back to article Hillary Clinton private email server probe winding up – reports

A former staffer to Hillary Clinton has reportedly been granted immunity from prosecution, to get answers about her private email server. The Washington Post has reported that the FBI has “secured the cooperation” of Bryan Pagliano, who set up the server in her home in New York in 2009. The Washington Post says the …

  1. AlexS

    Surprise surprise.. Perfect timing..

    1. Ian Michael Gumby

      @ AlexS

      No, the timing is bad.

      The truth is that HRC and her staff stretched this out, not to mention they committed two sets of counts of obstruction.

      First when her lawyer instructed Mills and the rest of Clinton's staff to delete emails before sending them.

      Second when they sent .pdfs of the emails rather than the raw electronic forms since this meant that they would lose any markers and header information. Add to this they could and probably did edit the emails prior to printing the pdf. I believe there was one case of that.

      Obstruction alone is 20 years.

      Clinton and Obama's current State Department tried to get the emails dumped after the election. Their goal was to bury this in the hopes that HRC gets elected first.

      She will be indicted and with the testimony from the hapless IT guy, it will start to pick up pace.

      Its bad enough that it probably won't go to a GJ.

      She should have been indicited at the beginning of the race. Then others more qualified could have stepped in.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @ AlexS

        If she gets indicted, I lose a $50 bet. If she is scot-free until Election Day, I win $50.

        Either way, I win.

        1. Anonymous Coward

          Re: @ AlexS

          Can't remember who said it, but one of the bigwigs in the republican party was recently quoted as saying that Trump's nomination would be a disaster for the republicans, because Clinton could beat him in the presidential race even if she was campaigning from a jail cell. Maybe they'll find out if that's true.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @ AlexS

            I'm on the fence on this. On the one hand the US needs someone like Clinton to still clean up the residue/mess of the Bush administration and maybe, just maybe return some of the nation's standing because Obama seems to have made little headway in that (probably because he was blocked at every turn).

            On the other hand they really deserve someone like Trump for a few years because Bush was apparently not enough education, and Trump is indeed independent enough to tell the established powers to go and pester someone else which is the only benefit I see in him being president. Anyone who thinks he's just going to fall in line with his party hasn't been paying attention - I get the impression Trump is just using them because it's easier to win the election if he plays along for a bit.

            1. Craigness

              Re: @ AlexS

              Clinton has been given $20million by the banks, Obama withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan and handed them to ISIS and the Taliban. He and Clinton gave North Africa to the Muslim brotherhood and refuse to condemn its US branch, CAIR.

              Who will clear up that residue and increase their standing?

            2. Ian Michael Gumby

              @AC Re: @ AlexS

              Bush didn't make the mess. Clinton and Obama did. That's what most people don't understand.

              Yes Bush made a serious mistake... not in invading Iraq, but in not preparing for the peace. He forgot his history and should have implemented the Marshall plan as well as keeping the Iraqi Army in place and policing the nation as the US did when they beat Germany. So Bush won the war, but he and Obama lost the peace. (Some may have trouble wrapping their head around that.)

              Take the book "Clinton Cash" with a grain of salt. Yet if you do follow the money, Clinton and her Hubby is dirty as sin. Beyond that... you have news talk show person George Stephanopolus who was a Clinton insider during his time in office, now at ABC, 'donating' 75K to the Clinton Foundation. It was a 'pay to play' bribe so that he and ABC could have access to Clinton's inner circle. (Chelsea getting paid 650K for a year where she only did 3 puff pieces? Now where can I get that job? )

              Trump is just as dangerous. The way he does deals won't work at the international level. Of all of the candidates, Kasich is the most qualified and probably the most sane. But he's getting shut out by the media who wants the Trump Clinton fight.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @AC @ AlexS

                Bush didn't make the mess. Clinton and Obama did. That's what most people don't understand.

                Hmm, that depends on your perspective. When Clinton was in charge the US was apparently busy reducing its deficit, was not doing too shabby internationally and actually had some standing because Clinton was a statesman (very clearly visible when one T Blair met him because he made Blair look like a schoolboy in comparison).

                Bush initiated a very costly war on the back of intelligence so thin they had to "help" a UK WMD inspector commit "suicide", and expose a CIA operative who had both too detailed knowledge of the reality behind that alleged evidence. He started Guantanamo Bay prison and a program of extrajudicial rendition, and on top of that they removed any kind of restraint and control from Wall Street, with rather predictable consequences.

                If that is not a mess I don't know what is..

