FBI looking into the security of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail setup
Source: WP
The FBI has begun looking into the security of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail setup, contacting in the past week a Denver-based technology firm that helped manage the unusual system, according to two government officials.
Also last week, the FBI contacted Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, with questions about the security of a thumb drive in his possession that contains copies of work e-mails Clinton sent during her time as secretary of state.
The FBI’s interest in Clinton’s e-mail system comes after the intelligence community’s inspector general referred the issue to the Justice Department in July. Intelligence officials expressed concern that some sensitive information was not in the government’s possession and could be “compromised.”
*
The inquiries by the FBI follow concerns from government officials that potentially hundreds of e-mails that passed through Clinton’s private server contained classified or sensitive information. At this point, the probe is preliminary and is focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-looks-into-security-of-clintons-private-e-mail-setup/2015/08/04/2bdd85ec-3aae-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html
Why hasn't Obama gotten them to back off? He's the boss.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pnwmom
(109,049 posts)It will continue to be repeated through the media on an endless loop.
karynnj
(59,533 posts)There are several major errors in the entire series of the NYT article, but there is some truth.
pnwmom
(109,049 posts)is based on one of the NYTimes's story's distortions.
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246
Indeed, if the Times article is based on the same documents I read, then the piece is wrong in all of its implications and in almost every particular related to the inspector generals’ conclusions. These are errors that go far beyond whether there was a criminal referral of Clinton's emails or a criminal referral at all. Sources can mislead; documents do not.
SNIP
In terms of journalism, this is terrible. That the Times article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clinton’s emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable. That this all comes from a concern about the accidental release of classified information—a fact that goes unmentioned—is even worse. In other words, the Times has twisted and turned in a way that makes this story seem like something it most decidedly is not. This is no Clinton scandal. It is no scandal at all. It is about current bureaucratic processes, probably the biggest snooze-fest in all of journalism.
The heavy breathing of deception or incompetence by the Times doesn’t stop there. In fact, almost every paragraph at the top of the story is wrong, misleading or fundamentally deceptive.
SNIP
In our hyper-partisan world, many people will not care about the truth here. That the Times story is false in almost every particular—down to the level of who wrote what memo—will only lead to accusations that people trying to set the record straight are pro-Hillary. I am not pro-Hillary. I am, however, pro-journalism. And this display of incompetence or malice cannot stand without correction.
And to other reporters: Democracy is not a game. It is not a means of getting our names on the front page or setting the world abuzz about our latest scoop. It is about providing information so that an electorate can make decisions based on reality. It is about being fair and being accurate. This despicable Times story was neither.
karynnj
(59,533 posts)They refer to concerns that there MIGHT be a significant number of emails containing classified information. This led to a concern that State be extremely careful when preparing them for being made public.
Note my view on this is mostly from responses by the WH and SD daily briefings.
Laser102
(816 posts)Watch in the next few weeks they will release another "bombshell" about her. They will keep trying until they feel vindicated. They choose to ignore the fact that the state department had a really bad record keeping system. The same department that let Powell destroy all of his emails in spite of the Iraq war. Wouldn't the American people have liked to see that correspondence? I mean it did kill 200000 innocent Iraqis and kill and wound thousands of Americans. Still not a peep. I'm voting for her because of this nonsense. I don't like the double standards they hold anything Clinton to.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)look and get this over with. if there's nothing there the FBI's word is cred. If there is then she can address it. It won't linger if its fully addressed by someone other than a partisan or a hater.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)to turn this into a major scandal.
7962
(11,841 posts)Maybe because the President doesnt want to be anywhere near this and he knows what it would look like if he squashed it?
Then again, you might have been sarcastic. Sometimes i need the thingy.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)But congratulating oneself as being same as Repubs is no honor. Hillary is the same as Jeb on most issues and I'm tired of Conservative Democrats forcing her down our throats. She is an anathema to democracy. It's such a scam to cloak her under the guise of woman's rights as many of her policy positions supporting war, repressive policing and the financial divide actually hurt most women. It's a shame Liz Warren didn't run. I'll be voting for Bernie who supports truth and justice. Boo hoo.
7962
(11,841 posts)And she's going to push the "I'm a woman" angle HARD regardless of who the other side runs. I'd bet more than 1/2 her ads are going to be pushing that point. "i'm a regular woman, I'm a grandmother, I grew up with a tough mother figure," etc. You name it, we're gonna see it.
Yet most people dont trust her. Still.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)People in both parties see it as obvious. She is the backup chosen in case Jeb can't insert his family in the White House. If he loses the Bush family still gets in the White House because Hillary is an honorary member of the Bush family. It shocks me that some loyal democrats do not understand this.
