FBI Reveals New Details About Its Probe Into Hillary Clinton's Use of Private Email Server

[think]

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Vice.com

The FBI submitted a classified declaration to a federal court judge late Friday explaining details about the bureau's "pending investigation" into the use of a private email server by Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton. The declaration addresses why the FBI can't publicly release any records about its probe in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by VICE News.


In a separate public declaration, David Hardy, the chief of the FBI's FOIA office, said there are a number of documents exchanged between the FBI and the State Department relating to the FBI's ongoing investigation of Clinton's use of a private email server, which stored all of the official government emails Clinton sent and received during her tenure as Secretary of State. But the FBI, which consulted with attorneys within its Office of General Counsel "who are providing legal support to the pending investigation," cannot divulge any of them without "adversely affecting" the integrity of its investigation.

Some of the documents at issue concern "server equipment and related devices obtained from former Secretary Clinton," Hardy said. The documents "consist of memoranda from the FBI to the Department of State regarding evidence. The purpose of these communications with the Department of State was to solicit assistance in furtherance of the FBI's investigation."

VICE News sought a wide-range of records from the FBI last December related to Clinton's private email server. Specifically, we asked the FBI for any emails and other documents retrieved from her server, thumb drive, and any other electronic equipment that has not been publicly disclosed; any correspondence and other documents between the FBI and Clinton or her representatives; correspondence between the FBI and the State Department about Clinton's server; and any documents memorializing authorizations granted to the FBI to disclose to the media what the bureau seized from her server. In his declaration, Hardy said the FBI does not have any documents showing that the bureau communicated with Clinton or her aides nor does the FBI have any records about disclosures to the media. The FBI has asked US District Court Judge Randolph Moss to dismiss VICE News' FOIA lawsuit on grounds that the documents it does have about Clinton's private email server are located in files pertaining to a pending investigation that is exempt from disclosure because their release would interfere with active law enforcement proceedings...


Read more: https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-investigation-hillary-clinton-email-server-details

[FreakinDJ]

1. So they are looking for the sourse emails of the Classified information

which means they are going after a staffer

But they already have Clinton's email directing the "Cut and Paste"


Hmmmm.....

[awake]

2. This may explain why NBC is giving Bernie more coverage

1% are more scared of Trump than Bernie (since he will still need to work with congress before his changes would become law) and if Hillary goes down they need a plan B

[Samantha]

8. That is what I thought last night

just didn't want to post that here. But you can believe they are not happy with working with the possibility they might need an alternative.

Sam

[Jack Rabbit]

27. Trump, as President, will also need to work with Congress

Are you suggesting that Der Donald would do as he pleases regardless of what Congress does or doesn't do?

If so, I agree that he is more likely to behave that way then either Hillary or Bernie.

[awake]

28. Trump's foreign policy does not need congress

And this is the big scare for the 1%

[Jack Rabbit]

33. Even there, he needs congressional cooperation

For example, President Obama has not yet fulfilled his campaign promise to close Gitmo. Unlike some of the campaign promises he left unfulfilled, that one is not his fault. Congress refused to appropriate the funds to close it.

Exactly how is Trump going to get the people of Mexico to pay for his Wall? If he threatens to invade Mexico, there may be enough cool heads in Congress to block funding for that. He would need congressional authorization to use force. He might not get it.

[awake]

37. Trump is unstable and would have unfettered access to lunching nuclear weapons

On Muslims or ISIS, North Korea .......

[Jack Rabbit]

46. I think you are amking my point, awake

He would do something like launch a nuclear attack, probably unprovoked and definitely an act of war, and do it without congressional authorization. As I said, he is more likely to behave that way then either of the remaining Democratic candidates. Senator Cruz might also do that, but I don't really want to risk finding out.

[7962]

52. To his supporters, since he SAYS it, it SHALL be done.

And if you disagree, they will tell you that you're part of the problem

[Iwasapoorgirl]

65. Trump will tell Mexico to pay for wall

Like China imports being reduced by China, Trump will let Mexico figure out how to pay for the wall which may not even be a physical wall. He will simply tell Mexico to stop the influx of illegals or every shipping container will be searched carefully before crossing the border. The loss of trade in which Mexico gets 58 billion advantage would destroy the Mexican economy while only hampering the US economy.
He does not need Congress to tell border patrol to do its through inspections.

