Court Filing: FBI Claims Documents on Trump Statements Are Subject of Russia Investigation

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe would not tell Congress if Trump was under investigation.

In an FOIA case pending in federal court in the District of Columbia, filed by Ryan Shapiro and Jason Leopold, the FBI has been a little more forthcoming.

In August, 2016, Shapiro and Leopold, in separate FOIA requests, asked for:

“disclosure of any and all records, including investigative records, mentioning or referring to Donald J. Trump’s statement on 27 July, 2016 [regarding Secretary Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails], ‘Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,’ and ‘I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.’”

The FBI did not timely respond, so they sued. Their cases are consolidated. In its first response, the FBI refused to confirm or deny there were documents that were responsive to the request.[More...]

Then on March 20, for the first time, James Comey publicly acknowledged the investigation. Here's what he said:

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential Election. And that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.

The FBI, no longer restricted from acknowledging the existence of the investigation, modified its position on Jason and Ryan's request for documents about Trump's Russia statement in a status report filed in court. You can read the document here.

First, it is going to search for the documents responsive to the request. It thinks there are some.

9. Although initial searches began only as recently as the week of March 20, 2017, and definitive information is not yet available, the FBI expects that it possesses at least some records that are responsive to Plaintiffs’ Russia Request and subject to FOIA.

Again, Shapiro and Leopold only requested documents pertaining to Donald Trump's statement, not anyone else's statements. The FBI filing goes on to say:

10. Because of the existence of an active, ongoing investigation, the FBI anticipates that it will assert Exemption 7(A), on a categorical basis, to withhold all records that are responsive to the Russia Request, because releasing any responsive records (or portions thereof) "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A).

So the FBI is confirming that documents about Donald Trump's statement about Russia and Democrats' emails could interfere with enforcement proceedings.

Does this mean Trump is the subject or a target of the federal criminal investigation? No. But it confirms that his statement, and documents concerning his statement, are relevant to the FBI's ongoing investigation into "links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts."

The Court set a deadline of July 25, 2017 for the FBI to file a pleading explaining how release of the documents sought by Shapiro and Leopold would interfere with an ongoing law enforcement operation.

< Trump's Poll Numbers Decline Further | Trump and Pence: The Unraveling Begins >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The FBI investigation is likely to go deep. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 11, 2017 at 02:12:40 PM EST
    According the WBAL-TV News in Baltimore, federal agents are presently executing a search warrant at the offices of Strategic Consulting Group, a GOP-affiliated fundraising firm in Annapolis, MD.

    UPDATE: Strategic Consulting Group (SCG) ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 11, 2017 at 04:47:34 PM EST
    ... has apparently had a fairly sketchy past with regards to its professional practices and so to be fair to Trump and the members of his campaign, I must clarify that today's FBI raid on its offices likely has little or nothing at all to do with the agency's ongoing Trump-Russia probe.

    In this instance, the media jumped the gun because SCG apparently has some ties with former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort. And by extension, I jumped that gun as well in posting this morning's breaking news. Further information has since come to light in this matter, which compels me to clarify what happened here.

    Back in 2014, SCG was sued by former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in his individual capacity as an unsuccessful 2013 gubernatorial candidate. In his lawsuit, he claimed that SCG ran a PAC that raised over $2 million for his gubernatorial campaign but actually spent little of that money in support of him. The firm has since settled the civil suit with Cuccinelli for $85,000.

    SCG President Kelley Rogers has since confirmed to reporters that a half-dozen agents arrives at his offices early this morning to execute the warrant, and that the FBI raid and its investigation are related to the work SCG performed on behalf of Cuccinelli's 2013 gubernatorial campaign. He further noted that SCG's focus is primarily on state and local candidates and races in Maryland and Virginia, and not necessarily federal campaigns.

    So, the events in Annapolis this morning was part of an unrelated political corruption investigation involving the 2013 Virginia governor's race, and don't involve Trump. My apologies for any misunderstanding which may have occurred by the early report.



    Oh, for Heaven's sake! Enough already, Jim! (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 15, 2017 at 10:44:33 AM EST
    Jeralyn's already told you above that you are wrong, and to cease and desist. Take a hint and get a clue.

    Uh, Evidently no one told Comey (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 15, 2017 at 02:04:41 PM EST
    It is whether they have a good faith belief they can prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Loretto Lynch was perfectly happy for Comey to take the heat. Otherwise she could have put her No. 2 at DOJ in.

    And after Comey said what he said, who in the Obama DOJ would hace disagreed?

    On a broader point, DOJ has new people in charge and may very well have "good faith" that Hillary is guilty and can be shown to be so.

    But I see that you really are nervous and you really know that I have made some very accurate points.

    So get out from behind Jeralyn and speak, if you can, for yourself.

    Joe! Don't quit your day job.


