FBI offers second secret filing in Clinton email suit

The FBI is offering a federal judge a second secret glimpse into the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server.

The Justice Department asked a federal judge Monday to accept "additional details" under seal about how the FBI conducted its search for records a Vice News journalist requested under the Freedom of Information Act from the law enforcement agency about the probe it is conducting into Clinton's email set-up and how classified information came to reside in the Democratic presidential candidate's account.

This is in response to a VICE news (not Judicial Watch) FOIA lawsuit regarding the FBIs investigation.

politico

The details of the declaration pertain, in part, to the bureau's search for documents about Clinton's server and how the public release of the records could harm the FBI's investigation, Justice Department lawyers wrote, seeking dismissal of VICE News' lawsuit.

This is the second time the FBI has filed a document under seal:

In March, government lawyers submitted a classified filing in the lawsuit brought by Vice News reporter Jason Leopold seeking various details about the case, including the contents of Clinton's server which was turned over to the FBI last August.

The FBI countered that

... "the FBI is not required to identify a particular federal statute that it alleges has been violated in connection with the pending investigation, or the target(s) of the investigation, to meet the ... threshold" for withholding documents compiled for law enforcement purposes.

In the latest court filing, government attorneys would only say that the FBI "is working on a referral from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State in connection with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server." The referral was "a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes," and the investigation is "being conducted under the FBI's assigned law enforcement authorities."

Further reasoning for the FBI's:

"As this is an active and ongoing investigation, the FBI is continuing to assess the evidentiary value of any materials retrieved for the investigation from any such server equipment/related devices," the filing said. "Disclosure of evidence, potential evidence, or information that has not yet been assessed for evidentiary value while the investigation is active and ongoing could reasonably be expected to undermine the pending investigation by prematurely revealing its scope and focus."

VICE News

Case No.15-cv-02117 (direct .pdf link to filing hosted @ politico)

This is the FBI asking to judge to accept information in secret as to the details of why VICE News FOIA lawsuit should be dismissed.

They're still lining up their ducks or this is being drug out for other purposes.

I'm so happy to hear that this investigation is still active and ongoing in spite of there being very little information available regarding the proceedings. I thought Clinton might be very close to an indictment a couple of weeks ago. Although I'm very disappointed that she hasn't been indicted yet, I feel they may be amassing incontrovertible evidence that will allow her no way out after an indictment is finally made.

If they believe they have enough to charge her, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. If they plan to "go up against" the Clinton machine, they're gonna have to have as close to an absolutely airtight case as it's humanly possible to get, and keeping information about the investigation from getting out prematurely would be part of that.

It's certainly an interesting development, to say the least.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I totally agree. That's why the entire process is so secretive and is taking so long. It has got to be an infallible, airtight indictment, with little to no legal recourse.

And when you say 'Clinton machine'... man, just look at the voter fraud in the Democratic primaries -- it is rampant, from state to state.

When they do finally hit her, it won't just be about emails, I can tell you that!

a reply to: antoinemarionette

Agreed, if you listen to the Clinton spin, the investigation is almost over and they're in the clear because "no willful wrongdoing has been found."

Here is some other spin:

Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman, told us that even though the IG report contradicts Clinton’s past statements, that “doesn’t make her statements untruthful.” He said Clinton, who declined to be interviewed by the inspector general’s staff, “believed — past tense” that her use of a private server was allowed, that it was no different than Powell using a commercial email account to conduct government business. She no longer believes that, he said, although she continues to say — as she did in an ABC News interview on May 26 after the IG report came out — that the use of personal email was allowed.

“It did not occur to her that having it on a personal server could be so distinct that it would be unapproved,” Fallon said. “We’re not intending to say post the IG report that her server was allowed. We don’t contest that. We’re saying … the use of personal email was widespread.”

Factcheck.org

She is claiming she didn't know it wasn't allowed at the time and she just assumed it would be ok 'since everyone else was doing it.'