[Jack Rabbit]

67. He could do that, but it sounds quite inefficient

It's not going to do anything about those who come in by digging under the fence between checkpoints. Oftern, there's quite a distance between checkpoints.

To come with an effective plan, he'll need Congress to appropriate funds.

[marble falls]

69. Ask Richard Nixon how stopping all crossings from Mexico went for him. Hint: Major disaster.

[elljay]

32. Trump will be impeached

Very quickly, with support from both parties, if he veers the slightest bit off course. Look to see who will be his VP nominee- this will be our President if Trump is elected.

[Jack Rabbit]

36. Possible, but don't hold your breath

Impeaching Trump would certainly be the rational thing to do if he simply spends money for a purpose that has not been appropriated for the purpose. However, there was no will in Congress to impeach Bush or Cheney, who richly deserved to be removed from office and prosecuted as war criminals, so I don't think Congress would find a reason to impeach Trump if he deported their mothers.

[elljay]

50. I expect them to try

This effort would be opposed by Democrats, unless they really caught her in a good one. Neither party, however, wants Trump and I think the Republicans would turn on him in a second if they have an establishment guy as VP. Trump is devious, so since it is no longer possible to poison rivals or hold their families hostage, he may pick a blithering idiot as his VP. No one would have impeached McCain to get Palin.

[karynnj]

61. It could happen

what we learned in 1998, is that the House could impeach for any reason - it is political - and Hillary - like Bill - has given them an excuse. Just as with Bill, she might be impeached, but not convicted by the Senate.

One difference is that in comparison 1998 was an untroubled time. I think the Republicans would be resented even more for doing this against HRC. However, remember they do not really want government to work.

[elljay]

51. He may have been a criminal

but he was their criminal. Trump is a wild card and the oligarchy don't like that. He would be kept on a very short leash.

[jwirr]

45. I hope you are correct but depending on just exactly how

crazy he is it only takes one nuke to bring the world down around us.

[7962]

53. Trump will announce that he has chosen himself as VP,

after an exhaustive search. Just like Dick Cheney; "I've looked at everyone and have decided I am the best choice"

[elljay]

59. He may be the only person great enough to work with him!

We're doomed, aren't we?

[Chasstev365]

3. Plan C

Sanders/Warren, with John Kerry staying on as Secretary of State for foreign policy help.

I know Hillary fans don't want to hear it, but unfortunately, even a hint of scandal associated with the name Clinton should be a hell of a lot more worrisome than the word "socialist" by the November general election.

[libdem4life]

5. Yes, a Socialist Democrat has been schooling us on what a Democcrat

really is. He is merely a FDR Democrat, like myself, as opposed to a Corporatist Democrat, or Third Way.

American are warming up to the idea, when it is clearly explained, that "socialism" isn't a Marxist meme. They benefit from a lot of it, and clearly want more. American Democratic Socialism is far and away from Marxist/Leninist Socialism and not the same as European Democratic Socialism.

Heck, even our private insurance programs are socialist. Many pay their entire life and never have a claim. Others have claims much higher than they could ever repay. So, even while it is capitalism, i.e. profit-making, it is socialism in nature.

That to me best describes Democratic Socialism.

[roguevalley]

10. he only looks extreme to some because all we've had is selling out and third way republican lite

Nicely put, libdem4life

[silvershadow]

13. You are 100% correct in your observations. We have been already been Democratic Socialist for

approaching a century. I echo your political sentiments. I, too, am an FDR Democrat.

[SHRED]

24. Bingo!

Thank you

[vkkv]

4. This is all very Sillary. eom

[SCantiGOP]

43. Misspelling names

is a common practice on Free Reoublic.
Just saying.

[LiberalElite]

48. Anybody can make up

a similar misspelling on their own without ever having to see Free Republic or know what it is. Just saying.

[7962]

54. Isnt it amazing?

ANY resemblance to something that MAY be done on a RW site & you are deemed as being one yourself!!

[SCantiGOP]

60. Not at all what I meant

It shows a juvenile and nasty approach to political discourse there, as it does here.

[7962]

63. Well, its certainly plentiful here as well, depending on the subject! nt

[GummyBearz]

70. I thought it was funny

Its the first time I've seen it, and at least it was somewhat light at heart. There are definitely worse moniker/puns I've seen with her name.