                1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                  Re: @AC @ AlexS

                  "because he made Blair look like a schoolboy in comparison"

                  That in itself wasn't too difficult. The WI made him look like a schoolboy and not even in comparison with anything.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                @Ian Michael Gumby "Bush didn't make the mess"

                Anyone who blames everything wrong on Clinton and Obama and nothing on Bush is clearly a dimwitted partisan, but I'll reply anyway because your assertion that Bush was right to invade Iraq but failed to plan for peace is ridiculous.

                WHY the hell should the US have been invading Iraq? Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? No, if we wanted to invade the sponsors of that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia! Did Iraq have an active WMD program? No, the only WMDs found were a few caches of rusting WMDs left over from his programs in the 80s. No active programs or even WMDs dating after Desert Storm were ever found, despite an exhaustive search.

                The US is not the world's police force like neocons think it should be. They think they can destroy the world and rebuild it to their specs, one country at a time. If you actually read a little bit you'd learn that the Bush administration most certainly planned for peace, the problem was they planned for a neocon's wet dream fantasy peace, where the Iraqis would view the US as their saviors for liberating them from Saddam, and eagerly pursue the democracy and freewheeling capitalism that the US was going to set up for them. They were even so naive as to think the invasion wouldn't cost us anything, because once we added up all the economic growth in the US from all the partnerships we'd form with our new Iraqi buddies the additional tax revenue would offset it!

                The rise of Islamic extremism that Saddam had been suppressing for decades was easy to see for anyone with half a brain. The more we meddle in the middle east, the worst things get there, and our solution (whatever party is in the white house) usually seems to be "we'll fix it with some more meddling" That's one of the primary reasons I supported Ron Paul and Rand Paul - they are the only ones in Washington who seem to grasp the blindingly obvious fact that WE created this mess, and any military involvement on our part will only make things worse.

                Go read the history of the US involvement in the middle east in the 50s - we encouraged the rise of Islamic extremism in the middle east as a way to help us topple the government in Syria and Iran. Then again in Afghanistan in 80s. The British also did this in India to try to sabotage their independence. Now there are a lot of extremists in those, what a surprise!

                Just wait until there's a revolution in Saudi Arabia, and we start meddling there, and we fight a war against all the planes and weapon systems we sold them, and their oil supply is shut down and gas prices go to $8/gallon. I guess the Bush's oil industry friends, and the military industrial complex that has plenty of friends in both parties might enjoy that...think maybe that's the real reason we keep sticking in our nose in other people's business no matter how many times it gets chopped off?

                1. Ian Michael Gumby
                  Black Helicopters

                  @Doug S Re: @Ian Michael Gumby "Bush didn't make the mess"

                  You clearly don't understand what happened and why it happened.

                  You want to blame Bush, but remember Congress voted on it too.

                  Again We won the war but lost the peace.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: @Doug S @Ian Michael Gumby "Bush didn't make the mess"

                    Again We won the war but lost the peace.

                    I don't think peace was ever a stated objective, but then again, neither was the true purpose of the war which was achieved: ending Saddam selling oil for Euros (and gold, I think) because that seriously undermined two of the pillars underneath the US dollar: being the energy trading currency and, as a consequence, being the default reserve currency. Saddam was making *way* too much profit on not using US dollars for his trade, and that had to be stopped with an object lesson for all the other oil producers. Hence the enthusiasm to bomb the place flat, and mow down anyone who was standing in the way of making that happen. This also explains Guantanamo Bay: once you place yourself above the law, such things are just trivial extensions of what you're already doing.

                    Have a look here, here or here. Note, however, that the Silver Summit has its own reason to make such declaration..

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: @Doug S @Ian Michael Gumby "Bush didn't make the mess"

                      I blame Bush because he's the one who put all the neocons in place who had been planning the Iraq war since before he was elected and were successful in pushing their ridiculous claims like Saddam buying yellowcake uranium to a gullible congress.

                      If you take the line of "but congress had to approve it" then you can't blame any president for much of anything, because short of something that is clearly a constitutional exercise of executive power where congress and the courts have no say, you can't blame anything on any president. So call it a failure of the 2003 congress if you want (even though they merely authorized Bush to attack, the final call was his) the point is that the Iraq war was a terrible idea in a long string of terrible ideas in the west's handling of the middle east.

