This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Hillary Clinton 'extremely careless' in use of email server, FBI says – politics live
Hillary Clinton 'extremely careless' in use of email server, FBI says – politics live
(35 minutes later)
6.26pm BST
18:26
Comey first investigated the Clintons 20 years ago, points out Massimo Calabresi in Time magazine:
Some fascinating Comey/Clinton history here https://t.co/B8ooeY9WaM pic.twitter.com/gvjd7TsgQ8
6.23pm BST
18:23
The Clinton campaign has released a new video – an Obama testimonial to Clinton’s steadiness and team spirit.
“She could not have been more diligent, more tireless, more loyal, more committed,” he says. He thinks she’d be “an outstanding president”:
In a new interview, @POTUS talks about why Hillary has everything it takes to be president.https://t.co/MRwg5h0LMq
6.18pm BST
18:18
Introducing Voices of America
At times when the presidential nominating contest failed to produce substantive debate on issues of concern to US voters, a chasm grew between what matters and what was actually discussed.
Our Voices of America project attempts to fill some of that gap. More than 1,500 American voters have given us insight into the issues they care about most. Now we’re presenting those issues to our readers.
First, reporters covering primary season contests in the snows of February and the sunshine of June interviewed dozens of voters in person – from Trump supporters to Bernie backers. You can see them and read their views on our site:
Climate change: the missing issue of the 2016 campaign https://t.co/lP2H0u3ZtN @GuardianUS begins Voices of America, what matters to voters
Then we asked visitors to Guardian US to tells us about the single most important issue to them. This part of the exercise was not scientific; it provides a vivid range of opinions, from 1,385 people across all 50 states, but it is not weighted like an opinion poll to mirror the demographics of the US.
With that in mind, we arranged a series of six discussion groups: in swing states Colorado, Florida, Ohio and Virginia; in red state Texas; and in blue state New York. We spoke with white male Republicans in Cleveland, Latinos in Orlando, black students in Virginia, older women in Dallas, millennials in Albany, and working mothers across Colorado, hoping to hear the authentic voices of groups who will help decide the November elections.
This week our reporting takes us to California, Florida, North Carolina and Washington DC, in pursuit of some of the issues raised by voters: the impact of climate change, big money in politics, chronic homelessness, and the squeezing of the middle class.
Where do we go from here?
We want to continue to hear from you, our readers, to be guided by your concerns and to illuminate what really matters. We’ll be inviting you every week to add your voice on the big questions before the US decides on election day.
6.13pm BST
18:13
Clinton’s busy morning in pictures:
6.04pm BST
18:04
Walker to address convention – report
Ladies and germs, it looks like we have a taker: Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, unlike a roll call of other prominent Republicans, has agreed to speak at the Republican national convention in Cleveland in a couple weeks, according to a report by Wisconsin local WKOW:
Walker confirmed news of the speaking engagement to 27 News at an event in Platteville Tuesday morning.
Walker has been an unvarnished critic of Trump. His withdrawal speech from the presidential campaign was a call for other candidates to follow suit so one of them could beat Trump.
6.00pm BST
18:00
Chris Christie: on vacation
With Donald Trump expected to announce the identity of his running mate next week, New Jersey governor Chris Christie is vacationing in Italy, the Washington Post reports:
Per sources, Christie on vacation w/ wife in Italy. So no sched. mtgs or events w/ Trump. Their aides in contact. Christie back later in wk
Will he drop by Alfonso Costa’s place?
Updated
at 6.00pm BST
5.55pm BST
17:55
For the occasion of Comey’s announcement of a recommendation of no charges against Hillary Clinton, Texas senator Ted Cruz has gone to the vault and re-upped this campaign ad, playing on a famous Office Space scene, from February:
It feels good to be a Clinton —> https://t.co/fwTCBWhhNq
5.53pm BST
5.53pm BST
17:53
17:53
Clinton and aide Huma Abedin are getting comfortable aboard Air Force One in advance of their flight to North Carolina with the president, Time’s Zeke Miller reports:
Clinton and aide Huma Abedin are getting comfortable aboard Air Force One in advance of their flight to North Carolina with the president, Time’s Zeke Miller reports:
.@HillaryClinton just boarded Air Force one with @johnpodesta @HumaAbedin. Boarded before press.
.@HillaryClinton just boarded Air Force one with @johnpodesta @HumaAbedin. Boarded before press.