[SCantiGOP]

83. Several weeks ago

some clever jackass used the name "Hitlery." Post wasn't taken down; author disappeared by swift action of the MIRT team.
I just think the snarky names really make people seem adolescent, or Trump-like - take your pick.
I even avoid first names for the two candidates. Clinton and Sanders both deserve respect on this board even by those strongly supporting his/her opponent.

[vkkv]

84. SCantiGOP wrote "I even avoid first names for the two candidates..."

Whoa-kaaaay.. that says a LOT! 'Just saying' -to quote you again.

[vkkv]

80. Free Republic... I am nothing close to being a right-winger. I also live in one of the most

progressive states, California. But since you're getting a little aggro over something so very small, I will tell you that MANY states could learn a thing or two from California.

I DO find all of the investigations to be "silly" and obviously politically motivated. They are also specifically related to "Hillary".

So... no sense of humor in S.C. I guess... kind of like the Free Republic.. That's odd.

[SoapBox]

6. Drip...drip...drip...

[lamp_shade]

7. ...

[roguevalley]

11. maybe you should.

[ejbr]

26. I like your emoticon!

[pnwmom]

9. Of course they're not going to produce the material. And it's not news that

it's an ongoing investigation.

There is nothing that is news in this whole piece.

[spooky3]

38. +1 - there is absolutely no "detail" in this ridiculous "story."

It MAY turn out that there is more evidence of serious crimes than there was for any of the zillions of previous politically motivated attacks on Clinton or her spouse. But I doubt it.

[BillZBubb]

76. This is much different than other republican inspired attacks on the Clintons.

There is no doubt that preliminary evidence exists of illegal activity. This investigation is being run by the FBI, not a republican witch hunt committee. The FBI has nearly 150 agents involved. They wouldn't do that if they didn't have a strong indication that laws were broken.

You can't brush this off as another right wing smear. Hillary did have a private server and in using it laws very likely were broken.

[spooky3]

77. Sigh. Another Sanders supporter trying to dictate

How other DUers must think or act.

Are you a lawyer? Then surely you understand that allegations of wrongdoing require an investigation, which is where things stand now. As posted down thread on DU, several respected legal analysts have provided evidence as to why no indictment is likely given what is being alleged and what the law requires. Did you read these? These analyses show conditions that have to be met (eg that the accused must have known security was being breached) and how difficult it would be for the conditions to be met here.

In all likelihood the FBI director thought that, given this election season, it had to be especially careful to investigate thoroughly, so that citizens would not misperceive that the Obama admin was giving its SOS a "free pass."

Given the success rate of previous witch hunts pushed or conducted by Repubs, targeting Hillary Clinton, indicating the person or political (as opposed to justice-seeking motives), the odds of her facing indictment (let alone conviction) are extremely low.

[libdem4life]

81. Since when did the FBI get their marching papers from the RW? Absurd.

Senior staff doesn't ask for and be granted immunity just for the news value. They are working their way up. Pagliani had to give them pertinent information to be considered for and, again, granted immunity. Most likely the FBI contacted him, rather than him spilling his guts to the FBI first.

This is not a "witch hunt". Certainly the Republicans are delighted, but then they are truly Ready for Hillary. She just shouldn't have been so fast and loose with this, and the Foundation money. There are such things as a trail of evidence. And money can usually be traced...particularly large sums...even to the Clintons.

And the condescending first line. This is an opinion board. Discussing opposite sides. If you disdain those who are doing it, you might consider practicing it yourself.

Quick Question...are you a lawyer...not that it matters, but you used it as a disqualifier to post information on the subject.

[spooky3]

86. As you know, I said nothing of the sort. And your fellow commenter

referred to "other republican inspired attacks on the Clintons." So he apparently also acknowledges who is pushing the email issue. I did not in any way accuse the FBI of doing anything other than investigating the allegations.

By the way, Sanders himself has been consistent in saying he is tired of hearing about the emails. (And the public polling of Democrats and independents is highly similar.)

Unlike some people here, I am willing to wait until the investigation plays out, rather than initiating posts about the emails. I simply gave evidence, IN RESPONSE TO the OP and other comments here that seem to jump to unfounded conclusions about the outcomes of the investigation. I pointed to expert legal scholars' analyses.

If you are an attorney, I would think you would want to respond to those analyses.

