8 ms·

Report: FBI moves to interview Clinton over emails

98 points by aburan28 11y ago

rbcgerard 11y ago
Not that it would ever happen, but would love to tune into cspan for this
mchahn 11y ago
I'm sure Clinton pushed to have this happen ASAP. She can't have this hanging over her when she gets to the general election.
- justncase80 11y ago
  More likely she would want to draw it out as much as possible so she could get immunity as president.
  - fweespee_ch 11y ago
    If she honestly believes she is innocent, she would want it over with ASAP so it doesn't effect her chances in the General Election in Nov.
  - mc808 11y ago
    Presidents aren't immune to the law. But it's theoretically possible that she would be convicted and impeached, and then pardoned by Vice President Bill Clinton after he takes office.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - woodruffw 11y ago
      > Vice President Bill Clinton I don't think that the First Husband would have clemency powers ;)
      - spdustin 11y ago
        If Hillary Clinton becomes the president, Bill would be colloquially referred to as the "First Gentleman", per tradition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Lady https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Lady
    - tptacek 11y ago
      This whole thread is a case study for why we just shouldn't host discussions like this on HN. There are a million better places to do it than here. Clinton is probably not legally eligible to be Vice President --- a position that, were he to occupy it, would give him no authority over any prosecution (except possibly an impeachment trial --- over which he would preside, but not control). Clinton is definitely not eligible to serve as President, even if he is the Vice President at the time his President is impeached. The next in succession after VP would be sworn in as President.
      - hackuser 11y ago
        > There are a million better places to do it than here. Where is there informed, intelligent, valuable discussion of politics? I'd love to find it.
        messick 11y ago
        MetaFilter isn't bad. Although it's a lot more than just politics.
        zachwooddoughty 11y ago
        Plug: I'm launching Discoverboard.com for this in a couple weeks
        hackuser 11y ago
        Great! How will you improve the quality over other boards?
        zachwooddoughty 11y ago
        You'll have to verify your phone number to sign up, which will make moderation more effective (hard to make an additional account after getting kicked out). If it grows and that isn't enough to keep it respectful, I will add a $1-2 signup fee for new users. I'm also going to be spending most of my time recruiting quality people to join the discussions.
    - r00fus 11y ago
      I'm pretty sure Bill can't run for VP. And the 3rd in line after VP is Speaker of the House (Paul Ryan, IIRC).
      - mariodiana 11y ago
        The Twelfth Amendment ends with the following sentence: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." It would seem the Constitution agrees with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite...
        talmand 11y ago
        So then, they get Ryan to be VP and install Bill as Speaker. Then they get Ryan to resign. Worth at least two seasons on Netflix.
retbull 11y ago
So what would an interview like this entail?
- j79 11y ago
  Some have speculated that it could be an honest Q&A with the former SoS based on their findings (to get an official response). Others are speculating that it could be a chance to actually catch her in a lie, based on their findings ("Five months ago, you stated X, is that still true?" having evidence that X is no longer true). Pure speculation, of course, but man would I like to be a fly on THAT wall...
irixusr 11y ago
If Aaron Schwartz faced decades in jail for piracy what the tax payer financed, how much time should Clinton face?
- meritt 11y ago
  He was wrongly charged under the CFAA which does not apply here. Sen. Ron Wyden (OR) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA) have been pushing for "Aaron's Law" to curb the judicial abuse of the CFAA in cases like Aaron's and many others. They need all the support they can get to have this legislation pushed through. They are both Clinton supporters, btw. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/aarons-law-reintroduced-cfaa-didnt-fix-itself https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/aarons-law-reintroduce...
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    >wrongly charged Source? Everyone familiar with the law seems to disagree.
- eli 11y ago
  I get what you're saying, but the two situations really don't have much in common.
fweespee_ch 11y ago
Someone is going to take the fall for Clinton if they actually press criminal charges against anyone even if, morally and ethically, it is really on her. Honestly, Clinton should at a minimum be banned from handling classified information in the future.
- jakub_h 11y ago
  > Clinton should at a minimum be banned from handling classified information in the future. That sounds like a good idea for many more politicians of this world.
  - fweespee_ch 11y ago
    Yes.
  - jlarocco 11y ago
    That's a terrible idea. We need less classified information, not less access to it.
ianferrel 11y ago
"Reports about the number of federal agents assigned to the Clinton probe have ranged from roughly a dozen to fewer than 50." That's not a range.
- erikpukinskis 11y ago
  Yes it is. There were multiple estimates. The lowest was "roughly a dozen" the highest was "less than 50". The two ends of the range use different units and have different significant figures because they came from two different calculations. In theory the author could have tried to unify those points on the same number line with the same sig figs, but I'm not even sure what the rules are for ranges built from two separate calculations. If there even is a rule you'd get something like "range from 10 to 50" and only math geeks would have a clear picture of what those zeroes really mean, and even they would've lost the "not 50" and "quite possibly less than 10" information the existing phrasing provides.
- flashman 11y ago
  Well, it's hard to express using numeric operators, but still comprehensible.
eli 11y ago
This is a very thinly sourced article. It's surprising that "law enforcement officials" would be sharing details about this incredibly high profile case, but only with a reporter for AJAM, a channel that is in its last weeks on the air. And that presented with such a big scoop, Al Jazeera apparently hasn't even bothered to post an article about it to their website. So there's just an unofficial clip of what the reporter said on the air in a brief report floating around. Not saying it's false... it's just very thinly sourced.
chvid 11y ago
I don't really understand this story. If I read the LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-2016...) which the main article links to; running a personal email server and using it for official business was not illegal at the time for mrs. Clinton. Yet there is "roughly a dozen" FBI agents on the case. Why would that be if it is slamduck that nothing illegal was going on?
