It's unfortunate the FBI weren't tapping phones amongst those who were exchanging emails/texts/PMs. Given what these folks do for a living, they'll be well aware that without wiretaps their discussions are undiscoverable. Of course, they were very reckless in their written communications but if texts stated "call me", or "calling you to discuss", the conversations would likely provide more details about their gameplan.

From everything I have read, 193 emails contained classified information when they written, not retroactively classified. The retroactive classification pertained to about 2,000 more emails. I haven’t heard that anyone has claimed that they were OPSEC related. And, while there is no doubt that information can be found on the web that is classified, that in no way excuses someone with access to classified to not handle that same classified information properly. For example, some of the SAP information that was in the emails has been surmised to be information on drone operations, which is then usually brushed off as no big deal because everybody knows about drone operations. Except that, when the SoS talks about drone ops, now that is confirmation of the ops and possibly certain capabilities. And I find it impossible to believe that Hillary, after having been briefed into a SAP, wouldn’t recognize SAP info when she saw it.

Coming from a person who has not only read many SCGs but authored one.

ETA: Why would it matter if was OPSEC related? That info is classified for a reason. If that was indeed the case, then Hillary was not only putting herself at risk, but her team and security detail. If that was part of the 193 emails, I don’t see how that absolves her of anything.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

I still continue to believe that the lead FBI agent on the team put together to investigate the Clinton emails (and the Trump-Russia matter, which is still being examined by the IG, Horowitz), Peter Strzok, was just being a blowhard and trying to impress his mistress Lisa Page, with the below comment, in regards to Page seeking reassurance from him that Trump would never become president.

I have to believe that, because if he really was serious, and was intent on stopping the election of Donald Trump however he could, then we have a deeply rooted sickness at the FBI and DOJ. How dare they take sides. How dare they think they're above the people, as well as the election process. I wasn't happy with the outcome, either (and would've been equally unhappy had Clinton won), but that's the way things work in elections in the U.S. sometimes. Government officials, whether politically appointed or career, aren't supposed to act that way. EVER.

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page wrote to Strzok.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok replied.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

nevertheless, it was a binary choice, in practice, wasn't it?

so, a couple of things. first, maybe you'll sit out the election and maybe you won't. nobody will know but you... and fancy bear ;-)

second, i've been the really boring party pooping designated driver here for the last couple of years, exhorting you to trust the process. comey used his best judgment. which turned out to be flawed. i blame him, but i only half blame him, because both clinton and trump placed him in an unprecedented situation, and the body politic did not help. we all have some culpability with our hyperpartisanship, sitting on the edge of our seats ready to declare civil war if comey doesn't decide in a way that comports with our sense of fairness.

comey apparently did get it right when he chose not to charge clinton, and i'm sure a good number of folks disagree with that, choosing to praise the IG system when it suits them, but not when it doesn't.

the reason there is still a clear binary choice is that trump and his trumpists belong to a cult of personality, that is transactional and glandular in its governance rather than wedded to the rule of law. there is no equality when it comes to adherence to the rule of law, there is no pox on both their houses. don't try to drag the democrats and the sensible republicans (or ex republicans) down to the level of the trumpists.

sit out the midterms of you want (i will be voting); either way, the IG's report ought to uplift you, not depress you, because we have an IG report! your attachment should be to those who still value the rule of law, and processes that have stood the test of time. those folks will be represented on ballots across america this november.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I haven’t fully read the IG report yet, but I don’t think it says that Comey “got it right” in not charging Hillary. What it says is that they didn’t find that political bias influenced his decision. In fact, I’m pretty sure that this report is most definitely not going to say whether Hillary should have been charged or not; this report was really just about how the FBI handled the case. If you can show me where I’m wrong on this, please do so.

That being said, I agree with you that we should take heart in the fact that our government has the capacity to examine itself and try to learn from such episodes. We as a country make mistakes, but it seems to me that we eventually learn from those mistakes and try and make things better.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

High-minded words to describe a group of people -- on both sides of the aisle -- that are slimy, sleazy, avaricious and oleaginous at best, sir. That aptly describes BOTH of the two major parties' candidates in 2016 and I don't think much has changed since then, in terms of the quality emanating from either party.

Nothing is ever going to change unless wholesale changes are made, something I don't honestly believe will happen unless things become quite a bit more painful for the electorate, sad to say.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

The report is completely about the handling of the Clinton emails and investigation of such. It makes no determination -- nor should it -- as to whether anyone "got it right" or "got it wrong" in regards to any charging decision made about Hillary Clinton. As you correctly note, it makes determinations about Comey's actions, however. And his actions were found wanting, in some respects to a serious degree. The IG also characterizes Loretta Lynch as "weak." There's little doubt of the truth of that, given she let her subordinate, James Comey, make charging decisions and judgment calls he had neither the competence to make nor the authority. Those decisions belonged to Lynch, and she appears to have not had the fortitude nor common sense to rein Comey in.