    Oh, good lord (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 15, 2017 at 02:14:55 PM EST
    You've been screaming about Hillary in prison orange for what? 2 years now. It's never going to happen. The wingnut welfare brigade has spent years lying to you.

    It looks like the only person who is going to be wearing an orange jumpsuit is Trump and his associates like Manafort, Page and Flynn.

    Ah, Jim, still at it (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Lora on Mon May 15, 2017 at 10:37:25 PM EST
    Her server, while not the approved method of communication, was likely more secure than the government's server.  That's her entire "crime," that she used her own server instead of the government's and there was some classified information included in some of the emails that should've been only sent through the insecure but supposedly more secure government email system.  Period.  And maybe she didn't know it was classified, or maybe she didn't care.  I don't know. That's the kind of thing you can't prove. And anyway, nothing was leaked or hacked, as far as anyone can tell.  

    Hardly the crime of the century, especially when compared to Petraeus, who deliberately and knowingly gave reams of highly classified information into the keeping of his highly unclassified mistress and then flat-out lied about it.  Now there's a man who perhaps ought to be locked up.  But no, Trump liked him enough to consider him for secretary of state. Beyond pathetic!

    And now you have Trump himself, who doesn't even seem to understand what classified means.

    Oh please (2.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 11, 2017 at 08:10:41 PM EST
    Surely you can  find something besides a

    rhe·tor·i·cal ques·tion
    a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.

    You do that all the time, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 11, 2017 at 08:13:43 PM EST
    Don't begrudge Jeralyn if and when she does the same.

    Thank you Donald (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 11, 2017 at 08:20:45 PM EST
    Thank you for defining that term, Jim (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Peter G on Thu May 11, 2017 at 08:21:50 PM EST
    We can't rely on Linea all the time to teach us English vocabulary. Sometimes someone else needs to step up.

    And thank you Peter, Donald, MT (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 11, 2017 at 11:26:42 PM EST
    and all the rest of you boys and girls.

    And Donald, I don't begrudge Jeralyn anything so please don't put words in my mouth. I am merely noting what Trump was doing.

    And I must add that I find the criticism of Trump  for doing what you wanted done just plain funny.

    Here's a better look at it.

    "Understood," he said. "So if Hillary Clinton had won the White House would you have recommended that she fire FBI Director James Comey?"

    "Well let me tell you something," Waters responded. "If she had won the White House, I believe that given what he did to her, and what he tried to do, she should have fired him, yes!"

    "So she should have fired him but he shouldn't have fired him?" he asked. "This is why I'm confused."

    "No, no you're not confused," she claimed.

    "I am confused," he responded.

    When MSNBC starts poking fun at you then you really need to consider your position.


    That's not "MSNBC" (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Yman on Fri May 12, 2017 at 08:24:34 AM EST
    That's one MSNBC reporter pretending to be "confused" about an issue that a5th grader could understand.  But for those that can't aren't a smart as a 5th grader, I'll be happy to explain:

    1.  Comey broke with DOJ protocols by holding his solo press conference and editorializing about an investigation where it was unanimously agreed by the team of investigators that no charges were justified.

    2.  Coney did it again when he interfered with the election by sending his letter to Congress, creating a media uproar over a nothingburger less than 2 weeks before the election.

    3.  Unlike the email investigation, Comey never revealed the Trumo campaign was being investigated until AFTER the election.

    4.  Comey should have been fired back then for all of these reasons.

    5.  Instead, Trump PRAISED Comey and decided to keep him on as Director.

    6.  Trump has decided to fire him NOW, after Comey refused to pledge an oath of loyalty to him, like they might do in a third world dictatorship.

    7.  Trump has decided to fire him NOW, after Comey requested more resources for the Russia-Trump investigation.

    8.  Trump has decided to fire him NOW, after Comey has convened a federal grand jury and begun issuing subpoenas to business associates of Trump campaign members.

    9.  Trump tried to lie about the reasons he fired Comey, but was forced to reveal the real reasons when Eisenstein threatened to go public/design.

    10.  Trump has decided to fire him NOW, because of the fact that Comey wouldn't assure him he wasn't under investigation and wouldn't pledge loyalty to him.  Trump did all of this because of the Trump-Russia investigation.

    Happy to educate those who are easily "confused" any time.  :)

    And what does that have to do with (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 12, 2017 at 09:44:35 PM EST
    the fact that the Left wanted him fired up until
    Trump fired him.

    Yes, either you are confused or dishonest...or maybe both.


    The Left wanted him fired (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Yman on Fri May 12, 2017 at 10:23:23 PM EST
    ... back when he should have been fired, for legitimate reasons.  Trump, and you, wanted him fired to obstruct an investigation of Trump and his Russian supporters.

    You are either ignorant of this simple fact or dishonest ...

    ... or both.