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Inappropriate transmission of classified material on the system. If people were knowingly sending classified info to the system, it's a problem.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- chattin35 11y ago
  It's hard to understand if you haven't handled classified information before. If the average DoD employee or military member did what she did (allegedly), they'd already be in prison. The only reason it's taking so long is because it's a high profile person. And, well... politics.
  - chvid 11y ago
    Then why do you have "many legal experts" in the LA Times article saying that there is little chance of prosecution? Are they merely protecting a political allied? Can the current democratic administration delay the prosecution until after the presidential election or have I been watching house of cards too much? I understand these questions are heavily political and touchy subjects; but I am just trying to understand what is going on. I really don't have an opinion on American politics.
    - talmand 11y ago
      It's because no one outside a small circle of people really knows what's going on. It's too many people speculating on what they know, or what they think they know, just to have something to talk about when the subject comes up. For every legal expert that says not guilty before knowing all the facts I can probably find you one that says guilty before knowing all the facts.
hackuser 11y ago
It's very important that this business is concluded before the Democratic Party's convention, beginning July 25th. Otherwise it is a threat to democracy. The FBI would essentially choose the next president if they took down one of the two nominees. Consider that they could do that in any election, federal, state or local. Also consider that the FBI's employees are, as far as I know, overwhelmingly Republican, and that in the past the FBI has illicitly tried to influence politics (under J. Edgar Hoover, for example). Even now they are letting this go on much too long and exercising far too much influence. Crimes should be investigated appropriately; I don't think candidates should get a pass. I do question whether the investigation is out of proportion to the crime; many use personal email for official business and many mishandle classified info (including multiple past CIA directors) with no significant penalty.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
  > I don't think candidates should get a pass. Nor should their opposition have the power to delay proceedings until such a time as it is politically advantageous to them. This should have been dealt with last year.
hackuser 11y ago
Note the pattern: Another attempt to trap a Clinton in a situation where it's illegal to lie (Bill to a Grand Jury, Hillary to an FBI officer). Bill, way back in the 1990s before the testimony that caused all the problems, said that their only goal was to ask him damaging things under oath and then leak his responses or prosecute him for perjury. Remember that Bill was not testifying in a case about Lewinksy, but in an unrelated case regarding Paula Jones. But once he was under oath they just used it as a fishing expedition to achieve political ends. Is this how we want our democracy to work? Probably law enforcement can find something to justify prosecuting or at least investigating anyone. ----- EDIT: It turns out FBI Director Comey has a history investigating the Clintons: Comey’s first brush with them came when Bill Clinton was president. Looking to get back into government after a stint in private practice, Comey signed on as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee. In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.” Comey parlayed the Whitewater job into top posts in Virginia and New York, returning to Manhattan in 2002 to be the top federal prosecutor there. One of his first cases as a line attorney in the same office 15 years earlier had been the successful prosecution of Marc Rich, a wealthy international financier, for tax evasion. But on his last day as President in 2001, Bill Clinton pardoned Rich. “I was stunned,” Comey later told Congress. As top U.S. prosecutor in New York in 2002, appointed by George W. Bush, Comey inherited the criminal probe into the Rich pardon and 175 others Clinton had made at the 11th hour. Despite evidence that several pardon recipients, including Rich, had connections to donations to Bill Clinton’s presidential library and Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, Comey found no criminal wrongdoing. http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/ http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  Are you seriously saying you'd prefer the US president be allowed to lie? If that is not what you're saying, please phrase it clearly and directly, and not by implying.
more_corn 11y ago
I can't believe there's even discussion about this. The facts are clear. Hillary Clinton didn't like the onerous security rules she had to follow so she ignored them. details: http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/ http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/ If any of you have security clearance consider for a moment what would happen if you did the same. Your access would be suspended and you'd be called to account for every piece of information you mishandled. At the end you'd be prosecuted for any beech of secrecy that was discovered and your clearance would almost certainly be revoked. If we treat her differently because of her name and her connections we call into question the very rule of law in this country. Maybe Anarchists would rejoice in such an outcome as proof of the utter corruption and uselessness of our justice system, but people who care about law and justice certainly shouldn't applaud it. In her defense I agree that the security policies were silly and didn't actually increase security enough to warrant the disruption. I can totally understand that someone wouldn't want to comply. On the other hand she was the goddamned Secretary of State, the person who should be most concerned about protecting information security in the State Department. Rather than thinking like a leader and working to set a policy that is both secure and usable she simply ignored the rules she didn't like. Aside from questions of prosecution this behavior causes me to seriously question her ability to lead. If you had to classify her behavior in this case would you put in the category of things a leader does or things a petulant child does?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cylinder 11y ago
  Question the rule of law -- has an upper or even upper middle white male ever received the death penalty in this country? It would be a good thing if poor black males weren't being executed left and right every year.