                      We can't do anything about the past except learn from it, but we obviously aren't doing that given the moronic calls a couple years ago for attacking Iran and the blame game for not engaging in the 'right kind' of military action in Syria. Whether we end up with president Trump or president Clinton, we'll continue to have an inept militaristic foreign policy in the middle east that will leave things worse when they leave office than they are today.

          2. Ian Michael Gumby

            @Doug ... Re: @ AlexS

            That's about as brazen as Obama bragging that if he could run for a third term, he would win the election.

            Doesn't he realize that he's the reason Trump is getting so much support?

            1. Martin0641

              Re: @Doug ... @ AlexS

              Obama is not the reason for Trump, the GOP created this mess. The South used to be a staunch Democratic stronghold, but the Dem's support of the civil rights movement in the 60's and the end of segregation turned them to the GOP who before was mostly northern rich people. Once this happened, the GOP had a large population of easily controlled religious dimwits that could be whipped into a fury over wedge social-conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage while the rich people gave themselves the tax cuts they wanted in the first place.

              So now, the GOP base who has been constantly lied to by the GOP leadership is revolting, because the base has not seen their economic position improve after years of support, and all the social issues they asked for have not gone their way. So they are going to elect someone who says what they want to hear while ignoring the fact that Drumph is a billionaire. It's quite funny.

            2. Tom 13

              Re: Doesn't he realize that he's the reason Trump is getting so much support?

              Have to disagree with you on that one. The reason Trump's getting so much support is because after both the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms, the RINOs in Congress bowed down to The Big 0. If they had fought him instead, Trump would have been a footnote in the Presidential election.

        2. Ian Michael Gumby

          Re: AC Re: @ AlexS

          A true cynic.

          I think its funny when I'm down posted for showing the facts.

          This has got to be the worst self inflicted wound any politician could make.

          The worst thing about it... besides the brazen flaunting of the law, is that many politicians do use private email accounts to talk about work 'out of channel' and do not comply with the requirements. Of course, I seriously doubt that they are talking about classified material in those emails... with one exception ... John Kerry's email to HRC.

          With the 4 SAP emails ... she's guilty of violating the espionage act.. along with the staffer who cut-n-pasted the information in to the email.

          What isn't being talked about was the request to set up a PC across the hall, that wasn't connected to the government network, so HRC could "manage her personal emails on a separate PC". Some now say that the PC was never set up... however... I seriously doubt that. It would make it easier for the staffer to get the secure email... walk across the hall and send the email to HRC.

          If this were a private company... she would have been fired immediately not trying to run for the CEO job.

          1. tom dial Silver badge

            Re: AC @ AlexS

            There is more. Ms. Clinton, unlike other politicians* who make some use of non-government emall *accounts*, used an account on a badly/insecurely configured server that she had set up and had administered by her personal IT support, whom she arranged to have put on the government payroll. She paid for his work managing the server out of personal funds, of course, but in view of the rather shabby setup of the machine, that work appears to have gone litttle beyond arranging an internet connection, setting up a few email accounts, and somewhat belatedly obtaining an SSL certificate. The possible violations of federal law and regulations, including those of the State Department, are many and suggest in Ms. Clinton a remarkable and quite regrettable degree of indifference to legal and organizational requirements that she finds inconvenient.

            * The most prominent exception is Jeb Bush, who as governor of Florida had a private server located in government space and possibly protected by the same infrastructure as other state IT, however good or bad that might have been. Bush's actions as governor, too, were not subject to FISMA and the related FIPS, as Clinton's were.

      2. AlexS

        Re: @ AlexS

        @Michael Gumby FYI 'perfect timing' does not state whether something is good or bad, it just implies there is something else going on here, which you later spell out (I didn't feel the need to state the obvious). You are clearly indicating the timing is important, so I assume you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.. !

    2. Tom 13

      Only if you believe the Clintonistas working at the Washington Post. A quick perusal of The Drudge Report reveals quite a different story from other sources. There the investigation has switched modes, expanded, and isn't expected to be concluded until well after the primaries are over, possibly not even before the Presidential election.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Classification Game

    The determination that there was "top secret" info in some emails was made on the basis of whether the information was deemed "top secret" at the time it was reviewed, not at the time the email was sent/received.

    So something that seemed innocuous at the time was emailed. A couple of years later that same info is considered more important (often because it influenced some decision that is "top secret" (e.g., send arms to Syrian "rebels")) and is now classified. After the fact.

    It's the same game the FBI and DOJ have played with the various whistleblower prosecutions.

    The (over) classification system was designed and maintained to be used as a political tool.