    Do you read English, Jim? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 12, 2017 at 10:23:46 PM EST
    If you do, then I would suggest that you re-read Yman's comment, this time for actual comprehension.

    Because it's readily apparent to me at least, that either you either didn't read it carefully before responding, or perhaps you neglected to first translate Yman's post into Russian for your online handlers, so that they could then inform you of the proper response.

    Имеют приятный вечер, товарищ. (Have a nice evening, comrade.)


    I do read writing and I write reading, Donald (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 13, 2017 at 09:43:06 AM EST
    And I also have a grasp of logic.

    You wanted something and you got it.

    Now you want to use it as a political tool.

    Comrade, every person with an IQ above room temperature knows what you are doing.


    And it has backfired.


    You don't speak for "everyone," Jim. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 13, 2017 at 04:04:42 PM EST
    You may speak only for yourself. And if you want to continue residing in that impenetrable neo-conservative cocoon you've spun around yourself, creating a parallel universe where white-wing prejudices and fantasies dictate the political calculus making rather than actual cold facts and hard truths, that's your sorry-a$$ed business.

    You're merely setting yourself up for a real blindsiding and some very serious grief down the road, simply because you refuse to put two and two together. Nobody would be going to these extreme and extraordinary lengths as Trump & Co. are, firing both an acting Attorney General and the FBI Director, if they didn't have something very serious to hide. And in that regard, it's increasingly apparent that all roads in this journey lead to Moscow.

    Wise up, guy. Ignorance is not bliss, and when the schitt finally comes down, it's not going to stop just because you're enthralled by the view up your own arse.

    Have a nice evening.


    A.G. Lynch, having put herself in a... (none / 0) (#13)
    by unitron on Sat May 13, 2017 at 05:01:01 AM EST
    ...jam by talking to Bill out by the airplanes, said she'd follow whatever the Bureau recommended WRT prosecuting HRC or not, so she kinda left Comey holding the bag.

    Perhaps he would have been wiser to just inform DOJ of their findings and leave them stuck with explaining "We found lots of carelessness and stupidity, but not criminal intent.", but just the same, he got stuck with making the decision.

    So I think how he handled it was more un-wise than malicious or partisan.

    Then later when the emails were found on Weiner's laptop, he found himself in the uncomfortable position of having already told Congress that they'd finished up the investigation only to have to re-open it, and not really having a choice about informing them of that, even though he knew one or more on the GOP side would blab it to the press the instant that he informed them.

    If, when he found out about the laptop emails, he'd assumed they were dups and nothing need be done and Congress could be kept in the dark about it, imagine if it had turned out that one of them had actually been a "smoking gun", and by the time that was revealed HRC had already gotten enough EC votes to win.

    The right wing would have exploded and nothing would be getting done in DC except her impeachment.

    He got dealt a lousy hand on this whole Clinton email thing and as best I can tell tried to do what he thought was right.

    Not saying he couldn't have been smarter about some of it, but if there's a villain in all of this, I don't see it as being him.


    Never said he was a "villain" (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Yman on Sat May 13, 2017 at 07:35:25 AM EST
    ... but he made numerous bad choices throughout the whole process.  The most obvious being his decisions to break with DOJ policy by editorializing about HC when announcing no charges were warranted.  Then, perhaps even more egregious, was his decision to break with DOJ policy again by sending a letter to Congress that he knew would be made public just over a week before the election.  Not to mention his decidedly different treatment of the Trump investigation, which he kept secret until after the election.

    All of which ignores the point.  His firing was justified back them for his handling of the Clinton email investigation.  His firing NOW to impede the Trump/Russia investigation is not justified, and may in fact be a crime.


    His (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 13, 2017 at 08:18:52 AM EST
    "villany" lies in his actions being strongly influenced by CYA considerations over longstanding policy.

    His original editorializing was pure appeasement to the Republicans who were busy building the gallows for Hillary. Somehow he felt he needed to heap scorn on her as a sop to them.

    The letter was even worse, he had to know that the odds of finding a smoking gun were virtually nil, but he was probably certain that his own agents would leak the "possibility" and once again he gave more weight to CYA than anything else.

    IMO, in the days leading up to the elections the odds were orders of magnitude higher of discovering wrong doing related to tRump by the building Russian investigation than the likely  meaningless loose end of an exhaustive and straightforward inquiry.


    He had all the smoking guns he needed (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 13, 2017 at 10:39:26 AM EST
    Yes, Lynch and Clinton (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 13, 2017 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    placed him in a bad position.

    And I do believe he did what he thought was right.

    But it was a moment in which his choice was not to please everyone, but to tell the truth and then act properly. Tell Lynch that Hillary had done this and that and she had broken the law.

    He told the truth but then he brought politics into the situation introducing "intent."