98 points by aburan28 11y ago

Not that it would ever happen, but would love to tune into cspan for this

I'm sure Clinton pushed to have this happen ASAP. She can't have this hanging over her when she gets to the general election.

justncase80 11y ago
More likely she would want to draw it out as much as possible so she could get immunity as president.
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  If she honestly believes she is innocent, she would want it over with ASAP so it doesn't effect her chances in the General Election in Nov.
- mc808 11y ago
  Presidents aren't immune to the law. But it's theoretically possible that she would be convicted and impeached, and then pardoned by Vice President Bill Clinton after he takes office.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - woodruffw 11y ago
    > Vice President Bill Clinton I don't think that the First Husband would have clemency powers ;)
    - spdustin 11y ago
      If Hillary Clinton becomes the president, Bill would be colloquially referred to as the "First Gentleman", per tradition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Lady https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Lady
  - tptacek 11y ago
    This whole thread is a case study for why we just shouldn't host discussions like this on HN. There are a million better places to do it than here. Clinton is probably not legally eligible to be Vice President --- a position that, were he to occupy it, would give him no authority over any prosecution (except possibly an impeachment trial --- over which he would preside, but not control). Clinton is definitely not eligible to serve as President, even if he is the Vice President at the time his President is impeached. The next in succession after VP would be sworn in as President.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > There are a million better places to do it than here. Where is there informed, intelligent, valuable discussion of politics? I'd love to find it.
      - messick 11y ago
        MetaFilter isn't bad. Although it's a lot more than just politics.
      - zachwooddoughty 11y ago
        Plug: I'm launching Discoverboard.com for this in a couple weeks
        hackuser 11y ago
        Great! How will you improve the quality over other boards?
        zachwooddoughty 11y ago
        You'll have to verify your phone number to sign up, which will make moderation more effective (hard to make an additional account after getting kicked out). If it grows and that isn't enough to keep it respectful, I will add a $1-2 signup fee for new users. I'm also going to be spending most of my time recruiting quality people to join the discussions.
  - r00fus 11y ago
    I'm pretty sure Bill can't run for VP. And the 3rd in line after VP is Speaker of the House (Paul Ryan, IIRC).
    - mariodiana 11y ago
      The Twelfth Amendment ends with the following sentence: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." It would seem the Constitution agrees with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite...
      - talmand 11y ago
        So then, they get Ryan to be VP and install Bill as Speaker. Then they get Ryan to resign. Worth at least two seasons on Netflix.