    (Anonymous because I still have security clearances to see "classified info" that is available on Wikipedia.)

    1. a_yank_lurker

      Re: Classification Game

      nAccording to the reports, the many of the emails contained classified information about intelligence ops or information provide by an TLA intel agency. The originating agency determines the classification status and these were apparently classified at the time they were sent to the homebrew email server.

      Also, do not overlook the intelligence value of seemingly innocuous information that was probably intercepted by about every spookhaus on the planet with minimal competence. Often times this information provides any entry to decrypt other messages or clarify the meaning of the messages.

      There are certainly numerous felonies involved by several of the Hildabeast's cabal. The May time line sets up an interesting issue with the US primary season winding down. An indictment probably throughs the Donkey convention open with Sanders not quite having enough votes to win on the first ballot.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby

      @AC Re: Classification Game

      You really need to do your research.

      First none of the emails had any markings to show a level of classification. HRC instructed her staff to remove those before sending her the emails. That doesn't mean that the information contained in those emails wasn't already classified by the source. Also several of the emails contained SAP data which is by its very nature the highest classified doc (top secret) and only for a very few eyes.

      So no, its not a 'classification game' which HRC and her camp are attempting to portray this out to be.

      Its actually far worse.

      HRC set the server up to break the FOIA law. There is already documentation that shows Mills one of her aids and a lawyer to boot, obstructing a FOIA request stating that there were no emails knowing all about Clinton's server.

      There's more and just on the 32K emails that have been released, we know that HRC committed perjury, obstruction and numerous violations of the espionage act.

      Then there are the 30K emails that she deleted. How many were recovered by the Feds is unknown to the public and what those emails contained.

      There is so much more to this that she may win the party's nomination only then to be charged.

      The smart money is that she'll clinch the party's nomination, then to be charged so that the DNC can decide who to run in her place. Cue Biden. Or cue Bloomberg to run as an independent.

      1. Craigness

        Re: @AC Classification Game

        The deleted emails are a big problem for national security because the US doesn't know what China knows. All field agents have to be considered compromised.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby

          @Craigness Re: @AC Classification Game

          I guess the NSA/CIA could call up their Soviet err Russian counterparts or the Chinese. Maybe even the Brits or Germans to see what they found out.

          The wild thing is that many don't understand just how easy it would have been to hack the server.

          Remote Admin turned on for a Windows Server running Exchange over the internet with nothing in front of it acting as a firewall? We have El Reg who reported on the Security researcher who found her server in his data that he collected on unsecured servers...

          What many don't realize is that HRC perjured herself and when she deleted the emails... under the advice of counsel, she committed obstruction. Her lawyer Kendall is also potentially in trouble for keeping the USB thumb drives and for giving the legal advice that she could delete the emails even though she was requested earlier to turn them over and was also subpoenaed which she claimed she wasn't.

          And lets be clear... its not just Republicans who should be mad... I know a lot of Democrats who were looking towards Kasich because they didn't like the choice between a Socialist and a Criminal.

          This election and the Obama administration are history in the making.

    3. Tom 13

      Re: Classification Game

      You really need to stop parroting Clinton's blatant lies.

      ALL of the information which has been deemed classified WAS BORN classified. That it is, not only the information but the WAY in which it was gathered was classified. That means it required someone to ACTIVELY remove the classification headers on it to move it to her accounts.

  3. IvyKing

    Could get interesting

    Investigators are not likely to grant immunity in a case where they think the prime target is likely to be innocent. Keep in mind the classified e-mails are only one side of the coin, the other is public corruption where HRC and WJC were getting money for favorable rulings from the US State Department. May end up having the first ex-pres in prison, though my guess is that HO would pardon both of them.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby

      Re: Could get interesting


      However its more than just HRC. Its her senior staff and Kennedy who's still working for State.

      Its in part a question of who knew what and when. Not to mention that HRC had instructed her staff to break the law. Repeatedly.

      HRC is toast, her staff is toast. And this can run into the Clinton Foundation which is the sorriest excuse of a charity.

      The one thing we don't know much about is the Corrumption charges that can stem from this.

      JW and Vice should get a huge pat on the back for uncovering this mess. It makes Watergate look like a cop giving out a speeding ticket compared to this.

      1. Tom 13

        Re: HRC is toast, her staff is toast.

        I'd like to believe that, but $Hrillary and BJ have slimed their way out of "_____ is toast" spots too often in the past. When it is to their advantage, it's even been extended to their friends and compatriots. Case in point Sandy "my socks are happy to see you" Burglar.

