives said he did not retain either electronic or printed copies of those emails.
Clinton produced some 55,000 pages of printed copies.
In a letter to the Department, her representative stated that it was the Secretary’s practice to email Department officials at their government email accounts on matters pertaining to the conduct of government business. Accordingly, the representative asserted, to the extent that the Department retained records of government email accounts, the Department already had records of the Secretary’s email preserved within its recordkeeping systems.
The report noted that the records requiring long-term preservation were a small part of the total email traffic.
“…the Department believes that the majority of the millions of emails sent to and from Department employees each year are non-permanent records with no long-term value.”
The Inspector General noted that the State Department was not unique in experiencing difficulties in complying with the evolving records retention policies.
According to a 2010 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, most agencies do not prioritize records management, as evidenced by lack of staff and budget resources, absence of up-to-date policies and procedures, lack of training, and lack of accountability. In its most recent annual assessment of records management, NARA identified similar weaknesses across the Federal Government with regard to electronic records in particular. NARA reported that 80 percent of agencies had an elevated risk for the improper management of electronic records, reflecting serious challenges handling vast amounts of email, integrating records management functionality into electronic systems, and adapting to the changing technological and regulatory environments.53
The report also touches on the reasons that Clinton and others turned to private email systems–“antiquated” government technology.
…in a June 3, 2011, email message to Secretary Clinton with the subject line “Google email hacking and woeful state of civilian technology,” a former Director of Policy Planning wrote: “State’s technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.”
The IG report primarily addressed the need for “an appropriate method of preserving emails that constitute Federal records.” There was no discussion of possible crimes even hinted at, and the only documented case of unauthorized access by a hacker or outside party involved a State Department computer, not one of the primary email systems.
The report’s overall conclusion is pretty mundane.
Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State. OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership. OIG expects that its recommendations will move the Department steps closer to meaningfully addressing these risks.
It seemed to me that if there were any hints or suggestions of potential criminal law violations, they would have been noted in the Inspector General’s report. The absence of anything of this kind appeared to be a strong indication that the subsequent FBI probe would come up empty. And that’s exactly what has now happened.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Too bad the government cannot reclaim the tens of millions of dollars Republicans have spent over the past several decades investigating the Clintons! Seven million alone on the Benghazi hearings. Unbelievable.
I watched the press conference by FBI Director James Comey in which he described the facts uncovered by the FBI. And right up to the end it seemed clear he was laying out a strong case why Hillary SHOULD be indicted on multiple charges. And then at the end he chickened out from stating the obvious conclusion. He seemed to say not that she is not guilty, but that [considering the politics of the situation] he will recommend against prosecution. Mr. Kirby, the spokesman for the State Department, then held a press conference and actually answered questions (unlike Comey). Kirby was very nervous and on the defensive as he answered question after question about what are the implications for State Department procedures and personnel in view of the FBI report. Kirby tried to dodge the most intrusive questions, but he made clear that the investigation disclosed many, many problems about procedures and about high-ranking officials regarding whether their security clearances should be revoked, whether they should be fired, whether they should have already been fired in view of the coverup they engaged in on behalf of Hillary while she was telling them to delete “top secret” labels from classified files, etc. and while she was sending unsecured emails while visiting inside nations hostile to the U.S. where any reasonable person should expect that the walls had microphones and the electronics were likely to be hacked.
I would add that everything today was focused solely on the email scandal. But nothing was said about how Hillary’s work as Secretary of State produced hundreds of millions in foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation, including international quid-pro-quo where she was essentially being bribed with contributions to the Foundation in return for making changes in U.S. foreign policy. Here in Hawaii investigative reporters would be digging deep into this “pay for play” scandal. I believe (but not sure) that the FBI has also been investigating that issue. Maybe there will be more news from the FBI about that.
Maybe the FBI should contact you directly Mr. Conklin as you seem to have cracked the case.
Have you unlocked the secrets of Obummer’s birth certificate as well?
Ian, come now, it has to be Another Conspiracy to Hide Another Conspiracy. You shouldn’t be swayed by evidence. Belief is so much more reliable. Hillary is trying to hide the fact that earth was born 6,000 years ago.
and any day now, the FBI can also arrest Obama for being born in Kenya, just like Trump said. “He doesn’t have a birth certificate. He may have one, but there’s something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim,” Trump told Fox News in 2011. “I don’t know. Maybe he doesn’t want that.”
meanwhile, Hillary is going to be President. 8 years from now, we’ll be whining about someone else. Maybe Trump’s daughter? Maybe Palin’s son? Maybe that evil communist Brian Schatz? Where is Schatz anyway?
You offer some interesting arguments about why you think Hillary was not indicted. But those are *your* arguments, not James Comey’s. In fact, they seem to be rather far removed from the rationale used by the FBI director. You think that the decision to withhold charges against Clinton was because no criminal laws were broken??? That may be what you think, but it is not what Comey was saying.
https://youtu.be/AMs-6IUQYMQ
Mike Figuerdo nails it. Comey basically admitted that there are two systems of justices in this country, which is why HRC can do what she did and get away it, while Joe Blow doing the exact same thing would lose his career and possibly his freedom. If anyone here is fine with the concept of having a double standard for politicians, then today was a great day for ya!
Appointed to head the FBI by Obama, Comey, 55, is a registered Republican who donated to the presidential campaigns of John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012, Federal Election Commission records show.
During the George W. Bush administration, he was appointed deputy attorney general. In that role, Comey famously raced to the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004 to prevent Bush from obtaining reauthorization for a warrantless NSA surveillance program many considered unconstitutional. — Bloomberg
Comey on Hillary: “Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system in violation of a federal statute that makes 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.
And consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine if there is evidence of computer intrusion by nation-states or by hostile actors of any kind.”
Comey: “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 configuration since 2009 was hacked successfully. But given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.”
Comey: “Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent, responsible decisions, and to 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 the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
All the cases prosecuted involve some combination of clearly intentional or willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or an obstruction of justice. But we do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who gauged this activity would gauge no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions, but that is not what we are deciding now.”
it was a weak case. no smoking gun. millions have been spent investigating the Clintons. they ultimately found that President Bill had an affair and lied about it. for shame. shame shame, I know your name.
I said it before and I’ll say it again, “t”. Yesterday’s events was an example of HRC being able to get away with actions that someone like Bryan Nishimura can’t.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/2015-doj-prosecutes-a-naval-reservist-for-mishandling-classified-info-without-malicious-intent/
Or Tom Drake. Or Chelsea Manning.
But at least you didn’t go so far as to say that Hillary’s conduct was clean as a whistle. Other folks heard “no indictment” and instantly let their minds shut off, imagining that James Comey was fully vindicating Clinton of any fault or negligence.
I think t is an alias for Ian. he’s talking to himself.
BF
Re: Comey
The history of the man and quotations from his statement speak for themselves. Comeys status, and gravitas, are not in question. His decision was Solomonic, he neither absolved or condemned HRC. He said;
“…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,” he said.
“We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.”
You seem to be hanging on the first 7 words of the above quote and ignoring the last 3. And “facts” are superior to “potential”, at least to the logical observer. Are you?
I ask in the context of multiple and extended investigations that seemed exhaustive, and only arrived at “potential” rather than “facts”.
Further, when he specifies that “…no reasonable (prosecutor) would bring such a case…” where does that leave those who argue otherwise?
As unreasonable ?
Since you’re mentioning my name, let me reply to that.
I made my comment as a response to our esteemed host dropping statements like “no discussion of possible crimes even hinted at” in the State dept. IG report as if it was the same conclusion that led the FBI director into deciding not to recommend indictment. I simply called out the fact that the notion of Hillary being fully exonerated for wrongdoing was a far cry from what Comey was talking about at his press conference yesterday. Pretty simple and straight forward, if you ask me. So if it’s all the same with you, I’m not going to waste my time parsing Comey’s words to defend anything I’ve said.
Speaking of the “have-nots” in America’s two-tiered justice system,… whistleblower Chelsea Manning is reported to have attempted suicide in prison. The Young Turks offer their take. Just a warning. At 6:15 in the video, Cenk Uyger says something that might offend Clinton supporters and raise their blood pressure. It’s not insults. It’s not attacks. He simply blurts out the truth. Watch it, if you dare.
https://youtu.be/Y3Bl-cxSYEQ
bloggerfogger
Perhaps I should have addressed my comment to the forum at large, or more particularly Allen N / Ken C based on their earlier comments.
If inappropriate I apologize for singling you out
Hawaiino
No Parsing Zone
Allen N
“… You think that the decision to withhold charges against Clinton was because no criminal laws were broken??? That may be what you think, but it is not what Comey was saying….”
Comey
“…“We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts…..”
There, no time wasted parsing at all.
BTW: Agreed. Free Chelsea Manning ! YT’s are correct here.
On the HRC is a “conservative”, ahhhhh. I’m really not so sure what conservative means anymore when someone like DT is viewed as one. He’s certainly not. Between HRC and DT she is the more conservative, but that is a false comparison. HRC is grounded in reality, too much so for the Sandernistas (e.g. my wife). DT proposes mostly unhinged solutions for our national issues that can in no way be construed as conservative. Yet R’s are still “conservative” and D’s are “liberal”. These candidates don’t support that paradigm at all.
“Hawaiino,” you merely gave a quote saying that the FBI was not going to pursue pressing charges against Clinton. That is not the equivalent of saying that absolutely no laws were broken in this affair. Do I have to explain the difference?
Sure Allen N.
Explain it to me, “parse” it out….cause the difference seems to reside with your opinions on the matter. The inability of a prosecutor to have the facts to present a case, and therefore be able to “press charges” is the crux of the matter. No facts to support charges, then no “crime”.
You might not like it, the Republicans and Sanderistas sure don’t, too bad.
For some it’s a crying shame, but for most it was a shameful experience. The Republicans certainly shamed themselves. HRC did herself no favors in how she handled their witch hunt.
But…..mission accomplished! They damaged her in the polls and that was their goal. They just never thought they were doing it to enable a man like Trump to more successfully carry their banner.
“Hawaiino” wrote:
“The inability of a prosecutor to have the facts to present a case, and therefore be able to “press charges” is the crux of the matter. No facts to support charges, then no “crime”.”
Wrong.
Diane Suzuki, last seen alive in 1985, has been classified as a homicide case by law enforcement. That made her a victim of a crime. The prime suspect in her murder has not been charged, because certain elements needed to press forward with a successful prosecution in court are lacking. Now whether you believe that suspect is guilty or not, whether there will ever be charges pressed against anyone or not,… it doesn’t change the fact that a crime has been committed. Period.
Similarly with the Hillary case, Comey stated that he was recommending against pressing charges against Clinton because he couldn’t find evidence to prove that she had intent to harm the country. He didn’t say that violations of how classified information is supposed to be handled were not committed.
Laws get violated. But sometimes, for various reasons, people aren’t prosecuted for it. That doesn’t mean that the law-breaking didn’t happen.
It’s fine if you want to support HRC. But just remember that official campaign surrogates speaking on behalf of their candidates on cable TV news shows get rewards and benefits for making themselves sound ignorant in order to spin the facts. What’s the reason for making yourself sound uneducated on basic civics?