5.50pm BST
5.50pm BST
17:50
17:50
Clinton camp: 'this matter is now resolved'
Clinton camp: 'this matter is now resolved'
Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon has released a statement on the FBI recommendation of no criminal charges against the former secretary of state:
Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon has released a statement on the FBI recommendation of no criminal charges against the former secretary of state:
We are pleased that the career officials handling this case have determined that no further action by the Department is appropriate. As the Secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again. We are glad that this matter is now resolved.
We are pleased that the career officials handling this case have determined that no further action by the Department is appropriate. As the Secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again. We are glad that this matter is now resolved.
That last line echoes Clinton’s statement on the congressional committee report last week on the Benghazi affair. “I’ll leave it to others to characterize this report, but I think it’s pretty clear it’s time to move on,” she said.
That last line echoes Clinton’s statement on the congressional committee report last week on the Benghazi affair. “I’ll leave it to others to characterize this report, but I think it’s pretty clear it’s time to move on,” she said.
5.42pm BST
5.42pm BST
17:42
17:42
Ryan: FBI 'announcement defies explanation'
Ryan: FBI 'announcement defies explanation'
House speaker Paul Ryan says the FBI “announcement defies explanation” and “it appears damage is being done to the rule of law”.
House speaker Paul Ryan says the FBI “announcement defies explanation” and “it appears damage is being done to the rule of law”.
“Declining to prosecute secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent”, Ryan says:
“Declining to prosecute secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent”, Ryan says:
While I respect the professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. pic.twitter.com/OqctxglquI
While I respect the professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. pic.twitter.com/OqctxglquI
5.39pm BST
5.39pm BST
17:39
17:39
Priebus: Clinton guilty of 'gross negligence'
Priebus: Clinton guilty of 'gross negligence'
RNC chairman Reince Priebus has tweeted his reaction to the Comey statement, noting that Comey described the threshold for criminal charges as “gross negligence,” then said Clinton had been “extremely careless”, then said Clinton’s conduct had not met the threshold for criminal charges.
RNC chairman Reince Priebus has tweeted his reaction to the Comey statement, noting that Comey described the threshold for criminal charges as “gross negligence,” then said Clinton had been “extremely careless”, then said Clinton’s conduct had not met the threshold for criminal charges.
What’s the difference between gross negligence and extremely careless, Priebus would like to know?
What’s the difference between gross negligence and extremely careless, Priebus would like to know?
Gross Negligence = blatant indifference to one's legal duty. Comey defined @HillaryClinton 's actions as gross negligence in that presser.
Gross Negligence = blatant indifference to one's legal duty. Comey defined @HillaryClinton 's actions as gross negligence in that presser.
5.36pm BST
5.36pm BST
17:36
17:36
Here’s video of Comey delivering key passages of his statement:
Here’s video of Comey delivering key passages of his statement:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. [...]
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. [...]
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. [...]
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. [...]
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. [...]
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. [...]
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. [...]
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. [...]
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
5.33pm BST
5.33pm BST
17:33
17:33
Ryan: Trump's image 'anti-Semitic'
Ryan: Trump's image 'anti-Semitic'
House speaker Paul Ryan has acknowledged that a graphic Donald Trump sent from his Twitter account Saturday was “anti-Semitic” and he calls on the Trump campaign “to fix that” – “the point is I think he has to clean this up”.
House speaker Paul Ryan has acknowledged that a graphic Donald Trump sent from his Twitter account Saturday was “anti-Semitic” and he calls on the Trump campaign “to fix that” – “the point is I think he has to clean this up”.
Read further.
Read further.
FLAG: Paul Ryan calls Trump's tweet "anti-Semitic" to @SykesCharlie: https://t.co/lkt2ZVNRNc pic.twitter.com/sqotaTiF7a
FLAG: Paul Ryan calls Trump's tweet "anti-Semitic" to @SykesCharlie: https://t.co/lkt2ZVNRNc pic.twitter.com/sqotaTiF7a
5.25pm BST
5.25pm BST
17:25
17:25
Comey acknowledges 'administrative sanctions' may be typical in other cases
Comey acknowledges 'administrative sanctions' may be typical in other cases
Many commentators have zeroed in on a strange twist in Comey’s statement, when he admitted that “in similar circumstances”, “this actvity” would prompt “security or administrative sanctions”, “but that is not what we are deciding now”.
Many commentators have zeroed in on a strange twist in Comey’s statement, when he admitted that “in similar circumstances”, “this actvity” would prompt “security or administrative sanctions”, “but that is not what we are deciding now”.