  4. RedneckMother

    "winding up"?

    nah - "winding DOWN"...

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: "winding up"?

      That depends. If there's lots of activity afterwards it's winding up. If nothing happens, it's winding down.

  5. Brian Miller

    What was going through Clinton's head?

    "Oh, hey, it's a bummer to have to keep all these papers in their secret and top secret folders. Let's pin them up on a bulletin board in the hall instead!"

    Did nobody on her staff tell her that all of this was a very bad idea? Are the governments email servers really that bad? I know that at one time they were using Microsoft Exchange, maybe that's the reason all of this happened. Still, though, one would think that audits are carried out on a regular basis to prevent stupid things like this.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What was going through Clinton's head?

      Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice both used private email servers. So there is definitely precedent for Secretary of States doing this, but of course it only became important to the opposition when she was running for president. I imagine the democrats would have instigated a similar witch hunt had Rice run for president.

      1. Chris Miller

        Re: What was going through Clinton's head?

        There's no problem with using a private email server for private messages. There's a big problem with using it to deliberately circumvent FoI or to handle classified material. If there's credible evidence for this having happened, it should be tested in court.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby

          @Chris, Re: What was going through Clinton's head?

          Actually there is an issue.

          HRC's hubby Billy Boy amended the Official Records Act to include emails way back in 1995. So that if you are in a position like Sec of State, you are required to retain all of your emails (work emails). Even if you used an out of channel personal email account, you have 20 days from when the message was either sent or received to hand the email over. That was the law before HRC took the oath of office. Along with signing a document that said she understood how to manage 'classified' documents and how to classify material deemed (confidential, secret, top secret)

          Based on the emails that have been released, we know that she did not turn over all of the emails that were work related. Sidney B. turned over emails that were not found in HRC's cache. We know that Mills who knew about the secret server (she had an account on the server) tanked at least one FOIA by saying there were no emails when in fact she knew that there were....

          There are already two lawsuits that are at the center of this. Judicial Watch (JW) and Vice both have lawsuits over the Clinton State Dept. thwarting their FOIA requests. And even the judge (Sullivan I think) who let JW perform discovery and interview Clinton's staff and ultimately Clinton over this email arrangement. Note that these are civil lawsuits.

          For violations of the Espionage Act, there is no need to show motive, only the fact that she managed 'classified' material on a unsecured server. We have that in spades. 2000+ emails now with a classification and at least 4 of them contained top secret SAP information.

          We have a couple of counts of perjury.

          We have obstruction. (in spades).

          And one leak said that there were 50 FBI agents who are looking in to the possible corruption charges.

          There is more, so much more.

        2. Tom 13

          @Chris Miller

          Don't forget Official Records requirements (

          There's simply no practical way to comply with the law other than having an official account with departmental backups.

          I'd say this is the only GOOD reason the department where I work contracted our email out to Google. Anything that comes in or goes out, they record in a master database (SIS of course). If a FOIA request comes in, they can put the parameters into the search engine and spit out the answers. (Not that anybody wants to go that route since you have to go through "official channels" and get "high level" sign off. But at least it IS possible.)

      2. Ian Michael Gumby

        @DougS Re: What was going through Clinton's head?


        Neither Powell or Rice used private email servers.

        Unlike HRC, they had .gov email accounts.

        Here's the fact... neither sent confidential (lowest level of classification) material but received that information. 2 emails to Powell, 10 emails to Rice.

        And here's the funny part. We have their emails because one of the rules of using a personal account which at the time was allowed but discouraged was that they had to turn the emails back to State within 20 days of the email being sent or received.

        Methinks you're a Grandma Pumpkin (Her Secret Service code name) fanboi.

        There is so much more ... just sit back and watch what the feds reveal. Either in the indictment or if Lynch doesn't indict, the eventual leaking of information.

      3. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: What was going through Clinton's head?

        Powell and Rice used private email accounts; we know that from their statements. As far as I have seen reported these accounts seem to have been on commercial services, probably operated by people with appropriate training, skills, and consciousness of security.

        1. Andrew Williams

          Re: What was going through Clinton's head?

          Powell and/or Rice have problems if they didn't do the "20 day" thing with their private emails as required.

          Currently, Clinton should be in front of a jury or whatever, not campaigning.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: What was going through Clinton's head?

      One thing and one thing only: I need complete control of my email to delete incriminating evidence on a moment's notice.