[libdem4life]

91. The "email issue" is evolving quickly. Sanders doesn't want to fight HRC

on this. Not only is he a gentleman, but is a friend of Hillary and does not want to gain political points by calling her out. That in itself says a whole lot.

It's in the hands of the Feds, and should not be politicized. But it's leaking over into Foundation Issues now, so prepare for more.

It is the job of a discussion board to report on events. Yet, I don't think we have to wait for Judgement Day to refer to it. And every bit that comes out makes it look less and less like what has been claimed...merely another Clinton Ooopsie.

So, yes, posting and comment is appropriate Along The Way. It doesn't make us Republicans or Towing their Line. But to think they are going to let this go away, regardless of our Democratic sensibilities, not at all.

As to the legal scholars, they are all over the map, depending on which way they swing. A good lawyer gleans facts from both sides. I think they call it Discovery. Still...grain of salt...both ways.

[BillZBubb]

82. What an assinine comment. Typical whining from the Hillary crowd.

I didn't dictate anything. I merely pointed out the facts of this case are much different. There is a reasonable likelihood of laws being broken. That doesn't mean any were, but the possibility they were is not negligible.

If you want to keep you head in the sand, that's fine.

[spooky3]

85. You said: "You can't brush this off as another right wing smear."

That is an attempt to dictate, even though I did NOT brush off anything as a right wing smear. I was very clear about exactly who was responsible for what regarding this latest allegation. You apparently did not read or understand my comment, nor bother to read the analyses by the legal scholar (echoed by others) in this same thread.

And:

At least I know how to spell "asinine."

This and the comment above yours are perfect examples of what Skinner is trying to reduce here on DU.

[BillZBubb]

89. Whine, whine, whine. Boo hoo someone said something bad about Hillary.

And you cannot brush this off as a right wing smear for the reasons I stated.

But keep your head in the sand.

[libdem4life]

92. Your Big Mistake: "I merely pointed out the facts..."

from there on, you were in for the Full Onslaught of Defenders. There is no defense...just offense, and often it is truly Offensive.

[floppyboo]

12. and for those of you who didn't click the link - further in ...

More than 1,800 emails were withheld or heavily redacted under exemptions to the FOIA law, including 22 that were not released because they were deemed Top Secret and would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if disclosed. About 65 others were classified Secret and were heavily redacted. VICE News is currently fighting in federal court for a summary of the information contained in those emails.

Clinton has insisted she never sent or received any emails that contained classified information.

Has she changed, or evolved her position on this, or did she merely 'mis-speak'?

[Sunlei]

22. To answer your question, no she hasn't changed position on that statement.

[OnlinePoker]

23. From what I've read, she says they weren't classified until after they had passed her system.

This may be the case, but knowing that she was dealing with potentially classifed documents/information should have clued her into the fact she shouldn't have been working on a non-classified server.

[7962]

55. The LAW states that you know if info should be considered sensitive,

regardless of its markings. She was briefed on the law, just like anyone in the govt or military. And her constant "..never sent or received anything marked classified" statement is stated that way because "classified" isnt a designation used. So her statement is true, but totally misleading

[OnlinePoker]

62. What?

Say it isn't so.

[GummyBearz]

71. Its very good wording by her. Taken right out of Bill's playbook...

"I did not have sex with that woman." ....... "Miss Lewinksi."

Great way to twist a few words around so you can claim you're not lying or never lied because of English language pronoun and sentence structure rules. At some point you even convince yourself you aren't lying.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

74. Oh, come on - are you in need of a bridge?

More than 1,800 emails were withheld or heavily redacted under exemptions to the FOIA law, including 22 that were not released because they were deemed Top Secret and would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if disclosed. About 65 others were classified Secret and were heavily redacted.

[OnlinePoker]

78. I find her completely at fault in this.

Why would I need a bridge?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

79. My mistake, sorry!

[jwirr]

47. She conducted the business of the SOS for many years and

she says she never sent classified information. What business was she conducting?

[7962]

56. Never looked at it that way. Good point. nt

[Yo_Mama]

75. WaPo published an article that said she sent 104 emails with classified information

Others involved classified matters. State Department and Intelligence Community officials have determined that 2,093 email chains contained classified information. Most of the classified emails have been labeled as “confidential,” the lowest level of classification. Clinton herself authored 104 emails that contained classified material, a Post analysis later found.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_clintonemail_430pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

and:

“What you are talking about is retroactive classification,” she said during a recent debate. “And I think what we have got here is a case of overclassification.” Her statement appears to conflict with a report to Congress last year by inspectors general from the State Department and the group of spy agencies known as the Intelligence Community. They made their report after the discovery that four emails, from a sample of 40 that went through her server, contained classified information.

