The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured e-mail account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.
The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.
“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.
“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”
Usually this administration blocks any and all inquiries into what illegalities it has participated in. Could this be Obama working behind the scenes to hole Hillary below the waterline without having his fingerprints on it?
To clarify, that would be Rupert Murdoch’s daily tabloid birdcage liner, the New York Post, not to be confused with an actual newspaper.
What the FBI is investigating is the security of Clinton’s server and the security of a thumb drive containing duplicate copies of her email that is in the possession of her attorney, David Kendall. Hillary Clinton herself is not under investigation.
@Greg: The NYT reported the same thing before the Clinton campaign made them drop the “criminal” part.
Strike two.
The NYT didn’t change the story because the Clinton campaign made them change it. They changed it because what they originally said was wrong. They’ve been called out for their error, and for the inadequate manner in which corrections to the story were made:
A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next?
Greg of course as usual references a political opinion piece rather than linking to the actual NYT Editor’s Note to whit:
The report was not “wrong” as Greg claims, the Justice Department later changed the their classification of what kind of investigation was going on. There was no reporter error, it’s the typical cya/cover-up “Move along, nothing to see here,” obstruction that this corrupt administration and it’s politicized “Justice” Department has followed since day one.
The initial report that a criminal investigation is underway was wrong. The Justice Department and the Inspector General have clearly stated that no criminal investigation is underway.
The opinion piece was a criticism of how the New York Times had jumped on and run with the initial report without first checking their source’s story at higher levels, and of their subsequent lame “clarifications,” which were more about making excuses for their blunder than publicly acknowledging it.
Not everyone has been so kind to them as the Op Ed piece that appeared in their own publication. This is what The Atlantic had to say:
The New York Times’ Botched Story on Hillary Clinton
@Greg:
No, the initial report was CHANGED, at Hillary’s request (demand).
Liberals help liberals.
@Bill:
Exactly.
A correction will fall under the general category of a change. Apparently you would prefer to stick with an inaccurate initial report that suits your purposes.
I’ve seen the pattern before. The Obama Administration’s initial appraisal that events in Benghazi were most likely the outgrowth of the same sort of angry-demonstrations-turned-violent that were happening all across the Middle East were quickly changed when additional information came in. The right fixated on the initial appraisal, insisting it remained the administration’s current position long after Benghazi had been acknowledged as a terrorist attack.
To everyone outside the right-wing misinformation bubble, the fixation looks nonsensical.
@Greg: In this case, it seems to be an INcorrection. In other words, propaganda.
@Greg:
“Quickly changed” my ass. It took weeks for the administration to finally admit what the military and political right knew all along. That the Benghazi compound terrorist assault wasn’t spontaneous response to a YouTube video, but that it was a premeditated attack. Your revisionist history storytelling has no basis in reality. Why don’t you try relying on the truth for a change?
@Ditto, #11:
Obama, in a televised comments regarding the Benghazi attack from the Rose Garden on September 12, 2012:
And at a campaign event in Las Vegas on September 13, 2012:
And in another speech given at Golden, Colorado, later the same day:
What “act of terror” do you imagine he was referring to, during the days immediately following the Benghazi attack? Maybe the terror reference was a bit too vague for those with a vacuum between their ears. It was almost as though they wanted to be vague.
There might have been a reason why the administration wasn’t entirely forthcoming straight out of the gate. I can think of one explanation: The Benghazi attack wasn’t really about a diplomatic mission. The attack was on a covert CIA operation. Only 7 of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi following the attack had State Department connections. The other 23 were working for or affiliated with the CIA. Benghazi was a CIA operation. The diplomatic mission was cover for it. That isn’t the sort of thing you want to go public while you’re still trying to limit the damages.
Not that the right would care about such complexities or considerations. All their beady little eyes were focused on was a politically exploitable situation that landed in their laps weeks before a presidential election, which they proceeded to play for everything it was worth.
Perhaps I had better stop at this point. I suspect my contempt may be showing.
@Greg:
You are so behind the information curve. Or, simply willfully ignorant.
The administration knew, we now know, in real time that this was a coordinated terror attack. They KNEW it was NEVER anything related to the stupid, weak-ass video excuse. They simply LIED in order not to embarrass themselves (while others died) during a campaign in which they had been touting how defeated al Qaeda was at the hands of the great and powerful Obama.
Obama made broad references to terror in anticipation of that stupid attempt to blame the attack on the video breaking down. Can you explain why they sent the designated liar Susan Rice out on the talk-show circuit to explain that the attack was due to the video? Or even Hillary telling those who lost loved ones that they would punish those connected with the video; LYING to them at the funeral of their loved ones?
Silly and weak, Greg.