      Her lies wouldn't even pass the smell test for a first year law student. Her purported reason for wanting an offsite server was she wanted a single email account for all her activity. Under US law, that's simply impossible. Elected officials are prohibited from using official email accounts for party building, fundraising, and partisan activity such as endorsements. PERIOD. FULL STOP. So she needed:

      1) An official account

      2) A personal account for party stuff

      3) A classified account for handling classified material

      4) A personal account for family and friends stuff

      Okay, technically #4 isn't precisely mandatory, but anyone who doesn't have one is insane.

  6. Hans 1

    I do not think Mrs Clinton has the technical skills required to judge it a good or bad idea to operate a private mail server, I do not think she knew what the security risks were.

    I would imagine that to her, using her email client, either server made no difference. Even if she sent classified documents using her private mail server ...

    I think it is the bloke who got immunity that should be trialed, he bloody well knew this was wrong AND dangerous.

    1. Oliver Mayes

      It was her job to understand what she was doing, ignorance is no defense.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby


      She may not have had the technical skills to set up the server... HOWEVER...

      She should have known how to handle 'classified' material and what material was or was not classified regardless of any markings. (SAP for example...)

      She hired a staffer who was responsible for setting up the server (He has immunity) He should have known the risks.

      He struck an immunity deal because he knew that he wasn't part of her inner circle and he would end up tossed under the bus (repeatedly). Its his testimony that is going to take down the rest of HRC and her minions.

      There is so much to this... it makes House of Cards borning. (Both the US and British versions)

      1. Eddy Ito

        Re: @Hans

        I wonder if the IT guy will commit suicide in a federal park.

      2. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: @Hans

        In addition, the State Department CIO, who had primary responsibility for IT security there, should be questioned a bit. He probably should have known, but did nothing effective to either stop the nonsense or report it to the IG.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby

          @Tom ...Re: @Hans

          Actually, its Patrick Kennedy who is also in the hot seat. He's the man in charge.

          1. tom dial Silver badge

            Re: @Tom ...@Hans

            Kennedy may well be in trouble over this, but the CIO (who also functions as CISO) is required to approve IT systems used for government data processing and storage.

    3. Tom 13

      Re: I do not think Mrs Clinton has the technical skills

      She didn't have the technical skills to evaluate:

      1) I cannot use an official email account for partisan/fundraising/electioneering activity

      2) I must have an official account people recognize as me acting as Secretary of State

      and conclude it wasn't legally possible for her to maintain only ONE email account?

      I thought she was supposed to be this crack lawyer who was smarter than Gandalf and Spock put together?

  7. MJI Silver badge

    Do not understand the issue

    I am British.

    This appears to me to be pretty trivial, what actually is the issue?

    1. Alister

      Re: Do not understand the issue

      I am British.

      This appears to me to be pretty trivial, what actually is the issue?

      Not sure if you are trolling, but I'll bite.

      I'm British too, btw. So Americans may feel free to correct me.

      The issues as I understand it are:

      1/ By setting up and using a private email server, she effectively bypasses the Freedom Of Information Act (just the same as in Britain) because any requests for emails will only show those sent through the official mail system.

      2/ There are very stringent rules (both in the US and the UK) about the handling of sensitive and or secret information, which include rules about what can and cannot be sent by email.

      By setting up her own mail server at home, she effectively nullifies the security procedures set up to protect confidential information, and contravenes those rules.

      1. Alister

        Re: Do not understand the issue


        3/ She and her staff have allegedly repeatedly lied or misrepresented the facts about the existence and use of the private mail server, and about the content and classification of the emails sent, received and stored on the private email server.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby

          @Alister Re: Do not understand the issue

          You forgot 4.

          4) Corruption. She was mixing Clinton Foundation business with State Department business which she told Obama she would not have any part in the Foundation. Do you remember US Aid to Haiti?

          Bill Clinton was put in charge of managing the aid money. Under his management, those who received lucrative contracts somehow all were donors to the Clinton Foundation. A charity where less than 10% of monies raised actually went to anything which might resemble aid or a charitable act. (That is if your name is not Clinton.)

          There's more. Even if you take what 'Clinton Cash' uncovers with a grain of salt, there is so much more that could be in the deleted emails that the Feds recovered.

          1. MJI Silver badge

            Re: IMG Do not understand the issue

            OK I know nothing about Clinton Foundation

            Nothing about US aid to Haiti

            This is why I was asking what the issue was, they seemed to be going a bit postal over an email server.