“These emails were not retro­actively classified by the State Department,” the report said. “Rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

[Cryptoad]

14. ViceDot Com,,,,,, geeez

a RWNJ site is now a news source on DU. Geez
somebody get this crap off the site

[floppyboo]

15. maybe you missed the quotes around the FBI statement, or should they get off this site too?

[floppyboo]

16. and speaking of sources

a good chunk of the Bible would have to be trashed as they were saved and translated by the infidel Ottomans and Egyptians. Do you agree with this?

[libdem4life]

93. As a history buff, and theology as well, this is So True. n/t

[Cryptoad]

19. Funny the only document cited is

Jacon's court petition
no links to any other source documents...
Right wing opinion,,,,, not Latest Breaking news..

[Sunlei]

21. RW 'media' always tries lawsuits to create tabloid-clicks and political trash.

[navarth]

25. Vice is RWNJs? Please explain

This is news to me.

[shawn703]

42. Socialistworker.org would be considered a right-wing news site

If they dared offer up criticism of their "Dear Leader".

[7962]

57. Haaaaaaaaa! yet true.....

[navarth]

66. That poster certainly would seem disingenuous at best

If somebody needs to lie to win then they probably don't deserve to win. Just sayin'.

[tblue37]

31. Vice.com is NOT right wing! nt

[think]

35. "It's Increasingly Clear Facts Don't Matter in the Republican Presidential Primary"

Does that sound like something from a right wing news site?

https://news.vice.com/article/its-increasingly-clear-facts-dont-matter-in-the-republican-presidential-primary


And the author of this article is Jason Leopold:

Jason Leopold is an American investigative reporter for Vice News.[1] He used to be an investigative reporter for Al Jazeera America.[2] Leopold worked at Truthout as a senior editor and reporter, a position he left after three years on February 19, 2008, to co-found the web-based political magazine The Public Record, Leopold's profile page on The Public Record now says he is Editor-at-Large.[3] Leopold returned to Truthout as Deputy Managing Editor in October 2009 and was made lead investigative reporter in 2012.[4]

Leopold has written stories on BP, Enron, the California Energy Crisis, the Bush administration's torture polices, and the Plame affair. His pieces have been published in The Guardian,[5] Asia Times,[6] The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, CBS MarketWatch,[7][8][9] The Nation, and Utne Reader. Leopold has also written about foreign and domestic policy online for publications such as The Guardian,[5] Alternet, CounterPunch, Common Dreams, Dissident Voice, The Huffington Post, Political Affairs Magazine, The Raw Story, Scoop, ZNet.

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

Not sure where you're getting the idea any of this is right wing.

[truebrit71]

40. Vice.com is right-wing? You couldn't possibly be more wrong.

[GummyBearz]

72. I lol'd

Vice is RW news source? hahah... I lol'd again thinking you actually might believe that then I had to

[snooper2]

73. VICE happens to be one of the last real news organizations with real journalists...

Sorry you don't like the article...truth sucks-

VICE- Kicks Ass...

[libdem4life]

95. Someone just got soundly educated...the poster, and me.

I never head of it before and now I know it's record. Thanks.

[Sunlei]

17. "The FBI has asked US District Court Judge Randolph Moss to dismiss VICE News' FOIA lawsuit"

1) Pending investigation files are "exempt from disclosure"

2) "FBI does not have any documents showing that the bureau communicated with Clinton or her aides"

3) "nor does the FBI have any records about disclosures to the media."

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
That's the Vice news lawsuit over their FOIA request, Judge Moss probably will dismiss the lawsuit.

[grasswire]

18. the money quote

" the documents it does have about Clinton's private email server are located in files pertaining to a pending investigation that is exempt from disclosure because their release would interfere with active law enforcement proceedings... "

ergo: criminal.

[riderinthestorm]

44. !!!!!

Wow, good catch!