retbull 11y ago

So what would an interview like this entail?

j79 11y ago
Some have speculated that it could be an honest Q&A with the former SoS based on their findings (to get an official response). Others are speculating that it could be a chance to actually catch her in a lie, based on their findings ("Five months ago, you stated X, is that still true?" having evidence that X is no longer true). Pure speculation, of course, but man would I like to be a fly on THAT wall...

irixusr 11y ago

If Aaron Schwartz faced decades in jail for piracy what the tax payer financed, how much time should Clinton face?

meritt 11y ago
He was wrongly charged under the CFAA which does not apply here. Sen. Ron Wyden (OR) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA) have been pushing for "Aaron's Law" to curb the judicial abuse of the CFAA in cases like Aaron's and many others. They need all the support they can get to have this legislation pushed through. They are both Clinton supporters, btw. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/aarons-law-reintroduced-cfaa-didnt-fix-itself https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/aarons-law-reintroduce...
- ryanlol 11y ago
  >wrongly charged Source? Everyone familiar with the law seems to disagree.
eli 11y ago
I get what you're saying, but the two situations really don't have much in common.

fweespee_ch 11y ago

Someone is going to take the fall for Clinton if they actually press criminal charges against anyone even if, morally and ethically, it is really on her. Honestly, Clinton should at a minimum be banned from handling classified information in the future.

jakub_h 11y ago
> Clinton should at a minimum be banned from handling classified information in the future. That sounds like a good idea for many more politicians of this world.
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  Yes.
- jlarocco 11y ago
  That's a terrible idea. We need less classified information, not less access to it.

ianferrel 11y ago

"Reports about the number of federal agents assigned to the Clinton probe have ranged from roughly a dozen to fewer than 50." That's not a range.

erikpukinskis 11y ago
Yes it is. There were multiple estimates. The lowest was "roughly a dozen" the highest was "less than 50". The two ends of the range use different units and have different significant figures because they came from two different calculations. In theory the author could have tried to unify those points on the same number line with the same sig figs, but I'm not even sure what the rules are for ranges built from two separate calculations. If there even is a rule you'd get something like "range from 10 to 50" and only math geeks would have a clear picture of what those zeroes really mean, and even they would've lost the "not 50" and "quite possibly less than 10" information the existing phrasing provides.
flashman 11y ago
Well, it's hard to express using numeric operators, but still comprehensible.

eli 11y ago

This is a very thinly sourced article. It's surprising that "law enforcement officials" would be sharing details about this incredibly high profile case, but only with a reporter for AJAM, a channel that is in its last weeks on the air. And that presented with such a big scoop, Al Jazeera apparently hasn't even bothered to post an article about it to their website. So there's just an unofficial clip of what the reporter said on the air in a brief report floating around. Not saying it's false... it's just very thinly sourced.

chvid 11y ago

I don't really understand this story. If I read the LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-2016...) which the main article links to; running a personal email server and using it for official business was not illegal at the time for mrs. Clinton. Yet there is "roughly a dozen" FBI agents on the case. Why would that be if it is slamduck that nothing illegal was going on?

maxerickson 11y ago
Inappropriate transmission of classified material on the system. If people were knowingly sending classified info to the system, it's a problem.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
chattin35 11y ago
It's hard to understand if you haven't handled classified information before. If the average DoD employee or military member did what she did (allegedly), they'd already be in prison. The only reason it's taking so long is because it's a high profile person. And, well... politics.
- chvid 11y ago
  Then why do you have "many legal experts" in the LA Times article saying that there is little chance of prosecution? Are they merely protecting a political allied? Can the current democratic administration delay the prosecution until after the presidential election or have I been watching house of cards too much? I understand these questions are heavily political and touchy subjects; but I am just trying to understand what is going on. I really don't have an opinion on American politics.
  - talmand 11y ago
    It's because no one outside a small circle of people really knows what's going on. It's too many people speculating on what they know, or what they think they know, just to have something to talk about when the subject comes up. For every legal expert that says not guilty before knowing all the facts I can probably find you one that says guilty before knowing all the facts.