            This is the equivalent of a US person asking about the EU referendum.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Do not understand the issue

        Exactly Alister, you have it correctly. General Petraeus was caught in a very similar fashion because of the cavalier attitude he had regarding the handling of a few secret documents he kept in his locked bed stand. They tossed him out of the service for that and having an affair with Paula Broadwell. (If they threw everyone who had an affair in Washington DC it would be an empty city)

        Shrillery is at least as guilty as he was and she did far, far worse than Petraeus or even Nixon did.

        We will see obstruction of justice charges against her and/or everyone who touched the keyboards of the subject computers. These emails were "doctored" by someone at the State Department when they removed the "Classified" or "Top Secret" headers from the documents! They broke the law by modifying the email headers, by sending these emails to an illegal private server and by receiving secret documents on a private unsecured device. Then, Hillary tried to cover it up be deleting emails both public and private. All in an effort to leave no traceability for her illegal actions and avoid the "Freedom of Information" act.

        Nixon only erased 18 minutes of tape by comparison.

        1. MJI Silver badge

          Re: Do not understand the issue

          But no deaths, no thefts, no injuries, it is a lot more trivial than say a nutter shooting up a school.

      3. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: Do not understand the issue


        1/ By setting up and using a private email server, she effectively bypasses the Freedom Of Information Act (just the same as in Britain) because any requests for emails will only show those sent through the official mail system. She also bypassed the Federal Information Security Management Act and the federal and State Department regulations and instructions derived from that.

        1. Alister

          Re: Do not understand the issue

          @ tom dial

          She also bypassed the Federal Information Security Management Act and the federal and State Department regulations and instructions derived from that.

          Yes, that's what my 2/ said.

      4. Tom 13


        Those are the issues on which the media have focused.

        As I've outlined above there are other laws that were also necessarily broken as a result, name the Hatch Act which prohibits using government accounts for electioneering and the Official Records Act. The ORA is similar too slightly different than FOIA. FOIA requires the government to release records to the public in certain circumstances. ORA requires you to send copies of all official records to the National Archives and defined what constitutes a record. So ORA is broader than FOIA.

    2. SolidSquid

      Re: Do not understand the issue

      There's three parts to it. First there's the fact she was running her own email server, which may or may not have been secure, which almost certainly handled correspondence which was classified. This isn't a major issue as previous Secretaries of State have done the same.

      Second is that she, or people in her employ, seem to have used that email server to bypass the Freedom of Information Act by pretending it didn't exist and so the emails couldn't be produced. This is pretty questionable, and if it's the case and was discovered earlier would likely have resulted in serious fines for her department

      Last part is that she apparently sent on documents which were classified to people without clearance and stored them on the server which may or may not have been secured. Really this is what the Department of Justice is interested in, because if it turns out the documents were classified before she got them then she may be facing criminal charges. It's all kind of complicated though because they may not have been classified yet when she got them and she may not have been notified of them being classified after the fact, so there's the question of whether she should have been able to anticipate whether the documents would have been classified or not and whether she can be held liable for publishing documents which she knew *would* be classified but haven't been rated as classified *yet*

      Basically it's a clusterfuck of bad document management but is unlikely to result in criminal charges, whether because there was no crime committed or because it would be so difficult to prove, but might impact her as a presidential candidate if she gets the nomination for the Democrats regardless because it's a pretty easy bit of mud to sling

      1. MJI Silver badge

        Re: Do not understand the issue

        OK now I see

        Not really that big an issue as she was only doing what other people have done before.

        I suppose being at a home, it is a lot safer from hackers!

        1. Craigness

          Re: Do not understand the issue

          You still don't see. Others have had private servers for private emails, she had one for government business and sensitive information. People have got 20 years for far less.

      2. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: Do not understand the issue


        1. No other Secretary of State operated, or used, a private email server.

        2. The server was insecure:

  8. David Roberts


    Implies that the person is going to self incriminate during any hearing/trial.

    Sadly, it doesn't imply that the person is going to tell the truth

    There must be a degree of duress here - we've go you on this charge but if you smear others we won't charge you.

    Not unknown in "overheard in jail" testimony in various criminal cases.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby

      Re: Immunity

      If you are not truthful in your testimony, you lose immunity and your statements can and will be used against you.

      He's toast and he knew it. He also knew he wasn't in her inner circle and was going to be roadkill.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Immunity

      The US prosecution system is entirely based on duress.