Lastly, the FBI and DOJ, as institutions, have serious issues, judging by the IG's descriptions of both organizations' actions regarding the investigation of Clinton and her email server and classified materials handling practices. Just the manifest leaking by people in the FBI, as described by the IG, should be a great concern to the citizenry.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

   My understanding is that Comey may have been right in his recommendation, but it should have been just that. Not his decision to make, and his recommendation should have gone to Lynch, or barring that, to Sally Yates.

fair enough. just, there are a few direct quotes beyond simply the finding that comey's team did not inject politics into its decision not to charge clinton. their charging decisions were "not unreasonable" and "were supported by fbi policy and practice."

what i fear is that we are on the precipice of losing our ability to self-examine, self-reflect, self-improve. bear in mind, this current administration did not pressure, harass, threaten, or seek to derail this IG investigation, which took a year and a half, because this investigation did not directly impact trump or those close to him (and was in trump's interest). it would be nice if trump and his adherents honored the investigative process regardless of the potential impact on him.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

yeah. i think that was the finding of the IG report if i understand it. as i recall, lynch sort of half-assed recused herself, which the IG report also faulted. so, that left comey (in his mind) to make the decision. but i think you're right, maybe it just then falls to the deputy AG.

still, we had a lengthy, heated thread on this, at the time, and what was argued (i recall) is that the FBI shouldn't even make a recommendation. it should just present the case to prosecutors. obviously the IG didn't think this so, based on what i'm reading. rather, that the FBI was right to offer conclusions, charging guidance, but that it shouldn't have made the ultimate decision on whether to charge. at least that's how i'm reading it.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Just my opinion, but just as big of deal as the server itself was the destroying of emails after a subpoena had been issued.

Not to lessen what Hillary did -- and I'm in both camps here in this thread on the matter; possibly criminal, definitely STUPID -- but I think the person who comes out of this report as the most damaged is, like I've said previously, James Comey. From reading the report, the then-FBI Director...


1. Concluded by Spring 2016 -- before she or any of her people had been interviewed -- that he'd let Clinton off the hook, well before the July 2016 press conference where he announced no charges would be pressed (not that he even had the authority to make such a determination).

2. Watered down his draft statement as to Clinton's actions in the email matter. His original statement said that Hillary had been "grossly negligent," a phrase that carried with it the very real possibility of legal jeopardy. That was subsequently changed to "extremely careless," something that metaphorically moved her out of harm's way in terms of potential criminal acts. Additionally, Comey changed from "reasonably likely" to merely "possible" that hostile actors had hacked her email server. Lastly, his original statement brought up that President Obama had engaged in an email exchange with Clinton via her personal email hosted on that server. In the final statement, his name was removed.

3. Is vainglorious and a publicity seeker out mainly for himself and to insulate the FBI from external criticism. From the IG report:

[Comey] “acknowledged that he made a conscious decision not to tell Department leadership about his plans to make a separate statement because he was concerned that they would instruct him not to do it.”

Also (emphasis mine): “We determined that Comey’s decision to make this statement was the result of his belief that only he had the ability to credibly and authoritatively convey the rationale for the decision to not seek charges against Clinton, and that he needed to hold the press conference to protect the FBI and the Department from the extraordinary harm that he believed would have resulted had he failed to do so. While we found no evidence that Comey’s statement was the result of bias or an effort to influence the election, we did not find his justifications for issuing the statement to be reasonable or persuasive.”


4. Revealed the reopened Clinton email investigation to Congress -- after overseeing its wildly botched reopening -- because he thought Hillary Clinton was going to win and he wanted to preserve her legitimacy. From the IG report:


“we found that his decision was the result of several interrelated factors that were connected to his concern that failing to send the letter would harm the FBI and his ability to lead it, and his view that candidate Clinton was going to win the presidency and that she would be perceived to be an illegitimate president if the public first learned of the information after the election.”

(note: Comey didn't speak to nor receive permission from anyone at DOJ about releasing the letter to Congress)

5. The above action was one of the factors that led the IG to characterize Comey as "insubordinate."

6. Comey was one of several people, in addition to Hillary Clinton, that used personal email to conduct government business. He had a Gmail account. Lisa Page and Peter Strzok also conducted FBI business through personal email accounts. Maybe that's why all three went easy on Clinton; they were all doing the same thing.


Like I said: It looks to me like James Comey was trying to have it both ways and was playing both sides right up until the end, when he released the letter to Congress notifying it that the FBI was reopening the email investigation. It was at that point he apparently fully believed Clinton was going to win and he took actions "to preserve her legitimacy" after she won and took office. Maybe he thought she'd be grateful for what he did, but knowing Clinton it's likely she'd have fired him on her first day in office if she'd won on election day, and I wouldn't have blamed her if she had.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Here's the bottom line for me:

It's important, nay VITAL, that we remember the lessons laid out in this IG report the next time we run two crime families for president. ;-) ;-) ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Exactly, there are things that are clearly classified, like the supposed full resolution satellite photo that she received. But yes, but what is classified is not straight forward at all. Two unclassified facts together can be considered classified. There are things printed in the New York Times based on a reporters interview with a foreign source, not even a leaked classified document, that would be considered classified if sent by someone in the state department. Analysis based purely on open source information (such as articles the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, no secret source) can be classified.

Also the government has trouble determining what is considered classified themselves. There are many examples of two people requesting the same document from the government and each gets the same document with different parts redacted. If the supposed experts in what is considered classified can't agree, how is anyone supposed to know.

Plus there is a strong bias to classify things, which results in edge cases being considered classified.