Criminal Inquiry Recommended in Hillary Email Scandal

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/politics/criminal-inquiry-is-sought-in-hillary-clinton-email-account.html

WASHINGTON —Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state,senior government officials said Thursday.

The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy,the under secretary of state for management.

It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.

But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March,she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.

“I want to find out what’s been going on over there —I should say, what’s not been going on over there,” said Judge Richard J. Leon of United States District Court,according to a transcript obtained by Politico. The judge said that “for reasons known only to itself,” the State Department “has been,to say the least,recalcitrant in responding.”

Two days later,lawmakers on the Republican-led House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks said they planned to summon Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff to Capitol Hill to answer questions about why the department has not produced documents that the panel subpoenaed. That hearing is set for next Wednesday.

See if they can locate her birth certificate while there at it to save time later after she is elected HMFIC.

By golly they issued a subpoena for Kerry, but they did not issue a subpoena for the server.......go figure.  General Patreaus in sharing classified material had actual knowledge of the classified documents and had intent.  He was charged criminally.   Hillary will not be charged criminally, unless a special prosecutor goes on a Ken Starr fishing expedition.  Nothing on Benghazi, leads to nothing on the emails.......sorry, if the inspector general said they found evidence of classified documents being shared by Hillary with others....certainly go for it.....Justice will deep six the request for an investigation.

Blumenthal handed over emails related to benghazi that hillary did not. That alone satisfies the burden.

The U.S. Justice Department said Friday that, contrary to media reports, it did not receive a request to open a criminal investigation into how sensitive information was handled in Hillary Clinton's private emails.

The New York Times reported Thursday that two inspectors general asked the Justice Department "to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state." The language of that report originally cast Clinton as a target of the requested probe, but notably was changed after Times reporters received complaints from Clinton's presidential campaign.

The agency now says that it what it received was "not a criminal referral," but a request related to the potential compromise of classified information.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the top Democrat on the select House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, also rejected the notion that the inspectors general of the State Department and intelligence agencies asked for a criminal probe into Clinton's email account.

"I spoke personally to the State Department inspector general on Thursday, and he said he never asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton's email usage,” Cummings said in a statement, as quoted by The Hill.

Cummings added that the State Department inspector general "told me the Intelligence Community IG notified the Justice Department and Congress that they identified classified information in a few emails that were part of the [Freedom of Information Act] review, and that none of those emails had been previously marked as classified," according to The Hill.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/doj-no-hillary-clinton-criminal-inquiry

Bhengazi.....

Keep Fcuking that chicken Trey...

PkrBum wrote:Blumenthal handed over emails related to benghazi that hillary did not. That alone satisfies the burden.

No, thousands were destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-information-inspector-general-intelligence-community.html

WASHINGTON —Government investigators said Friday that they had discovered classified information on the private email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while secretary of state,stating unequivocally that those secrets never should have been stored outside of secure government computer systems.

Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact.

But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security,and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.

“This classified information never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system,” Steve A. Linick,the State Department inspector general,said in a statement signed by him and I. Charles McCullough III,the inspector general for the intelligence community.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246

nadalfan wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246

Your link is about the first times article at the top... not the second one directly above your post fri 7/25.

" Then, on Thursday night, the Times dropped a bombshell: Two government inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department about Clinton and her handling of the emails. The story was largely impenetrable, because at no point did it offer even a suggestion of what might constitute a crime."

Try to keep up. The only real point being the use of the word criminal (which would apply to a classified breech).

Technically that distinction is up to the doj.

Luckily for your dear leaders... useful idiots are easily distracted.

Politico: " The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."

The Times also changed the headline of the story, from "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email" to "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account," reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton's possible role."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33660942

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sent at least four messages from her personal email server while she was US secretary of state that contained information derived from classified material, according to a US government inspector general.

The four emails "were classified when they were sent and are classified now," Andrea Williams,a spokesperson for I Charles McCullough,inspector general of the intelligence community.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/politifact-rand-paul-links-private-email-cases-of-hillary-clinton-and/2238834

Clinton's emails are again under scrutiny after federal investigators said Friday that her account contained classified information and should not have been stored on a private server. Clinton had denied that her personal server carried messages with classified information,and it's not clear if the messages were classified after the fact, as her campaign argues,or whether she knew they were classified at the time.

The Justice Department has not decided whether it will pursue a criminal investigation,according to the New York Times.

"Even she knew they had a rule," Paul said. "They actually admonished one of her ambassadors because he wasn't using the proper server. So I don't understand how she can skate by and act as if she really wasn't aware of the law."

Did Clinton's State Department really "admonish" a U.S. ambassador because he wasn't using the proper server for email?That rates True.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820

FLASHBACK: When Millions Of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered A Media Shrug

Blog ››› March 10, 2015 11:36 AM EDT ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

Even for a Republican White House that was badly stumbling through George W. Bush's sixth year in office, the revelation on April 12, 2007 was shocking. Responding to congressional demands for emails in connection with its investigation into the partisan firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the White House announced that as many as five million emails, covering a two-year span, had been lost.

The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws. Yet congressional investigators already had evidence private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent of his communications.

As the Washington Post reported, "Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations." But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.

The White House email story broke on a Wednesday. Yet on that Sunday's Meet The Press, Face The Nation, and Fox News Sunday, the topic of millions of missing White House emails did not come up. At all. (The story did get covered on ABC's This Week.)

By comparison, not only did every network Sunday news show this week cover the story about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails, but they were drowning in commentary. Between Meet the Press, Face The Nation, This Week, and Fox News Sunday, Clinton's "email" or "emails" were referenced more than 100 times on the programs, according to Nexis transcripts. Talk about saturation coverage.