Since the FBI is investigating this as counterintelligence, perhaps we could look at some other cases under this category for an idea as to why they are looking at Hillary's use of a private server due to "a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes:"

The FBI has been investigating cases of foreign counterintelligence since its earliest days. The following is a sample of some major counterintelligence and economic espionage cases the FBI has helped investigate. In general, the cases are listed chronologically by the year the prime suspect was arrested.

Summaries of most of these cases can be found below.

2015

- Mostafa Ahmed Awwad

2013

- Bryan Underwood

2012

- Stewart David Nozette

2011

- Kexue Huang
- Elliot Doxer

2010

- Walter Kendall Myers and Gwendolyn Myers
- Ten Russian Agents in U.S. (Ghost Stories)

2009

- Harold & Nathaniel Nicholson | Harold Nicholson sentencing

2008

- Hassan Abujihaad/Paul R. Hall
- Dongfan “Greg” Chung, Gregg William Bergersen

2007

- Najib Shemami
- Sami Khoshaba Latchin (Arrested in 2004)

2006

- Xiaodong Sheldon Meng Conviction

2005

- Noshir S. Gowadia | Sentencing
- Leandro Aragoncillo | Michael Ray Aquino
- Lawrence Franklin

2004

- Kenneth Wayne Ford
- Donald W. Keyser

2001

- Robert P. Hanssen
- Ana Belen Montes
- Brian P. Regan

2000

- George Trofimoff
- Mariano Faget

1999

- Jean-Philippe Wispelaere

1998

- La Red Avispa or The Cuban Spy Ring

1997

- Kurt Alan Stand, Therese Marie Squillacote, and James Michael Clark
- Ten Hong Lee and Taiwan’s Four Pillars

1996

- Robert Stephan Lipka
- Earl Edwin Pitts

1994

- Aldrich Ames

1993

- Steven John Lalas

1988

- James Hall III
- Douglas Tsou

1986

- Edward Lee Howard
- Vladimir M. Ismaylov
- Clayton John Lonetree

1985

Because of a series of high profile espionage arrests, the press dubbed 1985 “the Year of the Spy.”That spring, the John Walker Spy Ring—John Walker, Jerry Whitworth, Arthur Walker, and Michael Walker—was arrested for passing classified material to the Soviet Union. On November 21, Navy intelligence analyst Jonathan Jay Pollard was arrested for spying for Israel. On November 23, Larry Wu-Tai Chin, a former CIA analyst, was arrested on charges of spying for the People’s Republic of China since 1952. On November 25, former National Security Agency employee Ronald William Pelton, was arrested for selling military secrets to the Soviets. CIA employee Sharon Marie Scranage and boyfriend Michael Soussoudis were arrested in July for passing material to Ghanian intelligence.

1984

- Thomas Cavanagh
- Karl Frantisek Koecher
- Richard W. Miller and Svetlana and Nikolai Ogorodnikov

1983

- James Durwood Harper

1981

- William Holden Bell and Marian Zacharski

1978

- Valdik Enger and Rudolf Chernyayev
- William Kampiles
- Ronald Humphrey and David Truong

1977

- Christopher John Boyce and Andrew Daulton Lee

1972

- “Sergey Viktorovich Petrov”

1954

- Maksim Martynov

1950

- Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

1946

- Teodore Erdmann Erich Lau/Ludwig Spy Ring

1944

- Velvalee Dickinson | Byte Out of History

1943

- Vasilli Zubilin

1942

- George John Dasch and Nazis
- Anastase A. Vonsiatsky

1941

- Duquesne Spy Ring

1938

- Guenther Rumrich and Nazi spy ring

Counterintelligence Cases Past and Present

I wonder what Hillary's entry will say?

I have read a few articles on this secret or sealed filing, I liked this one as it is simple and to the point:

FBI refuses to release emails about its Clinton email investigation

FBI officials refused to release a pair of emails between investigators and employees at the Department of State, telling a federal judge Monday evening that revealing any details about the correspondence could "compromise" its investigation.

