Lynch Suggests White House 'Stay Silent' On Hillary Clinton Email Probe

[Purveyor]

Source: Politico

By Josh Gerstein

03/09/16 12:44 PM EST

Updated 03/09/16 01:57 PM EST

Attorney General Loretta Lynch indicated Wednesday that White House press secretary Josh Earnest was ill-advised to make comments downplaying the seriousness of an FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's email practices.

Under questioning from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Lynch said it was a bad idea for anyone in government to be speaking about the inquiry.

"Certainly, it's my hope when it comes to ongoing investigations, that we would all stay silent," Lynch said.

Lynch said the Justice Department has not updated the White House about the progress of the probe, which is believed to be exploring how classified information ended up on Clinton's server and whether any laws were broken in the process.

"It is true...




Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-fbi-email-investigation-220500

[tomm2thumbs]

1. that should make a few people MORE than a little bit nervous

"I know that some officials over there have said is that she is not a target of the investigation. So that does not seem to be the direction that it’s trending, but I’m certainly not going to weigh in on a decision or in that process in any way. That is a decision to be made solely by independent prosecutors," Earnest said. "But, again, based on what we know from the Department of Justice, it does not seem to be headed in that direction."

Last week, Earnest clarified that he was referring only to published news reports saying Clinton was not a target of the probe, which officials initially called a "security review."

WTF?

Press secretary FIRST saying their information is from the Department of Justice, but NOW saying it is from newspapers instead?

SERIOUSLY? This is starting to look bad on the White House now

[grasswire]

3. legal experts have scoffed at the term "security review" here.

It's just wrong.

I think we are seeing something akin to the George W. Bush's re-framing of the yellow cake.

[Fawke Em]

15. The FBI doesn't do "security reviews."

My company does, but the FBI does not. They investigate criminal activity. Only private organizations, like a cyber security company, reviews security.

[grasswire]

17. yep

so when the media or Clinton's campaign or supporters call it a "security review" --- we all know they are trying very hard to contain the story.

[grasswire]

20. fawke, please review this info posted yesterday by Leveymg

Note: he is posting this from another source.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1444939

[grasswire]

8. as predicted weeks ago...

Obama is going to be in a very difficult situation if the FBI sends a criminal referral. Comey is absolutely straight arrow. Remember when he and Ashcroft stood up to the Bush gang, when Ashcroft was critically ill in the hospital?

If Obama tampers with the administration of justice, eeeeek!

[leveymg]

9. Obama should not spend any more political capital on her. She has been a bad team player

and he graciously accepted her resignation after she totally trashed the Mideast with her and Petraeus' ill-advised regime change operations. That tarnished his legacy, and he certainly shouldn't fall on any more swords on her account. Nor should the Democratic Party pay the price for her arrogance and hubris.

Mr. President, this is already way past the point where stalling buys anything of further value - just let the AG take this to a Grand Jury, and Hillary can release her delegates.

[Babel_17]

13. Imo he thought he saw eye to eye with Secretary Clinton ...

in regards there being a total separation between The Clinton Foundation and her job as Secretary of State. In addition to that, all other relations she had were to be above board.

No links handy, but I think it rankles how she didn't live up to that. He appointed her, so he can't be eager to see her sink. But if he feels handcuffed to the Clintons, and they start going under, well, it won't be his hand that feels the bite of the saw.

My 2 cents.

[senz]

14. I get the impression Obama's dislike of Hillary is only part of the picture.

She seems to have some sort of hold over him to begin with. But now there is surely a ton of pressure on the White House from Clinton forces. Just every imaginable threat to every imaginable reward.

Optimally, Obama can find a middle path to walk that protects him but leaves her to her fate.

Love your suggestion, though.

[grasswire]

18. there we go

good recommendations.

I hate to see Obama get caught up in this!

[Herman4747]

10. DAMN, IT MAKES ME NERVOUS!! n/t

[grasswire]

2. OH OH

This is going to be very serious. Some have already predicted a Watergate type crisis if there is a disagreement between Comey and WH on prosecution.