hackuser 11y ago

It's very important that this business is concluded before the Democratic Party's convention, beginning July 25th. Otherwise it is a threat to democracy. The FBI would essentially choose the next president if they took down one of the two nominees. Consider that they could do that in any election, federal, state or local. Also consider that the FBI's employees are, as far as I know, overwhelmingly Republican, and that in the past the FBI has illicitly tried to influence politics (under J. Edgar Hoover, for example). Even now they are letting this go on much too long and exercising far too much influence. Crimes should be investigated appropriately; I don't think candidates should get a pass. I do question whether the investigation is out of proportion to the crime; many use personal email for official business and many mishandle classified info (including multiple past CIA directors) with no significant penalty.

kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
> I don't think candidates should get a pass. Nor should their opposition have the power to delay proceedings until such a time as it is politically advantageous to them. This should have been dealt with last year.

hackuser 11y ago

Note the pattern: Another attempt to trap a Clinton in a situation where it's illegal to lie (Bill to a Grand Jury, Hillary to an FBI officer). Bill, way back in the 1990s before the testimony that caused all the problems, said that their only goal was to ask him damaging things under oath and then leak his responses or prosecute him for perjury. Remember that Bill was not testifying in a case about Lewinksy, but in an unrelated case regarding Paula Jones. But once he was under oath they just used it as a fishing expedition to achieve political ends. Is this how we want our democracy to work? Probably law enforcement can find something to justify prosecuting or at least investigating anyone. ----- EDIT: It turns out FBI Director Comey has a history investigating the Clintons: Comey’s first brush with them came when Bill Clinton was president. Looking to get back into government after a stint in private practice, Comey signed on as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee. In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.” Comey parlayed the Whitewater job into top posts in Virginia and New York, returning to Manhattan in 2002 to be the top federal prosecutor there. One of his first cases as a line attorney in the same office 15 years earlier had been the successful prosecution of Marc Rich, a wealthy international financier, for tax evasion. But on his last day as President in 2001, Bill Clinton pardoned Rich. “I was stunned,” Comey later told Congress. As top U.S. prosecutor in New York in 2002, appointed by George W. Bush, Comey inherited the criminal probe into the Rich pardon and 175 others Clinton had made at the 11th hour. Despite evidence that several pardon recipients, including Rich, had connections to donations to Bill Clinton’s presidential library and Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, Comey found no criminal wrongdoing. http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/ http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

Mithaldu 11y ago
Are you seriously saying you'd prefer the US president be allowed to lie? If that is not what you're saying, please phrase it clearly and directly, and not by implying.

more_corn 11y ago

I can't believe there's even discussion about this. The facts are clear. Hillary Clinton didn't like the onerous security rules she had to follow so she ignored them. details: http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/ http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/ If any of you have security clearance consider for a moment what would happen if you did the same. Your access would be suspended and you'd be called to account for every piece of information you mishandled. At the end you'd be prosecuted for any beech of secrecy that was discovered and your clearance would almost certainly be revoked. If we treat her differently because of her name and her connections we call into question the very rule of law in this country. Maybe Anarchists would rejoice in such an outcome as proof of the utter corruption and uselessness of our justice system, but people who care about law and justice certainly shouldn't applaud it. In her defense I agree that the security policies were silly and didn't actually increase security enough to warrant the disruption. I can totally understand that someone wouldn't want to comply. On the other hand she was the goddamned Secretary of State, the person who should be most concerned about protecting information security in the State Department. Rather than thinking like a leader and working to set a policy that is both secure and usable she simply ignored the rules she didn't like. Aside from questions of prosecution this behavior causes me to seriously question her ability to lead. If you had to classify her behavior in this case would you put in the category of things a leader does or things a petulant child does?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cylinder 11y ago
Question the rule of law -- has an upper or even upper middle white male ever received the death penalty in this country? It would be a good thing if poor black males weren't being executed left and right every year.