That’s relevant to how much of a complete cock-up it was. But it’s not legally relevant, I don’t think.
If it is mishandling to have classified info outside of a classified server, then it doesn’t really matter to the legal question how secure or insecure the unclassified server is. The question on gross negligence isn’t how generally reckless she was, but whether she was negligent with respect to one particular thing: classified information ending up on her server. That’s not affected by the level of security.
The way that Hatch Act works with someone like Comey is that the Office of Special Counsel investigates the complaint (which I believe has already been lodged) and then
submits a report to the President who decides whether to act.
I think the complaint has (barely) enough basis to warrant investigation. Comey admitted that the letter was a departure from ordinary procedure, and admitted acting out of fear that he would be “misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.” What did he mean by that? One reasonable reading is that he meant that the people would be misled about whether there was an ongoing FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton, and he didn’t want them to be misled before Nov. 8th. If that’s not it, I’m not sure what he means by “misleading to the American people” or why it justified sending the letter 11 days before an election.
If it’s true that there is also a criminal investigation targeting Trump as Harry Reid alleges, then I think you have plenty of basis for OSC to investigate.
Obviously, whether the President should do anything about it would depend on the results of the investigation. Much would depend, in my view, on whether what Harry Reid alleges is true.
That is a very poor reading of the letter. The DOJ letter says, basically, that the questions that were asked are answered in a document that is in the possession of the House and Senate and is available for all members of Congress and their cleared staffs to read at any time – but it contains sensitive information. The last paragraph of the letter reads, verbatim, “[W]e remain available to confer with your staff to address any remaining questions you have in connection with this matter.”
If I can run this through a translator that removes the excess politeness, I would say the letter’s main jist is: “Why don’t you go read your fucking inbox before asking us to answer the same questions, and those answers are already in your hands if you had any idea what the fuck you are doing. Come back when you actually need actual help, not a government official to tell you what you’ve already been told but ignored.”
Only a “small number” of the 650,000 emails on Weiner’s laptop are related to the investigation, i.e. were sent to or from Huma Abedin during Clinton’s tenure of SoS. No word yet on content.
Hmmm, I guess. If they never intended to use the server for classified material then how lame their security was doesn’t relate to how they intended to handle such material - the inevitable little lapses that did happen notwithstanding.
So the FBI said, “Sure, go ahead and delete anything you want and call it personal, no problem, just give us what you like later”? No wonder the James Kallstrom, former head of the FBI’s New York office had this to say about the investigation:
Oh, please. Are we really supposed to believe that this woman so highly lauded for her intelligence and competence repeatedly over many years failed to grasp the meaning of a “C” in an email followed by information that anyone in her position should recognize as most likely being classified?
It’s clear that both Clintons’ S.O.P. is to do whatever they want and then count on being able to lie/distort/obfuscate their way out of it should it cause trouble further down the line. After reading of Donna Brazille’s being outed yet again for feeding Clinton debate questions in advance the similarity between the Clintons and Pigpen of the Peanuts cartoon strip occurred to me - always surrounded by a cloud of dirt.
A) A re-opening of previous investigation
B) A new investigation into a new matter, but related to a prior matter
C) Something the FBI is doing which cannot be classified as an investigation, but it’s something, so we will call it_____________ .
D) A recreational activity by the FBI and the letter from Comey was like returning a permission slip at school
E) Weiner rigging an erection.
I vote B. And E.
I think that’s right, but you can get to the same conclusion the other way. Suppose they intended to put classified information on the server, and they made it ultra-secure. Would the ultra-security protect them from prosecution? I don’t think so, because it’s still mishandling. If anything, the ultra security would hurt them, since it would support their intent to have sensitive material there!
Regardless of what the FBI wants, they can’t go back in time. If the FBI were to subpoena me now for my emails, they would not find the email announcing that this thread was updated. That’s because I deleted it, as is my right. No one has a duty to retain their personal emails on the off chance the FBI might want to see them, including Clinton. That’s because this country operates under rule of law.
When’s the last time you had a job? I’m not Secretary of State, and I get hundreds of emails a day, most of which I skim at best, many of which I don’t read at all; I see my name in the cc, see that the action item is for someone else, and file it. That’s the way everyone with a job that requires this level of correspondence operates. Clinton probably got ten times as many emails a day as I do; her job requires delegation, so she probably delegated most of them.
I think anyone who’s had a high-level job in the last decade realizes that not every email gets read. It is not surprising at all that she missed a (c) in the body of a long email. And since she had a separate system for handling classified information, it’s also not surprising that if she did see a (c) in the body of an email she could assume that it was a section header. I get forwarded emails all the time that contain copy/paste that contains section headers, and I’m not Secretary of State.
I suspect there’s a pretty big disconnect in understanding this issue between people who receive maybe the occasional email from their families, which they have the time to peruse in depth, and those of us who operate almost entirely through email, get swamped with emails, and have sufficiently high positions that we delegate most of the things that come through.
For all intents and purposes, this is a specific window of re-opening of the investigation as Comey’s press conference and testimony was all about the comlletion of the same investigation. If you think it makes some crutial point to call it a supplement or something then feel free.
To lend my voice to the chorus, I totally agree. A few years ago I got a two year long contract in with a big business doing a huge project, and I didn’t understand the level of emailing that came along with the corporate world. I probably got 25 a day, my boss got a 150, and her boss was a scythe chopping through emails like stalks of grain.
If you haven’t worked in a business where communication happens like that, you have no idea.
Well I can’t speak to legal standards but personally if I was taking such a job, was using my personal email server and pulling in about $13 million per year I likely would have spent a few grand on making it ultra secure just on the off chance of a mistake.
Pretty sure we agree that it was incredibly stupid and naive. As Sanchez put it, “[F]ortunately for all politicians—not every act of stupidity is a federal crime.”
It’s not false as to the relevant point, which is that she was perfectly free to delete emails. That some were deleted which the FBI considers to be work-related is not proof of the grand conspiracy that is being trotted out in which Clinton intentionally deleted sensitive emails.
On the contrary, the FBI concluded that there was nothing about the content of those emails that suggests that they were intentionally deleted because they were more sensitive than the thousands of emails that were turned over.
Clinton didn’t personally delete any emails; she hired a law firm to review the emails, delete the personal ones, and provide the work-related ones to the State department. The law firm didn’t do the best job of identifying the relevant emails, but that’s not on Clinton, that’s on the law firm. They should have done the job she hired them to do.
Let me just point out the irony in someone who throws around the word “lie” the way Slee does getting basic facts wrong. And no one called anything s/he said a lie! Imagine that!