[7962]

4. Well its certainly about time she said it. Should have done it months ago.

How many times do we hear "cant comment on an ongoing investigation"?

[LonePirate]

11. I think that is exactly what she was trying to convey.

Characterizing an investigation is unfair to everyone and it potentially hampers or taints the investigation. I don't see it as Lynch walking back the WH's comments because those comments were untrue.

[Fairgo]

5. Back slowly away from the septic tank

Do not light a match

[tomm2thumbs]

6. starting to remind me of when the Pope had to leave on a helicopter to reclaim moral standing

I'll wait to finalize judgment, but knowing enough about how Hillary plays her political games, it would not be far from believable to think she was raking in money while Secretary of State and rationalizing it as not a problem.

[grasswire]

7. don't we already know that?

Laundered through the Clinton Foundation?

[Jarqui]

12. No matter what, this is going to be a problem for the White House and Clinton

No matter what the FBI & Department of Justice decide or the Inspector General who subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation decides, one side or the other isn't going to be happy with some parts of the outcome and all kinds of shit is going to hit the fan.

This is Washington. It's what they do. It's inevitable (that's the really inevitable part about Hillary)

When the Justice Department agrees to give someone immunity, they're usually going for bigger fish and then the lawyers are getting uneasy about the potential criminal charges. It does reveal there is a little more going on here that a casual "security review".

The GOP has their knives out to try to carve up Hillary on this and maybe the Dems are going to try to give her shelter. Big fight. Pundits going back and forth. Acrimonious stuff in the media, etc.

Trying to be objective, I do see the GOP's side making the case that laws were broken. Classified information was on an unauthorized, non-secure, non-encrypted server in Hillary's house. Experts (like Bob Gates) feel China, Russia, etc probably got that info (regardless of what the logs say). Someone failed to protect the national security of the country here with that server setup - whether Russia or China got the info or not. The IT guy got immunity - pretty tough to pin it all on him. After a massive effort by the FBI, someone has to take the fall for that. I cannot realistically imagine all this kerfuffle resulting in nothing when the security of classified information was compromised.

I also see the punitive side where no top official in recent history gets sentenced for years in a maximum security prison for something like this. It's probably a misdemeanor haggled down from a felony to avoid a trial. Maybe Huma or Cheryl takes the fall. Who knows?

As for the Clinton Foundation subpoena, who knows where that is going? Regardless, it's not good for Hillary's campaign.

[Fawke Em]

16. This is what many don't understand:

Someone failed to protect the national security of the country here with that server setup - whether Russia or China got the info or not. The IT guy got immunity - pretty tough to pin it all on him. After a massive effort by the FBI, someone has to take the fall for that. I cannot realistically imagine all this kerfuffle resulting in nothing when the security of classified information was compromised.

The FBI isn't looking into whether the emails were classified. What they're looking at is whether her very unsecure server was hacked and sensitive (whether classified at the time or not) was stolen and what that information was. This is why it doesn't matter one flip about Powell and Rice receiving classified info on their home computers. They may have used more secure servers - probably commercial ones.

Clinton's server was NOT set up with even the minimum levels of security in mind. Any Joe Blow could access it directly from the Internet and not have to guess at any multi-factor authentication to break into a VPN. That type of negligence is criminal.

[Jarqui]

24. Actually, reports, letters and the court case reinforce

the FBI was involved in assessing the classification of the emails. They had help from the Intelligence Community.

I think the FBI would have to determine that first to proceed to other next steps.

They may never know if it was hacked or compromised or not. But the experts i've read say it's likely (regardless of logs).

I do think a thrust was to determine the serious classified info that was exposed first and chase that down to minimize damage or harm.

I posted a copy of one of Clintons classified emails with the subject containing "Sudan Intel". I think a grade school kid could figure out that email should be considered for classification. Some of it was pretty obvious. It was a part of Clinton's duty to oversee that classification of classified material that came in was done.

