"That'll keep them busy for hours."
Posted on 05/05/2016 8:17:51 PM PDT by Fasceto
Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
FBI agents on the case have been joined by federal prosecutors from the same office that successfully prosecuted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui — and who would handle any Edward Snowden case, should he ever return to the country, according to the U.S. officials familiar with the matter. And in recent weeks, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia and their FBI counterparts have been interviewing top Clinton aides as they seek to bring the case to a close.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“This is a FBI criminal investigation. Who is leaking it?”
Doubtful it’s anyone directly involved in the investigation, like another poster said maybe the janitor. I met an FBI agent once, they don’t even tell their wives about FBI investigations. The reason, they might accidentally slip up and tell the chatty Cathy’s at the hair salon, then word gets around tipping someone off. I doubt the Washington Post is privy to any solid information here.
PS - For all the wannabe “1-L’s” here who are also quoting common legal Latin, please research case law on negligence and criminal negligence that’s irrespective to espionage and then ‘compare and contrast’.
If this bitch skates, there will be legal chaos.
The FBI has investigated everyone.
You have a file.
"That'll keep them busy for hours."
Based on my training it is totally obvious that Hillary Clinton knew she was violating the law and security. As Secretary of State she had access to the most sensitive and confidential information in our government. She knew it was illegal and dangerous to have this information on her server. In fact the VA trains and cautions us about having patient info on a non secure system or personal laptop. Additionally, within the VA there are two communication systems. One is secure and the other is not. If you put patient information on the non secure system, all hell is going to break lose on you butt. It is a no no, you just do not do it
The real question is knowing the government would set up a secure network for her for free, way did she pay for a private non secure network under her control and not the government's control. Think, Clinton Foundation Money Laundering Operation and you go to the top of the class.
The second real question is did not one person in the White House notice that her email address was not a .gov address but a clinton server address?
Obama knew from the beginning. Why did he let it continue. He is as guilty as Hilary.
R.I.F.
So, she was just careless?
How does fare any better?
What about willful destruction of government documents? She claimed some 30,000 deleted emails were all personal in nature, yet there have been hundreds of recovered emails pertaining to government business. As the custodian of those records, her ordering them scrubbed (without a cloth) constitutes willful destruction. IANAL.
Exactly! (Glad you’re also a Coloradoan)
And just WHO might these "U.S. officials familiar with the matter" be? The janitor that cleans the offices?
I do not think the FBI is leaking it. But note that the DOJ is part of the investigatory apparatus. They are involved in questioning witnesses jointly with the FBI. I think the leak is being routed thru the DOJ to the administration which is managing and massaging the media message.
Banana Republic bump for later....
AFAIK, the law is not concerned with intent. She took classified information from secure facilities and placed them in an unsecure location. That is against the law.
She did that thousands of times.
But apparently without intent to do so.
Sure. As if intent matters. It doesn’t.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793#sthash.GN4nvIPo.dpuf
If setting up your own private personal server to hide government business from the American people isn’t “malicious intent”, then I sure don’t know what is.
This is crap, spinning reporting for Hillary. This reporter doesn’t know anything.
Of course she had intent, SHE DOESN’T TRUST HER GOVERNMENT.
Take a look at 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information. It's "gross negligence". Your boss is certainly gross.
Intent has nothing to do with it under the law. At least, under statutes that have been discussed so far Note though that intent can be inferred from the foreseeable consequences of actions - so that even more serious charges ( capital crimes against the state ) are clearly in play
Money laundering is a whole different ball game. Influence peddling. Same. Pay to play. More of the same. Call it what you will. Sympathetic article. Do not care. Do not want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.