Indeed, the commentary for the last week truly has been relentless, with the Beltway press barely pausing to catch its breath before unloading yet another round of "analysis," most of which provides little insight but does allow journalists to vent about the Clintons.

What has become clear over the last eight days however is that the Clinton email story isn't about lawbreaking. "Experts have said it doesn't appear Clinton violated federal laws," CNN conceded. "But that hasn't stemmed the issue that has become more about bad optics and politics than any actual wrongdoing." The National Law Journal agreed, noting that while the story has created a political furor, "any legal consequences are likely to prove negligible."

Still, the scandal machine churns on determined to the treat the story as a political blockbuster, even though early polling indicates the kerfuffle will not damage Clinton's standing.

Looking back, it's curious how the D.C. scandal machine could barely get out of first gear when the Bush email story broke in 2007. I'm not suggesting the press ignored the Rove email debacle, because the story was clearly covered at the time. But triggering a firestorm (a guttural roar) that raged for days and consumed the Beltway chattering class the way the D.C. media has become obsessed with the Clinton email story? Absolutely not. Not even close.

Instead, the millions of missing Bush White House emails were treated as a 24-hour or 48-hour story. It was a subject that was dutifully noted, and then the media pack quickly moved on.

How did the Washington Post and New York Times commentators deal with the Bush email scandal in the week following the confirmation of the missing messages? In his April 17, 2007 column, Post columnist Eugene Robinson hit the White House hard. But he was the only Post columnist to do so. On the editorial page, the Post cautioned that the story of millions of missing White House emails might not really be a "scandal." Instead, it was possible, the Post suggested, that Rove and others simply received "sloppy guidance" regarding email protocol.

There's been no such Post inclination to give Clinton any sort of benefit of the doubt regarding email use as the paper piles up endless attacks on her. Dana Milbank: "Clinton made a whopper of an error." Ruth Marcus: "This has the distinct odor of hogwash."

As for The New York Times, here's the entirety of the newspaper's commentary on the Bush White House email story in the week following the revelation, according to Nexis:

Last week, the Republican National Committee threw up another roadblock, claiming it had lost four years' worth of e-mail messages by Karl Rove that were sent on a Republican Party account. Those messages, officials admitted, could include some about the United States attorneys. It is virtually impossible to erase e-mail messages fully, and the claims that they are gone are not credible.

Three sentences from a single, unsigned editorial. That's it. No Times columnists addressed the topic. By comparison, in the week since the Clinton story broke, the Times has published one editorial dedicated solely to the subject, and no less than five opinion columns addressing the controversy.

Just to repeat: In 2007, the story was about millions of missing White House emails that were sought in connection to a Congressional investigation. Yet somehow the archiving of Clinton's emails today requires exponentially more coverage, and exceedingly more critical coverage.

Of course, back in 2007 Fox News seemed utterly uninterested in the Bush email story days after the news broke. A search of Fox archives locates only one panel discussion about the story and it featured two guests accusing Democrats of engineering a "fishing expedition."

From then-Fox co-host, Fred Barnes: "I mean, deleted e-mails, who cares?"

Indeed.

******************

In addition, Colin Powell used a personal server...and no doubt used other accounts that were RNC connected, but never turned over any emails.

Jeb Bush, when he decided to run, released emails from his tenure as governor that included personal information on a number of Florida residents...the media reacted with a collective YAWN.

Mitt Romney also used a personal server as governor and wiped out the record in its entirety.

Sarah Palin used personal emails to conduct state business as well.

Others who used personal emails to conduct state business are Scott Walker and Chris Christie. In both cases, the minions took the fall.

One... the nyt made one correction. Got a plan b?

Politico: " The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."

The Times changed the headline of the story, from "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email" to "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account," reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton's possible role."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-information-inspector-general-intelligence-community.html

Exactly how much classified information Mrs. Clinton had on the server is unclear. Investigators said they searched a small sample of 40 emails and found four that contained government secrets. But Mr. McCullough said in a separate statement that although the State Department had granted limited access to its own inspector general, the department rejected Mr. McCullough’s request for access to the 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton said were government-related and gave to the State Department.

Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer,David Kendall,is “purported” to also have copies of the 30,000 emails on a thumb drive,according to Mr. McCullough.

Look,  if you're a democrat then Hillary is innocent and if you're a republican then she's guilty.  It's that simple.
Why bother with a lot of expensive  investigation when it won't make any difference anyway.  
It's no different than Nixon.  The democrats were convinced he was guilty and the republicans knew he was innocent.  
The best,  easiest and least expensive way to decide matters like this is to tally up the number of democrats and republicans.  And whichever is the majority decides guilt or innocence.  It's called majority rules.  What could be more simple.

PkrBum wrote:One... the nyt made one correction.

Sounds like a hell of a lot more than one ...

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

From Thursday night to Sunday morning – when a final correction appeared in print – the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive.

And the evolving story, which began to include a new development, simply replaced the older version. That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. Eventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/a-clinton-story-fraught-with-inaccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Ya gotta love the useful idiots that want hillary to get away with what none of us ever could.

She illegally used a private server... even though she rebuked a subordinate for the same thing.

She didn't turn over all records as proven by the emails blumenthal submitted.

She destroyed records despite foia and congressional subpoena.

She mishandled classified information.

What are you disputing?

She illegally used a private server.

Really?  Would you like to specifically set forth the statute which makes it a crime to have a private server in your home.   I have ran web sites from my server in my home, so please just give the specific cite, and no cut and paste other people's opinion.  Give the statute she has violated which would make her guilty of a crime........using a server.....this has become idiotic, and is going to make Ken Starr look like a genius compared to this wild goose hunt.

Snark Spigot wrote:You were spoon fed a bogus stew of bullshit and you ran with it, butthurt boy ...

... get over it.

Yes, get over it.