They found 2,100+ emails that contained classified info. They retroactively changed the disposition. They had to because the folks who should have been doing that evidently didn't.

The tougher question for Hillary might be "how many of your emails were marked classified and removed from your system during your time as Secretary of State?". In all my reading on this subject, I've yet to hear of one. That's kind of weird though maybe it happened and no one said anything.

Obviously, when an inbound email comes in with the subject "Intel", some sort of notion that it's a strong consideration to be classified should occur.

Go to this link and put in the word "Intel"
http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/
Here's just sampling of a few clips from 374 emails that found that word
(many classified or classified in part)

Jan. 24, 2010
May 14, 2010
To Hillary Clinton
From Cheryl Mills
SENSITIVE INTEL MATTER

Jan. 24, 2010
To Cheryl Mills
From Hillary Clinton
ON THE GROUND INTELLIGENCE

Jan. 19, 2013
To Robert Russo
From Hillary Clinton
H: LATEST FRENCH INTEL ON ALGERIA HOSTAGE. SID

H: ALGERIA LATEST FRENCH INTEL. SID

Jan. 16, 2013
To Jake Sullivan
From Hillary Clinton
H: LATEST LIBYA INTEL; INTERNAL GOVT DISCUSSIONS HIGH LEVEL. SID

H: LATEST INTEL: LIBYAN LEADERSHIP PRIVATE DISCUSSIONS. SID

Sent: Mon May 04 09:36:17 2009
Subject: Some intel for you...
This is about Sri Lankan Govt and the Tigers...
I have a good source. ...

(Hillary sends him classified stuff in response)

Information about foreign countries, diplomacy efforts and intelligence about or from foreign countries is typically "born classified" for obvious reasons. 2,100 emails, some with subjects like the above were not classified. The title gives away that in some cases it should have been. In fact, some of the titles of the emails were classified.

So Hillary's claim that she didn't send anything marked classified covers up the fact that many of them should have been marked classified by her department or often, her but were not.

I do not see where she has a legal leg to stand on.

[ebayfool]

25. Too bad she didn't protect that with the same vigor she protects her Wall Street speeches!

And Powell did not use a home server (dunno about Rice) so that's apples and oranges. He iirc, had a few emails sent to his private (as opposed to dot gov) account.

Criminal negligence at the very minimum - you are so right!

[grasswire]

19. Jarqui, it wasn't just in Hillary's house.

This is an under reported part of the story: Her server was moved to a small mom and pop provider in Colorado a couple of months after she left State Dept. Obscure, situated in a loft where the server was set up in a closet in the bathroom of THAT UNSECURE facility where employees had no security clearances and had no training in handling classified documents.

That's one part of the story America really hasn't been hearing.

[Jarqui]

23. I remember the story but I think that was rebutted by the company.

The company was in Colorado. They said they were hired in 2013 and sub contracted moving the server to a secure location in New Jersey? through a Connecticut? company. There was a cloud backup but after turning over the emails to the State Department, Clinton or her team asked the backups be limited to 30 days (which would wipe out the backup of deleted emails). Someone at the tech company said something fishy was going on (like scrubbing her data) and to get everything in writing from Clinton.

I've seen varying reports that the deleted emails were recovered or weren't all recovered.

The location wasn't as bad as originally reported but as you say, folks did have access to her data who did not have security clearances.

I think the company took on the server in mid 2013 but didn't do anything to secure it until the end of 2013.

So a bunch of missteps by Clinton. The articles I've read on how they could get her data from her server setup suggest it would have been copied long ago by places like China and Russia anyway. Some feel that by 2013, the issue of security was basically moot due to it's major lack of security and encryption before.

[SoapBox]

21. Drip...Drip...Drip...

More Clinton baggage.

[bbgrunt]

22. Hillary is becoming more transparent everyday. She may disappear entirely. k and r.

[Bernblu]

26. I doubt Obama would risk tarnishing his legacy over Hillary