DURHAM D
(32,630 posts)that is already in their possession so why are they worried about her stupid emails?
Federal government hit by major data breach
Office of Personnel Management
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/officials-administration-hit-by-massive-data-breach/
18 million employees security applications.
They are just trying to change the subject.
Reter
(2,188 posts)We need this election won.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)he's always flying around with. The shit storm hasn't even begun. I am sooooo tired of the Clintons. And Bushes.
7962
(11,841 posts)Come on now. If his assaults on women didnt derail her in the past, this will also be a cakewalk for them.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)I guess we'll see if the media really does pick up on the stories
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Does he have the security clearances to possess that?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)believe there's classified info on it.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Any lawyer for POTUS or a former POTUS has to have security clearance.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)And he keeps it after he leaves govt?
You teached me something new today.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)It is for any person who needs to be deemed trustworthy by the government.
A lot of high level reporters have security clearances as well. So do many employees of defense contractors.
karynnj
(59,533 posts)Through the President appoints the attorney General and the various Inspector Generals they are suppose to then be independent.
These are legitimate questions. I realize that everything was set up for a HRC run, but this is a self inflicted wound. What stinks is that it could cost us the presidency. And no, that does not mean we should all close our eyes.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)The difference between Hillary and Snowden is becoming questionable.
Hillary hasn't published national security documents but, by what authority does her private attorney get a copy of all emails some of which may disclose classified information?
fbc
(1,668 posts)As far as I know, she wasn't hacked.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)Do you think anyone foreign government would let all of us know if they hacked her server?
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)the FBI has better things to do, like preventing more incidents like in Chattanooga. However, it wouldn't surprise me. But if this story is as fake as the NYT story, I also won't be surprised. The media needs to face it: no one else is entered the Democratic primary. Their job is to report things that happen, not make things happen. If it looks like a "coronation," too effin bad.
azureblue
(2,167 posts)yet another in the near endless series of Hillary smear pieces. These guys have to lie and tell half truths to keep the attacks going. This smacks of a Ken Starr witch hunt. There was nothing unusual about this. In fact, the previous SoS, Colin Powell, did the same thing, because the "official" system was fubar'd. Clinton followed the rules and regs, and, just like all he other smear attacks, there is nothing to this one, either. This has already been investigated.
Next smear attempt: Clinton is aiding the takeover of the US by Women - the secret plan is to create a matriarchy and render all men impotent.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)
OakCliffDem
(1,274 posts)Bernie Sanders is the superior candidate.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)NBC News confirmed that the FBI is looking into the procedures used in the private Clinton server. The investigation involves a system, as opposed to a person.
The two officials cited by the Post also said that the FBI was not targeting her.
A spokesman for Clinton's presidential campaign tweeted Tuesday that that Post story "doesn't change anything ... IG sent ask to DOJ to confirm emails are secure."
"IG request was noncriminal & didnt accuse Clinton of wrongdoing," spokesman Brian Fallon tweeted. "FBI is 'not targeting her.'"
---------------------
Won't her detractors be in a tizzy when the FBI reports it was super secure?
7962
(11,841 posts)Because she wont do that. I wonder why?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)That it was already put in place by the government, that it was secure so she used it. But that really doesn't fit into the meme of a "private" email server set up by the neighbor's lawn mower's nerdy nephew. Wonder why they never mention that the server was professional and secured, and guarded by the Secret Service?
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)Because everyone knows who follows this story that it was professional and secured, and guarded by the Secret Service.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)If it was actually installed by the govt, then it should be a simple request.
And of COURSE it would be guarded by the Secret Service; the entire property is. There wasnt some agent stationed in the room with it, I'm sure.
7962
(11,841 posts)From the article: "A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton..".
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)She worried about her weight?
She doesn't want the vast right-wing conspiracy to twist what she wrote?
I'm sure she has good reasons. Unlike some, I give her the benefit of the doubt because I think she is a good person.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)grasping at straws.
The emails, when they were sent or received were NOT classified. They became classified later.
This has nothing to do with HRC but a public release of those emails under FOIA.
But, please proceed Bernions ...
goldent
(1,582 posts)and the idea of using private email for any company business was out of the question. So when this story first came out, it seemed almost unbelievable this was done for the Secretary of State. It seems there would have been IT types who knew what was going on, and knew it wasn't kosher and potentially dangerous. Now I imagine that at some point, the IT people might get the word that this is what the boss wants - end of story.
and especially notable since the set-up went against explicit Obama-White-House policy, which suggests even more that HRC and her people insisted on this arrangement. I continue to be flabbergasted by the political stupidity of her decision to use a private email server for her SoS business.