Comey did not say that “in similar circumstances” “this activity” would have prompted criminal charges. In fact, he said that “we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts” (full Comey statement here):
Comey did not say that “in similar circumstances” “this activity” would have prompted criminal charges. In fact, he said that “we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts” (full Comey statement here):
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
Comey does not go on to explain. His next paragraph:
Comey does not go on to explain. His next paragraph:
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
5.14pm BST
5.14pm BST
17:14
17:14
One year ago: Clinton 'confident' email material not classified
One year ago: Clinton 'confident' email material not classified
Here’s a throwback to July 2015, when Clinton told reporters that she was “confident that I never sent or received any information that was classified” at the time:
Here’s a throwback to July 2015, when Clinton told reporters that she was “confident that I never sent or received any information that was classified” at the time:
Today Comey said the FBI investigation found that “110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received,” and “Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent.”
Today Comey said the FBI investigation found that “110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received,” and “Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent.”
If you believe Comey's findings, it means Clinton publicly lied on key points on multiple occasions. But whatever. https://t.co/SkGmZMYQVw
If you believe Comey's findings, it means Clinton publicly lied on key points on multiple occasions. But whatever. https://t.co/SkGmZMYQVw
5.08pm BST
5.08pm BST
17:08
17:08
Sanders’ official Twitter account is not apparently interested in the FBI’s assessment of Clinton’s “extremely careless” handling of top-secret information:
Sanders’ official Twitter account is not apparently interested in the FBI’s assessment of Clinton’s “extremely careless” handling of top-secret information:
It is clear that we need to fundamentally reject our “free trade” policies and move to fair trade. https://t.co/WxKxmnKxgj #StopTPPNow
It is clear that we need to fundamentally reject our “free trade” policies and move to fair trade. https://t.co/WxKxmnKxgj #StopTPPNow
Updated
Updated
at 5.08pm BST
at 5.08pm BST
5.06pm BST
17:06
Kaine on Comey: 'I'm not surprised'
Virginia senator Tim Kaine, who’s thought to be on Clinton’s shortlist of potential running mates, says that he is “not surprised” by Comey’s decision not to recommend charges against Clinton. “I never believed this was going to be something in the criminal realm or even close to it,” Kaine tells CNN:
Full @timkaine reaction to FBI not recommending charges against Hillary Clinton: pic.twitter.com/8s505Jnbla
5.01pm BST
17:01
Comey: 'hostile actors gained access'
Comey’s statement made it sound likely that foreign hostile actors got a peek at at least some some of the top-secret material in the eight email chains that passed through Clinton’s unsecured private account:
this is pretty damning however pic.twitter.com/Ea9v6fmQo4
Some strong opinions on the right:
Trump is the only Republican who could possibly lose to this crook and the GOP is about to nominate him.
Updated
at 5.04pm BST
4.47pm BST
16:47
David Smith
As Comey was speaking at the FBI headquarters in Washington, across the city Clinton was making his first speech since she was interviewed as part of the investigation, writes Guardian Washington correspondent David Smith:
Smiling with arms aloft, the candidate entered a National Education Association (NEA) conference to a thunderous greeting from 7,500 delegates, many of whom cheered and clubbed blue plastic batons together. “We are hearing those thunder sticks all across Washington!” Clinton said. “The NEA is in town and people should pay attention.”
Clinton, wearing a pink jacket and dark trousers, gave an assured performance at the cavernous Walter E Washington Convention Center with no hint of the drama unfolding elsewhere. “I want to say right from the outset that I’m with you,” she told delegates, who chanted: “Hillary! Hillary!”
She ended her half-hour speech with an attack on her Republican rival, saying: “Donald Trump has a very different idea about all this. For starters, he wants to ‘largely eliminate’ the Department of Education, but maybe he’ll ‘leave some tentacles’ out there, whatever that means.
“He’s even said that America spends too much on education, and this is coming from someone who wants to give millionaires a $3tn tax cut over the next decade... If you want to know how Donald Trump approaches education, look at his so-called Trump University.”
She also warned of a “Trump effect”, noting that “bullying and harrassment is on the rise in our schools”. Clinton was warmly cheered as she left the stage to the strains of her campaign theme, “Fight Song” by Rachel Platten.
4.44pm BST
16:44
Sanders: FBI decision will not affect mine
A Bernie Sanders spokesperson tells ABC News that Sanders’ decision to stay in the race will not be affected by Comey’s announcement of a recommendation of no charges against Clinton.
Sanders spokesperson says FBI announcement re Clinton emails will not impact the senator's decision to stay in the race
Spox added that @BernieSanders did indeed watch FBI Director Comey's televised statement today from Burlington. https://t.co/ZhRaXA0nZN
So what was that decision again?
@jacobperry He's ready if need be pic.twitter.com/0J4JQ8UlLF
Updated
at 4.45pm BST
4.40pm BST
16:40
Trump on Comey: the system is rigged
Donald Trump has tweeted a reaction to Comey’s statement:
The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment.
In April 2015, General David Petraeus was sentenced to two years’ probation and fined $100,000 for mishandling classified information.
FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem
Updated
at 4.41pm BST
4.35pm BST
16:35
Here’s some further reaction to the Comey statement:
Imagine this announcement from the FBI landing in a race where Republicans nominated someone other than Donald Trump
Here's the key quote from Comey explaining no-charges recommendation:https://t.co/kGJGtVCzoi pic.twitter.com/lZsdZQBP5U
Based on the facts Comey lay out, any other person would be indicted in a heartbeat.Make no mistake.There are two sets of laws in America.
Two sides of Hillary reaction on here: 1. "Case closed. Let's move on." 2. "Laundry list of violations, but no charges? Fix is in."
.@FBI Director: "Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." #ClintonEmailhttps://t.co/2vvzQJks0g
Clinton, meanwhile, has taken the stage at the national education association rally:
Updated
at 4.37pm BST
4.30pm BST
16:30
Reactions to Comey
Here’s a quick roundup of a first tranche of reactions to the Comey statement:
Well I suspect Comey's comments will put the matter entirely to rest and everyone on all sides will now be satisfied.
A news cycle in which a long and damaging investigation of a grievous Clinton mistake came to nothing. Now I’ve seen everything!
Well that's the end of the email story.
Question is: Can Trump effectively prosecute (as it were) case vs Hillary, sustain a few news cycles in which story is about her not him.
Should make for an interesting Air Force One ride between Obama and Clinton later today.
(Maybe Comey could have picked a day when Clinton and Obama weren't campaigning together for the first time?)
Who was watching this more intently, Republicans or Bernie Sanders? Close call.
If your Presidential election plan included any scenario where HRC was indicted, you weren't paying attention.
This Comey presser will be used in campaign ads against Clinton for the rest of the year.
If Trump were to run ads, that is. https://t.co/OyNUDprAdP
Clinton 2016: careless but not criminal
Once again, the Clintons play by their own rules & get away with it without consequence
Comey announces Clinton will receive a four-year sentence of house arrest, close government monitoring. pic.twitter.com/VageBgEudS
Updated
at 4.30pm BST
4.26pm BST
16:26
How damaging was that for Clinton? The FBI just made a liar of her when she said that she never handled any information on her personal email that was “classified at the time”. Comey’s characterization of Clinton as “extremely careless” in handling top-secret information raises serious questions about her judgment.
Yet it does not appear as if criminal charges are in the offing.
But how damaging was that?
4.23pm BST
16:23
Full text of Comey statement
The full text is here. It’s 2,317 words long:
Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.
After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.
This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.
I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.
So, first, what we have done:
The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.
Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.
I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.
For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.
FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.
With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”
I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.
It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.
The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.
It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.
And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.
Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:
In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.
4.19pm BST
16:19
Comey: 'no charges appropriate'
Comey says the FBI looked at the effort by Clinton’s lawyers to sort her emails. He has “reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.”
“Although we did not find clear evidence that secretary Clinton” or her aides willfully broke a law, “there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of classified information”.
Seven of the eight chains that included top-secret information included emails sent by and received by secretary Clinton, he says. “Extremely careless,” he called it.
“Any reasonable person in secretary Clinton’s position” “should have known” the information was sensitive, Comey says, and should have acted differently.
“None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.” But the servers were “not even supported by any kind of full-time security staff,” like commercially available email would be.
Comey says the security culture at the state department was weak in general.
They did not find evidence that Clinton’s email was hacked directly, but “we do assess that hostile actors did gain access to private personal email accounts” that corresponded with Clinton’s account.
She used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including in countries with sophisticated hacking capabilites, he said.
“It is possible that hostile actors gained access to secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”
The prosecutors make decisions about whether charges are appropriate, Comey notes.
Comey says that on the question of willful mishandling of classified information, “Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey says.
“In looking back at our investigations...we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts,” he says.
There was no evidence of “clearly intentional or willful mishandling of classified information,” he says.
“We do not see those things here.”
“We are expressing to justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.”
“Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way.”