[Hawaii Hiker]

20. Just came across this article other day from former Homeland Security staffer & law professor

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

[Hoyt]

29. Unfortunately, not many here care about the truth.

[Hawaii Hiker]

34. Sadly you're correct....ABC Legal Analyst Dam Abrams

made similar comments to the law professor in that there does not appear to be grounds for criminal charges..

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-is-wrong-hillary-clinton-shouldnt-be-charged-based-on-what-we-know-now/

[7962]

58. Well, he says its not clear that an email could be considered a "document",

which is certainly going a long way to excuse her. I guess a lawyer could use that argument, but whether a message is actual paper or not should have little bearing.
The whole "not marked classified" still doesnt matter, because at her level she would KNOW that some of this info is sensitive material. And they dont mark documents "classified". There is NO WAY that some of the info the Blumenthal was sending would not be considered sensitive information; look at the subject matter. And what gets lost is the question of HOW did he get this info when he's not even IN the government anymore?
The bigger issue will be the intertwining of the Clinton Foundation and the government work.

[pnwmom]

39. Thank you for this excellent and thorough analysis.

There has been so much misinformation posted on this, based on posters' own experience handling classified data with their secret clearances.

I keep posting the Federal law that shows Hillary, as agency head, had the authority to classify and declassify any agency documents. But people keep wanting to think that their position was somehow identical to hers as head of State.

This article explains it much better than I've been able to.

[itcfish]

96. Very Good Link

Thank you.

[grasswire]

30. tons of comments following that article. nt

[Hawaii Hiker]

49. And there's this from the LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

"Legal experts said Petraeus’ actions were far more serious than anything Clinton is accused of doing. Clinton’s emails, even those later deemed classified, were sent to aides cleared to read them, for example, and not private citizens, they said".

And Petraeus was never indicted....He plead guilty to a misdamenor....

[spooky3]

87. Thank you.

[Darb]

64. She BCC'd Vlad Putin everything.

It's high treason I tell ya!

Bullshit fishing expedition. Hillary gets my vote.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

68. A bit ominous for Hillary.

[spooky3]

88. Chris Cilizza (WaPo and criticized as being biased against Clinton in the past) said

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/28/there-are-147-fbi-agents-involved-in-the-hillary-clinton-email-investigation/

"About halfway through Robert O’Harrow’s terrific (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_clintonemail_430pm_1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&tid=a_inl)— and terrifically detailed — WaPo piece on the origins of Hillary Clinton’s email problems, there is this paragraph:

One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. The FBI has accelerated the investigation because officials want to avoid the possibility of announcing any action too close to the election."

"Both stories (above and https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_clintonemail_430pm_1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&tid=a_inl) make clear that, according to legal experts, Clinton is very unlikely to be punished for her exclusive use of a private email server during her time at State since the practice was not forbidden. (Worth noting: Lots of other secretaries of state used private email accounts to supplement their official accounts; none used only a private email account and server.) Potentially more problematic for Clinton is her insistence that she never knowingly sent or received any messages that were marked classified at the time. It’s been shown in the year-plus of investigations into her server that there were a number of items on Clinton’s server that were classified after the fact, but there is no evidence to make her initial statement untrue."

[madville]

90. I think the bigger problem is for her aides

If they were getting classified information from secure government systems and recreating it in unsecure, unmarked emails to Hillary then they have a major problem.

[libdem4life]

97. What I'm wondering is if Pagliani got/presumably asked for immunity,

why not the others? Is there a difference between Pagliani...say maybe a hired IT guy...and personal aides such as Huma Abedin and one other, I think Cheryl Miller?

[madville]

99. They are usually reluctant to offer immunity

To individuals they are targeting. Plus payoff would have to justify it, are those aides willing to testify against Hillary? I doubt since they are currently employed by her in some capacity.

[libdem4life]

100. One would think so, but word is she's going to let them take the fall

for her. But who knows. The IT guy certainly had some knowledge, but he wasn't close enough maybe? But 150 agents? That boggles the mind. Something's surely amis...they are not political hacks.

[itcfish]

94. OMG

The FBI, Justice Department and State Department have declared many times that Hillary is guilty of nothing.

[libdem4life]

98. I don't recall any blanket denial. Else why would they have 150 agents

on it. That's one hell of a budget expenditure to account for running after a non-issue. She may have put the rest of her staff in harm's way, i.e. FBI, so she claims something the Clintons do so well...plausible deniability.