The filing marked the second time the law enforcement agency has sought to keep information about its probe secret in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Vice News. The lawsuit is seeking records from Hillary Clinton's private server.

Attorneys for the Justice Department offered to submit "additional details" about the FBI sweep of Clinton's server, but only if the court agreed to keep them under seal.

source

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Love this statement !!!

Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman, told us that even though the IG report contradicts Clinton’s past statements, that “doesn’t make her statements untruthful.”

They expect people to believe that too !!!

This doesn't mean much. All this means is that they are not willing to release certain information because they are still conducting the investigation and do not want to compromise it.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It's the FBI telling vice news to go whistle up a rope lol.

a reply to: introvert

Yes, but the good news is that the investigation is still ongoing, implying that they are still amassing a case against Clinton and it has not reached its final outcome - which ultimately I hope, is an indictment.

originally posted by: antoinemarionette
a reply to: introvert

Yes, but the good news is that the investigation is still ongoing, implying that they are still amassing a case against Clinton and it has not reached its final outcome - which ultimately I hope, is an indictment.

It does not imply that they are amassing a case against Clinton. It implies they are still investigating.

a reply to: introvert

Maybe it's just me, but I just have a feeling, that if they had anything that showed her as being "innocent", it would have been leaked, somehow.

I don't care if she is indited actually. Just not our next president. That would be enough.

a reply to: chiefsmom

By looking at past cases similar to this, there had to be some very serious elements involved for an indictment to take place. So far it does not appear that there was anything serious enough regarding Hillary's case that would lead to an indictment.

President Obama controls the Attorney General.

The Attorney General controls the DOJ.

The DOJ determines if there will be an indictment.

President Obama has said publicly she has done nothing wrong.

The FBI is dragging this out to be able to say "we tried", but in the end it will amount to nothing.

Wishing for an indictment against the Democrat frontrunner in an election year with a Democrat President and an Attorney General that used to work for the candidate is the biggest pipedream I've ever heard of.

It didn't matter that it was obvious that Clinton did nothing wrong regarding Benghazi ... nine Republican investigations later, millions of dollars wasted, no finding of fault, again, and again and again. Yet, that still doesn't matter because

BENGHAZI!!

gets chanted like a war cry against Clinton even today.

It won't make any difference when the FBI reveals that it has made the most thorough investigation of this "matter" in its history, that there will be pages and pages of direct testimony, findings of fact, etc. that clearly demonstrate that Clinton, while making some silly choices (not unlike her two predecessors) regarding emails has certainly broken no laws ...

None of that will matter because

EMAILS!!!
BENGHAZI!!!
BOSNIA!!!
WHITEWATER!!!

We might as well get used to this nonsense from the Republicans, because they're not going to change ... until nobody listens to them anymore.

a reply to: Gryphon66


When the next American gets caught with 1200 classified documents will you let that slide as a "silly mistake", or is Clinton just a one off?

This has ramifications beyond your team in the WH (I know, you don't have a team), but it has ramifications beyond your team getting into the WH.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you know the difference between SIPRNet, NIPRNet, and JWICS? Have you ever held a clearance?

People that have, and have read some of the redacted emails that have been released (including their redaction codes) see in complete clarity that indeed laws were broken.

Now, the question really will be if Hillary is in a protected class and she gets pardoned / DOJ doesn't indict, or some of her staffers go down hard (which would be my guess, while she claims ignorance). I may be wrong in that, but I can't know exactly what the FBI has, only what has been released so far and my knowledge of the proper storage of classified information.

There is no way that information could have gotten to Clinton's private, non-NSA approved server from JWICS without someone committing a felony and copying the info off of one computer and emailing it to her on another, or printing it out and removing said info from a secure location to send to her.

Here is an example of marine sending one email from his personal email address in which he conveyed classified information:

In 2012, Brezler sent an email from his personal account about Sarwar Jan, a police chief who had recently arrived at Forward Operating Base Delhi, whom he had kicked off another Marine installation two years prior for alleged unethical behavior.

