FBI interviewed Huma Abedin, will interview Hillary Clinton within weeks

Submitted by GreyWolf on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 12:06am

The FBI has interviewed Huma Abedin, and will interview Hillary Clinton within weeks, as part of the FBI email probe, according to CNN.

Here is the initial report:

First on CNN: FBI interviews Clinton aides including Huma Abedin as part of email probe

Some of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin, have provided interviews to federal investigators, as the FBI probe into the security of her private email server nears completion, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.

In recent weeks, multiple aides have been interviewed -- some more than once, the officials said. A date for an FBI interview of Clinton has not been set, these officials said, but is expected in the coming weeks. Abedin has cooperated with the probe, the officials said. Lawyers for Abedin declined to comment. The officials say the interviews of Clinton and her aides would be a routine part of an investigation like this.

My highlights there are to indicate my disdain for this CNN reporter paraphrasing that part "willfully violated the law" to be "officials say no criminal wrongdoing," which is then picked up by other outlets, all repeating "'officials' say no criminal wrongdoing" rather than "investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law."

CNN Reports FBI Has Found ‘No Criminal Wrongdoing’ in Hillary Clinton Email ‘Investigation’ - mediaite.com

For all those Hillary Clinton opponents who have been hoping against hope that the likely Democratic presidential nominee will be indicted as a result of the FBI review of Hillary’s email server, CNN has some bad news. According to CNN correspondent Pamela Brown, the FBI is close to wrapping up the “investigation,” and thus far have found “no criminal wrongdoing”:

The interviews, we’re told, are focused on whether classified information was mishandled, and the security of the server. So far officials tell us, no, there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this point in the investigation, but, again, the investigation is not over.

It sounds like they’re really just waiting for Hillary Clinton to be interviewed so they can wrap things up, but if Republicans and Bernie Sanders and the media are counting on Hillary Clinton to suddenly crack under questioning, they haven’t been paying attention.

That's just a pet peeve of mine. In the end "investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law" will probably actually mean “no criminal wrongdoing,” but that's not what was actually, originally stated, by the official, as far as I can tell.

And so it goes.

Tags:

Abedin

Hillary Clinton

fbi

CNN

Vote

Comments

Submitted by OLinda on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 12:14am

Do you have to

willfully violate the law in order to violate the law? I don't think so.

Submitted by UnBlinkingEye on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 12:54am

Remember

Ignorance is no excuse?

Submitted by GreyWolf on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 12:59am

Yeah,

in a round-about way I was saying the 'official' had left the door open to criminal gross negligence. The Clinton News Network framed it as "no criminal wrongdoing" rather than "no intentional criminal wrongdoing" which I think would have been more accurate reporting.

Submitted by truehawk on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 2:21am

793 g Espionage act does not require intent.

Here is a pretty good summary of the emails and the law.
http://www.hlwegley.com/blog/the-hillary-brief.html

AND a pretty good article by Bloomberg about the never-ending hassle maintaining a secure server entails.

But there is more.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 3:01am

From your link

comprise a list of the primary violations of laws and executive orders allegedly committed by Hillary Clinton and her State Department staff while operating an email system outside of authorized networks, including possible violations committed during her attempted cover up.

Gross negligence in handling of information related to national defense
Knowingly removing classified information and retaining it at an unauthorized location
Perjury
Deliberate Violation of FOIA for 6 years
Public Corruption
Violation of the 2009 Federal Records Act
Violation of Executive Orders 13526 and 12333
These issues will be addressed by first examining Mrs. Clinton’s responsibilities to protect classified information as specified in the nondisclosure agreement she signed when she became Secretary of State. Then, the laws pertaining to each alleged violation will be examined followed by available evidence for her guilt.Evidence of Violation
Chapter 93, Section 1924 seems enough to send Hillary Clinton to prison, and it is very specific to her use of an unauthorized storage system, such as an email server. The use of the server has been documented sufficiently over the past year that no specific references will be provided other than her implicit acknowledgment of the server in the numerous articles referenced below.

B. The law regarding mishandling/transmitting defense information

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37 › § 793 Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (Paragraphs d, e, f, g)

The penalty described in Paragraph (6) of Section 793:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

—

Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?

