4 ms·

If they're randomly finding Clinton related e-mails on Weiner's devices that are relevant to their investigation, seems like they weren't trying that hard in th

If they're randomly finding Clinton related e-mails on Weiner's devices that are relevant to their investigation, seems like they weren't trying that hard in the first place.

serf 10y ago
it might be the cynic in me, but I have trouble myself thinking that a presidential candidate (especially one associated with the currently empowered party) is going to get the same scouring precision that the FBI gives to 'Mr or Ms. Random Bomber'.
- bbctol 10y ago
  Yes, I'd expect the high-profile candidate to be scoured far more intensely.
- slantedview 10y ago
  Not even 'Mr or Ms. Random Bomber', other servicemen have been charged and sent to prison for mishandling classified information, intentional or not. The FBI's argument that they couldn't find a precedent for prosecuting anyone under those circumstances is is simply a lie. It's the double standard here that is troubling.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Service members are subject to the UCMJ which, AFAIK, has different provisions on the subject.
    - gragas 10y ago
      I held a mere SECRET security clearance last summer (not even TOP SECRET, which is what Clinton has) and I had to go through weeks and weeks of training, aside from many friends and relatives being interviewed. The consequences of using personal devices to send even just OUO (Official Use Only ---- not even classified) information was pounded into our brains. We were told countless stories of people getting their clearances revoked and being fired for using personal USB drives, let alone servers. No matter how you spin it, Hillary is either the most incompetent government official in the US, or she intentionally broke the law. I would bet more than 99% of individuals who hold clearances would agree with me.
      - JackFaker 10y ago
        While your experience is much more like the standard for handling classified material I don't know if it's comparable to what those in the leadership at the state department experienced given the findings in the OIG(1) report that came out earlier this year. They looked some twenty years of record retention policies at the state department and concluded. "Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State." "the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership." It seems likely that you and others in similar positions are under more scrutiny than those in leadership, at least that's what I get out of that report. 1: https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf
sp332 10y ago
Comey's letter says they have not yet determined whether they are relevant.
- scintill76 10y ago
  Not quite: > the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that emails had surfaced in an unrelated case, and that they “appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” > Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. was taking steps to “determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” He said he did not know how long it would take to review the emails, or whether the new information was significant. They are relevant to the investigation almost by definition, but they may not be criminal or significant. That the FBI is admitting to their existence so prematurely is interesting -- is Comey trying to avoid the accusations of politicization by being up-front that they found something, even before he can really describe what it is? His letter refers to previous testimony that the case was closed and he seems to not want to be caught "lying" now -- but if it truly was closed and truly was just re-opened, it wasn't a lie. Is he getting ahead of presumed leaks from the FBI that would have started rumors that he was suppressing/spinning something? Funny that he's been called a Clinton shill, yet throws Trump a bone days before the election -- "Hey everyone, we found more stuff! We'll let you know if it's bad as soon as we can. Feel free to speculate and grandstand in the meantime." Or is it fishy that the resumed investigation might conveniently stall until after the election?
  - Fjolsvith 10y ago
    He's just covering his ass as Assange is going to release some very incriminating material for the SoS (and POTUS) in the next few days.

If they're randomly finding Clinton related e-mails on Weiner's devices that are relevant to their investigation, seems like they weren't trying that hard in the first place.

serf 10y ago

it might be the cynic in me, but I have trouble myself thinking that a presidential candidate (especially one associated with the currently empowered party) is going to get the same scouring precision that the FBI gives to 'Mr or Ms. Random Bomber'.

bbctol 10y ago
Yes, I'd expect the high-profile candidate to be scoured far more intensely.
slantedview 10y ago
Not even 'Mr or Ms. Random Bomber', other servicemen have been charged and sent to prison for mishandling classified information, intentional or not. The FBI's argument that they couldn't find a precedent for prosecuting anyone under those circumstances is is simply a lie. It's the double standard here that is troubling.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Service members are subject to the UCMJ which, AFAIK, has different provisions on the subject.
  - gragas 10y ago
    I held a mere SECRET security clearance last summer (not even TOP SECRET, which is what Clinton has) and I had to go through weeks and weeks of training, aside from many friends and relatives being interviewed. The consequences of using personal devices to send even just OUO (Official Use Only ---- not even classified) information was pounded into our brains. We were told countless stories of people getting their clearances revoked and being fired for using personal USB drives, let alone servers. No matter how you spin it, Hillary is either the most incompetent government official in the US, or she intentionally broke the law. I would bet more than 99% of individuals who hold clearances would agree with me.
    - JackFaker 10y ago
      While your experience is much more like the standard for handling classified material I don't know if it's comparable to what those in the leadership at the state department experienced given the findings in the OIG(1) report that came out earlier this year. They looked some twenty years of record retention policies at the state department and concluded. "Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State." "the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership." It seems likely that you and others in similar positions are under more scrutiny than those in leadership, at least that's what I get out of that report. 1: https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

sp332 10y ago

Comey's letter says they have not yet determined whether they are relevant.

scintill76 10y ago
Not quite: > the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that emails had surfaced in an unrelated case, and that they “appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” > Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. was taking steps to “determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” He said he did not know how long it would take to review the emails, or whether the new information was significant. They are relevant to the investigation almost by definition, but they may not be criminal or significant. That the FBI is admitting to their existence so prematurely is interesting -- is Comey trying to avoid the accusations of politicization by being up-front that they found something, even before he can really describe what it is? His letter refers to previous testimony that the case was closed and he seems to not want to be caught "lying" now -- but if it truly was closed and truly was just re-opened, it wasn't a lie. Is he getting ahead of presumed leaks from the FBI that would have started rumors that he was suppressing/spinning something? Funny that he's been called a Clinton shill, yet throws Trump a bone days before the election -- "Hey everyone, we found more stuff! We'll let you know if it's bad as soon as we can. Feel free to speculate and grandstand in the meantime." Or is it fishy that the resumed investigation might conveniently stall until after the election?
- Fjolsvith 10y ago
  He's just covering his ass as Assange is going to release some very incriminating material for the SoS (and POTUS) in the next few days.