Seventeen days after Brezler sent the email, a boy working as Sarwar’s personal servant killed three Marines at FOB Delhi: Staff Sgt. Scott Dickinson, 29, Cpl. Richard Rivera, 20, and Lance Cpl. Greg Buckley, 21.

After being investigated for sending classified information from his personal email account, a board of inquiry recommended that Brezler be discharged. A Navy official upheld the board’s decision in November.

Marine officer accused of mishandling classified info, trying to revive career

I wonder if his lawyer is pointing to Hillary's email server which contained thousands of classified emails as justification to have his conviction and discharge overturned?

Here is another example:

This was, “open source information, no longer subject to national defense information [rules],” Youngner argued before the preliminary hearing officer Cmdr. Bruce Gregor.
“Does open source information really meet that test?”

Government lawyers argued just because classified information is available publicly, doesn’t mean that it’s unclassified. Under military law, service members accessing classified information available publicly are still subject to the same penalties for mishandling information that remains under government control.

Navy: Accused Spy Edward Lin Gave Secret Information to FBI Informant

Here is a company that contracts to the government to dispose of classified documents. Someone had accidentally mixed documents with classification markings among other documents without markings. All documents were scheduled for destruction, but were to have been segregated into proper areas.

No compromise of classified information was suspected, but they were still charged:

The letter cited three violations — one Severity Level I and two Severity Level II — and proposed a fine of $240,000, but the NNSA waived the fine because of B&W’s response to the problems and because the contractor had already been penalized with loss of fee in its annual performance evaluation. Security Level I is defined as violations of classified information security requirements with “actual or high potential for adverse impact on the national security.” Level II violations “represent lack of attention or carelessness” in protection of classified information.

NNSA nails former Y-12 contractor for mishandling of classified documents; three violations issued, but proposed $240K penalty waived

Hillary is head and shoulders above the incidences referenced above.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you know the difference between SIPRNet, NIPRNet, and JWICS? Have you ever held a clearance?

People that have, and have read some of the redacted emails that have been released (including their redaction codes) see in complete clarity that indeed laws were broken.

Now, the question really will be if Hillary is in a protected class and she gets pardoned / DOJ doesn't indict, or some of her staffers go down hard (which would be my guess, while she claims ignorance). I may be wrong in that, but I can't know exactly what the FBI has, only what has been released so far and my knowledge of the proper storage of classified information.

There is no way that information could have gotten to Clinton's private, non-NSA approved server from JWICS without someone committing a felony and copying the info off of one computer and emailing it to her on another, or printing it out and removing said info from a secure location to send to her.

No, I don't have a security clearance. Your implication is that you do. I defer to your knowledge on that score.

This is what I know. No illegal act that Hillary R. Clinton has ever been accused of has been proven. Now, of course, it could be that she is "in a protected class" or it could be, as with Benghazi, she's done nothing wrong and this whole matter is politically motivated.

I guess we'll be able to determine the facts from the FBI's extensive report, which I'm sure will address some of the technical details that you are aware of that I am not.

But it doesn't matter what the facts are ... Clinton will always be accused of wrong-doing by her political enemies.

Neither that, nor your knowledge of security clearances, makes her guilty.

If she is guilty, she needs to be indicted, tried, charged and punished as anyone else would be.

But the odds seem to be in her favor, given the past, at the moment.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I would agree with your assessment for the most part. I don't have a skin in this game as far as hillary v trump and just hope that the FBI and justice is fair here when it's all said and done.

Just wanted to add the only skin you could say I have in this game is how different people are treated in the Gov depending on how high up they are on the political totem pole (goes for dem appointed or rep appointed).

It's a huge pain in the butt to have to spend 9 hours of your work day in a secure area without sunlight and make sure you lock everything up and are very aware of what you tell friends / family about work your whole career then have someone flaunt a lot of these rules that can put career folks at risk.

I hope once we all have a complete picture people on either side of the argument can come to some factual / agreeable conclusions.

With that being said, I'm voting libertarian anyway so the big picture as a whole is still (imho) broken.