Submitted by Sunspots on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 8:29am

"Its proper place of custody" seems pretty clear

The proper place of custody was not Hillary's basement. Normal people go to prison for that.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 8:27am

Don Siegelman still in prison for MUCH MUCH less

This country, it is insane, and the situation indicates a deepening of the madness. Until - what?

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by Sunspots on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 8:30am

Totally insane

Seems pretty close to any definition of evil I can come up with.

Submitted by MsGrin on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 6:23pm

Got to meet Siegelman at NN08 - told him he was my hero n/t

—

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

Submitted by 42 on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 8:37am

What if...

She had nothing to do (yea, right) with the server's placement in their basement, but it was all Bill's idea? Was it also used for Foundation business?

Submitted by Bisbonian on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 10:36am

It was used for email...any email...

that Hillary sent or received. It was used for Chelsea's wedding plans. It was all there mixed together.

—

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 2:24am

When I heard Dan Abrams, NBC News

Chief Legal Correspondent, interviewed on XM Radio, by show host and fellow attorney, Michael Smercomish, Abrams claimed that to be in violation of the protocal/rules pertaining to this matter, the FBI/Justice Department will have to be able to prove intent.

[Not certain what this emoticon symbolizes, but I get a kick out of it!]

Mollie

“If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.”--Charles Darwin

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 8:28am

Tornadoes have less spin than the Media n/t

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by UnBlinkingEye on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 8:34am

Intent

Since the server was set up in her basement, on her order, I think she intended to break the law.

I believe one of her campaign statements is "no one is too big to fail or too big to jail."

Ironic.

Submitted by Turbonerd on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 5:38pm

and finagled a position for

and finagled a position for her former campaign techie, Brian Pagliano, onto the State Dept. IT staff - as a political appointee, outside the normal organizational hierarchy. It's an unprecedented step. She absolutely intended that, since she directed it. Everything else that follows - classified/secret/top secret information being sent over that unsecured server, government emails being stored there in violation of record keeping laws - is the fruit of that original act.

That's not an isolated "oops, I made a mistake." That's willful action taken to avoid scrutiny.

—

You keep using that word...

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 9:05am

To me, intent

on the storage of records seems very clear. She had to sign the agreement that all personnel had to and that agreement pertained to the storage of records. The very fact that absolutely none of the emails were kept at the State Department shows a willful intent to subvert the records keeping protocols.

While I do not believe Clinton herself will be charged. I mean, a Democratic Administration charging the leading nominee for President? It ain't gonna happen. But what might happen is some of her staff may be charged with records violations. IMO, this IS a big deal because I truly believe the 30K+ emails that were deleted probably hold the smoking gun attached to her using her position at the State Department to enrich the Clinton Foundation and Clinton friends.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by UnBlinkingEye on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 9:24am

Obama and the Clintons

Hear they don't like each other much. Seems like a chance for Obama to redeem himself. I voted for him twice but to me he has been a disappointment. Maybe Hillary could get Martha's old cell ...

Submitted by neoconned on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 11:09am

Obama Can't Redeem Himself.

He is deeply controlled by the corporatocracy. Did you miss him drinking water in Flint to show the residents there that science is wrong about the harm lead in their water can cause? That man sold his soul to be president, and he can't back out of that deal now.

—

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

Submitted by dkmich on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 11:27am

His Flint visit was awful....

He was condescending as shit. Money would be no object if he had another chance to dispose another dictator.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by maggid on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 11:19pm

He should have drank Koolaid

made from Flint water, just to really make his point, and also cover up the bad taste.

i also remember him taking his family for a swim in the Gulf right after the BP spill. Who the hell controls his marionette strings??

—

The marriage between capitalism and democracy is over. –Slavoj Zizek

Submitted by Leu2500 on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 9:26am

She also sent an email

To all state employees, telling them not to use private email for state business because security.

I also seem to recall hearing that at least 1 state dept employee was punished for using his private email for work during her tenure.

But no, ms. JD, Yale had no idea what she was doing.

Submitted by hester on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 9:27am

nothing will happen to her, no matter what she has done

A lot of the reading /parsing involves "willful" intent. I'm thinking the gov't, it's 'established' institutions are a sham.

Sorry I'm sick to my stomach (figuratively) reading about TTIP, Koch brother statement about possible $hillary endorsement and then this from Counterpunch

To the political inconvenience of said establishment Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Koch’s endorsement has content behind it. His charge (link above) is that establishment Democrats have the softer touch needed in present circumstance to sell Conservative policies like deregulation of industry and fiscal austerity. As Bill Clinton, whose policies Mr. Koch preferred to those of George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have demonstrated— it is socially liberal Democrats who have been the better proponents of Wall Street’s neo-capitalist takeover precisely because they accomplish with stealth economic policies what Republicans attempt more straightforwardly through politics.

and then this about the Panama papers.It's just too much for me to swallow anymore.

—

Don't believe everything you think.

Submitted by Miss SPED on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 10:05am

Will Huma go to prison for HRC?

Wonder if her prison nickname will be "Patsy." At least, the nickname repeatable in mixed company.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 5:00pm

Carlita Danger

weiner abedin.jpg

—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Submitted by Miss SPED on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 4:45pm

(No subject)

Submitted by Deja on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 4:52pm

So this is what happens when

someone deletes a comment?

Or is it being edited and the (no subject) shows up while that happens?

Submitted by JuliaW on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 10:43am

Reuters has more (FYI the original link had "interrogate" vs

"Interview"-the Kiinton flying monkeys must have complained) And boyhowdy doesn't the spokesman reaction just scream "what's the definition of 'is'"??:

"The timeline in the CNN report appeared to contradict answers Clinton gave in an interview on Tuesday, in which she told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that neither she nor her representatives had yet been contacted by the FBI.
Asked about this, Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon suggested the definition of words Mitchell used in her question were open to interpretation.
"What does representatives mean to you, sir?" he said in an email, but declined to elaborate."

Submitted by Damnit Janet on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 10:47am

I'll try that

But officer, I didn't INTEND to accidentally run the red light.

I expect nothing less from Ms 1%.

—

"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

Submitted by neoconned on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 11:05am

How Minitru Works

The corporate media twist the language until the public understands what is intended, not what is.

—

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

Submitted by dkmich on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 11:31am

If Bush/Cheney and the bankers

could totally escape prosecution, there is no doubt in my mind that Hillary will skate. We make Syria, Turkey and Somalia look good. Once upon a time, leaving the country was all you had to do. Now, they own the planet.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by featheredsprite on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 11:45am

I saw a comment somewhere yesterday

If an unemployed Romanian[?] taxi driver got into Hillary's emails, so did China.

—

Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 11:51am

Probably true, and the Chinese are smart enuf to keep mum

and to have left no traces. The Romanian had already gotten caught peeping on other people's servers, which means he was rather careless.

The Chinese know what they know, and we don't know what they know. And they like it that way.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 2:16pm

Whoa, Nellie! ;-D Seriously,

perhaps I should have gone on to explain that I am on the side of seeing charges brought against FSC, and have believed that there were grounds to do so, since at least Spring of 2015.

As an aside, I am a retired federal bureaucrat, who's held a security clearance since before my Civil Service career. I was with a think tank in the metro D.C. area, which required the initial security clearance. Most of my career was with DOD, except for several years with a federal civilian agency. Bottom line--I take this type of infraction quite seriously. If I had done something like this, it wouldn't surprise me but what I'd still be wearing 'fashionable black stripes!'

Here are my words from a March 10, 2015 comment (C99P):

I'm gobsmacked! No wonder she has dodged this
for days.

Lanny Davis apparently presented her precise excuse: "convenience."

BTW, Andrea Mitchell just asked a question, so obviously, reporters got in (other than UN reporters).

All she'll admit to, is "I did it for convenience, and now looking back, think that it might have been smarter to not have done this."

and, she added,

"Regarding future issues, I trust the American People to make judgments. And I look forward to having a discussion about that."

Asked why she deleted all the emails?

She saw no reason to keep them, because they were "personal and private."

I can't imagine this ending well for her.

As one reporter said, she was trying to appeal to the "goodwill" of the American Public.

To make it clear--FSC has just informed the nation that she deleted the emails that she did not turn over.

"Trust me," is what one reporter just summed up as her message. (Money and Politics Reporter, Tom Hamburger, WaPo?) . . .

Since then, I've made scores of additional comments, both here and at C99P, along the same lines.

Hey, I posted this comment mid-morning, and probably should have clarified my stance on this issue--my bad!

Anyhoo, I can't find a podcast of Abrams' interview on XM Radio, but I've provided links to his legal analysis.

Of course, intent in the legal sense, is a bit different from the lay meaning.

Here's an excerpt from Black's Law Dictionary:

What is INTENT?

1. In criminal law and the law of evidence. Purpose; formulated design ; a resolve to do or forbear a particular act; aim; determination. In its literal sense, the stretching of the mind or will towards a particular object. . “Intent” expresses mental action at its most advanced point, or as it actually accompanies an outward, corporal act which has been determined on- Intent shows the presence of will in the act which consummates a crime. It is ‘the exercise of intelligent will, the mind being fully aware of the nature and consequences of the act which is about (o be done, and with such knowledge, and with full liberty of action, willing and electing to do it. Burrill, Circ. Ev. 284. and notes.

[The Law Dictionary ]

It is my understanding that this is 'why' it may be difficult to make a case stick against FSC.

I'm 'guessing' that her attorneys will argue that she was NOT "fully aware of the nature and consequences of the act which is about (to be done, and with such knowledge, and with full liberty of action, willing and electing to do it."

The operative word being 'fully.'

But, I haven't given up all hope.

Here are the links [below] to two pieces that Abrams posted at Law Newz. I believe that it was the first piece that I heard him discuss with Smercomish.

Trump is Wrong, Hillary Clinton Shouldn’t Be Charged Based on What We Know Now
by Dan Abrams | 10:51 am, January 29th, 2016

Sorry But There Still Isn’t Enough to Prosecute Hillary Clinton
by Dan Abrams | 10:19 am, April 5th, 2016

Thanks for the replies. Have a good one!

Mollie

Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.--Lao Tzu

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by GreyWolf on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 2:46pm

Well, I'm seriously confused ;->

Since then, I've made scores of additional comments, both here and at C99P, along the same lines.
Hey, I posted this comment mid-morning, and probably should have clarified my stance on this issue--my bad!

Did you intend this comment to be in response to another comment, or the article?
Did you intend this comment to be here, at C99, or someplace else?
You seem quite upset about something, but you are going to have to slow down and tell me what that is that is upsetting you.

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 3:50pm

Hey, GW--not in the least (upset). That's why the 'smiley'

and 'seriously' at the beginning of my comment.

(IOW, I was just teasing when I used the strong interjection.)

I simply wanted to expound on my very brief comment made this morning, when I was too tired to look up Abrams' articles in order to provides links, etc.

I often write comments as long as posts, including excerpts from various resources, links, etc. If anything, my comments are usually overly long-winded. Just ask Joe at Evening Blues.

There were three direct replies, but none were controversial (to me). Now, two of the folks I'm not very familiar with, so I wasn't sure that they would know where I was coming from--meaning, whether I was agreeing with Abrams, or not. But Nancy knows my views on this very well, and we're on the same page.

Heck, I very much enjoyed your post. I was so into this topic at one time, that I listened to months of the State Department Briefings (on XM Radio), and often posted on this email debacle.

You know, more than once in early 2015, I was accused of being a CT nut, because I thought that her actions warranted a serious reprimand/rebuke--if not something more serious.

So, if anything, I'm pleased that people care about this issue. I had to quit posting about it at DKos, the attacks became so vicious.

Absolutely, 'no harm, no foul.'

I hope you're not upset with me!

Mollie

“If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.”
--Charles Darwin

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by KnotIookin on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 3:01pm

Was Huma put under oath?

Will HRC be put under oath?

—

Orwell was an optimist

Submitted by dennis1958 on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 3:33pm

Lying to an FBI agent is a crime, so.. it don't matter

This is why Martha Stewart went to jail.

—

With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU

Submitted by KnotIookin on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 4:48pm