    3. Tom 13

      Re: Immunity

      It doesn't imply he's going to self-incriminate. He's going up against a woman who like her husband, doesn't know what the meaning of the word 'is' is and who has demonstrated a propensity to lie unless only the truth will do. Immunity means they don't get to dismiss the charges on account of perjury and then sue him for it if he changes a single word in his testimony between when the FBI makes notes and when he's on the witness stand.

      You're worried about the wrong duress. Right now he's looking to the FBI to protect him so he doesn't get Vince Fostered.

  9. Nameless Faceless Computer User

    so what

    I used to run my own mail server at home to maintain a mailing list of 120 people. It's so much faster and the list is easier to keep up to date. It's not a stretch to think that a politician who sends out regular mailings would do the same. Just don't get the big deal.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: so what

      You ran your own server, but probably were not using it to conduct your employer's business without consent. Some would think that a very different use case.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anybody who thinks Hillary is going to face justice for her criminal activities is sadly deluded.

    It's a foregone conclusion that she is going to be the next USA president.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Not Likely!

      Hillary has way too much baggage and this email server scandal is only the tip of the iceberg.

      Clinton Foundation - Bribery and Extortion, possibly Larceny for "pay to play" agreements where people/companies who wanted State Department help, had to pay big bucks to Bill Clinton to speak at an event for them before Hillary would agree to help them with some ruling.

      Email Scandal - Obstruction of Justice, Falsifying documents, directing others to break the law, Perjury (Under oath in a congressional hearing she lied multiple times).

      Possible RICO actions because there was a conspiracy between Hillary and Huma Abedin and it took place across international borders.

      Criminal Negligence & Manslaughter - What happened in Benghazi isn't a joke and 4 people died when she COULD have told CENTCOM to send them help. Instead, she did nothing and people died.

      She will be in court BEFORE Election Day. One can only hope that the corrupt hag gets perp walked in handcuffs as well.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Let it go

    Let it go


    Should she have had her own e-mail server, NO. All the key players knew she had it and definitely anyone who e-mailed her knew it was not account. This only became an issue after she started running for president.

    Let it go.


    1. Mark 85

      Re: Let it go

      Won't happen. There's too many politicos and their constituents who won't compromise or negotiate much less see any rational points from the other side. Both parties are to blame for the current messes, but everyone points fingers and no one says "let's sit down and sort this out". We've gone all shouty closed our minds.

      This country needs it's elected officials AND the constituents (voters) to actually be rational on everything and not just blindly follow the party line.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby

      Re: Let it go

      That's like condoning bank robberies because the banks are insured so depositors are ok.

  12. Eduard Coli

    The other shoe

    Hillary needed a private email server to obfuscate quid pro quo for State Department access and approval. There are many articles about irregularities at the Clinton Foundation which was the clearing house or "fence" to hide payments for Hillary's services at the State Department. A good example of the outcome of Hillary's work is the Uranium One fiasco where the Clinton's were paid off through the Clinton Foundation so that all of the uranium mines in the US and Canada could be bundled up and sold to a Russian concern tied with Putin. Hillary was head of the State Department when it gave approval for the sale of uranium as a strategic resource.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby

      @ E Coli Re: The other shoe


      Only none of this has been proven in the released information.

      We know some from official documents and the allegations in 'Clinton Cash' as well as some of the Foundation's required filings.

      There's the 30K or so emails that the FBI may have recovered from the server.

      That could be used to show the corruption and the smart money is that the Feds found something.

      Clinton is putting on the brave face and is lying to herself and others because she thinks the Fix is in

  13. Bill Sticker


    What are the odds that as one of his last acts in office, Obama will hand Mrs Clinton a presidential pardon?

    1. Captain DaFt

      Re: Pardon?

      "What are the odds that as one of his last acts in office, Obama will hand Mrs Clinton a presidential pardon?"

      Too hot a potato for the Dems.

      The way this ball is usually danced in the inner loop, the Rep that takes office will graciously make a "mending fences, building bridges" speech, and the whole thing will blow over... until the next election.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: Pardon?


      $Hrillary and BJ have the goods on The Big 0. If he doesn't pardon them and it looks like they're headed to jail, they turn state's evidence on him. But that confirms the value of the information and they can use it again in the future. OTOH if he can do it and make those charges look like sour grapes, nothing happens to him.

      Smart money has always been on this dies in the investigative stages. Trump has upset that calculation. Also at this point the FBI investigation has achieved a life of its own.

      But don't make the mistake of thinking they're best buds. Both sides loathe each other and only make nice in public.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon