{"id":256957,"date":"2016-07-20T11:33:20","date_gmt":"2016-07-20T11:33:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/hillary-clinton-her-email-and-a-body-blow-to-the-freedom-of-information-act-2\/"},"modified":"2016-07-20T16:00:23","modified_gmt":"2016-07-20T16:00:23","slug":"hillary-clinton-her-email-and-a-body-blow-to-the-freedom-of-information-act-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/latest-news\/hillary-clinton-her-email-and-a-body-blow-to-the-freedom-of-information-act-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Hillary Clinton, Her Email and a Body Blow to the Freedom of Information Act"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey announced that his agency is recommending no charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of an unclassified personal email server while secretary of state. Comey offered that \u201cno reasonable prosecutor\u201d would bring a case against Clinton.<\/p>\n

The implications of these statements, and what happened before and after the announcement, represent what most likely represent the virtual end of the 2016 election cycle. Come November votes will be counted but the single, major, unresolved issue standing in the shadows behind Clinton is now resolved in her favor.<\/p>\n

The director of the FBI labeled the leading contender for the presidency and her staff as \u201cextremely careless\u201d in their use of email, and this is generally seen as positive news by her supporters, the new standard now being not under indictment. Comey also stated that some 110 emails were classified<\/a> ( at least 24 as Top Secret<\/a>; one was found to be marked classified<\/a> on Clinton\u2019s server) when they were transmitted and received, an action that appears to be now inconsequential under national security laws. A New York Times tally found more than 2,000 classified<\/a> emails.<\/p>\n

There was no electronic connection between the Federal government\u2019s classified systems and Clinton\u2019s unclassified server. This indicates that on 110 separate occasions Clinton and\/or one of her correspondents retyped information from a classified format. This means any classified markings (i.e., \u201cTop Secret\u201d) were removed in the process. \u201cThis classified information never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system,\u201d Steve Linick, the State Department inspector general, said<\/a> in a statement signed by him and I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community.<\/p>\n

The Inspectors General for the Intelligence Community have stated that some of the classified documents were marked at the highest levels to protect sources and methods<\/a> used to spy on North Korea via satellite. Emails contained the names of CIA officials<\/a>. There is no evidence, nor did Comey suggest, that these actions were inadvertent, accidental, occasional, incidental, or other than intentional. It was Clinton\u2019s decision to create the email system that allowed these events to take place. Clinton herself, given her decades of experience in government, clearly could recognize highly classified material, marked or unmarked. Standard Form 312, signed by Clinton and every other security clearance holder in the government, specifically notes that the laws apply to both marked and unmarked<\/a> classified material. The legality of retroactive classification<\/a> has been tested<\/a> at the level of the Supreme Court.)<\/p>\n

While Director Comey maintains there was no intent, or gross negligence, by Clinton to violate the law, it is difficult to reconcile those actions and that statement.<\/p>\n

Hillary Clinton\u2019s earliest statements, that no classified information traversed her server,…<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey announced that his agency is recommending no charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of an unclassified personal email server while secretary of state. Comey offered that \u201cno reasonable prosecutor\u201d would bring a case against Clinton. The implications of these statements, and what happened before and after the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[519,18],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-256957","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-newswire","7":"category-latest-news"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256957","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=256957"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256957\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256957"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}