    I have always thought intent has nothing to do with whether a law had been broken. It has to do with punishment.


    She didn't (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 13, 2017 at 10:44:01 AM EST
    break the law but you can't handle the truth. To you fantasies are preferable to real facts and evidence. It's just sad.

    Lol once again, don't know whether to laugh or cry (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jondee on Sat May 13, 2017 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    as if a clown who suddenly wants to discount all historical precedent vis a vis intent, Isn't "bringing politics into the situation."

    What you "think" is irrelevant (none / 0) (#20)
    by Yman on Sat May 13, 2017 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    He told the truth but then he brought politics into the situation introducing "intent."

    I have always thought intent has nothing to do with whether a law had been broken. It has to do with punishment.

    Comey didn't bring "politics" into the situation by discussing intent - it's required by the law.  As any first-year law student will be able to tell you, intent is a critical element to almost every crime.  The level of intent varies based on the crime, but it is almost always required.  Whether you believe it should be doesn't matter.

    BTW - Did you see where Pence accidentally hit the young boy in the face the other day.  In JimWorld, Pence would be guilty of assault.  In the real world, assault requires a level of intent and this accident does not rise to the level of a crime.

    Thank Dog we live in the real world.


    ha ha. very funny. (none / 0) (#75)
    by linea on Tue May 16, 2017 at 10:56:05 PM EST
    i am fluent in English at a university masters degree level.

    We can't rely on Linea all the time to teach us English vocabulary.

    many americans, who i interact with on a daily basis, are not fluent in english. i often spend a considerable amount ot time picking the BEST word and sometimes i include a definition of that word with my post to be better understood.


    are you really so dim (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 16, 2017 at 11:06:02 PM EST
    that you dont understand that silly annoying self serving comments like this one is exactly why someone like Peter who is the most forgiving and even tempered commenter on this blog would make such a joke?

    which was funny enought to get six fives.

    free clue.  our english is just fine.  and it was in the good ole days before you arrived.


    ok. im sorry (none / 0) (#77)
    by linea on Tue May 16, 2017 at 11:44:29 PM EST
    i didnt realize that it was so offensive to you. i didnt feel people were actually offended. im sorry im so stupid.

    dim-witted: too dim to understand the joke


    well (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 16, 2017 at 11:51:20 PM EST
    now you do

    i think we are makin real progress


    "with few exceptions" (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Fri May 12, 2017 at 01:56:37 PM EST
    President Donald Trump's tax lawyers issued a statement on Friday that the White House wants you to take seriously: The president has not received income or taken on any debt or equity from Russian sources over the past 10 years, "with a few exceptions."

    Trump has a history of emphatically denying that he has any monetary connection to Russia. In January, he tweeted: "NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!" His lawyers' new admission of the "few exceptions" indicates this blanket denial was false. The letter written by Sherri Dillon and Willie Nelson, Trump's tax lawyers at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, is dated March 8.

    - from Don't Take Anything Trump's Lawyers Say About His Tax Returns Seriously, By Paul Blumenthal and Ben Walsh, Huffpost, May 12, 2017

    I recommend (none / 0) (#21)
    by Towanda on Sat May 13, 2017 at 12:44:53 PM EST
    following the #withfewexceptions hashtag on Twitter.  

    It's hilarious . . . with a few exceptions, of course.


    i still dont get the russian hysteria (none / 0) (#31)
    by linea on Sat May 13, 2017 at 06:44:30 PM EST
    there are no restrictions on using russian banks; or opening up businesses or hotels in russia; every company i have ever worked for has development offices in russia, in my current office an entire floor is filled with russian h1b visa holders running QA tests; and the entire EU is having a libertarian-orgasm over kaliningrad oblast - a business utopia where toxic sludge can be dumped anywhere and if the workers are unhappy they can always complain to vladimir putin's sympathetic ear.

    if candidate trump was pro-russian then obviously he would want pro-russian advisors. maybe some of trumps advisors were involved in shaddy dealings. probably. it sometimes seems like half that country makes a living by engaging in sex-trafficking and selling club drugs.


    "Hysteria"??? Seriously??? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Yman on Sat May 13, 2017 at 07:12:57 PM EST
    Leaving aside the irony in your choice of that word, how is that even possible?  We're not talking about some, random person doing business with Russia.  We're talking about the President of the United States, who was elected with the aid of the Russian government, through illegally interfering in our election - the foundation of our democracy.  How is it possible that you don't understand why we have to have a full and complete understanding of the Trump's campaign ties to Russia, as well as his business interest and conflicts of interest that can arise therefrom?

    We Don't Know Yet What the Crime Was (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by RickyJim on Sat May 13, 2017 at 09:37:05 PM EST
    A short while ago, I was not convinced that Trump or his campaign broke any laws in his dealings with Russia(ns).  However, I can't fathom any explanation of his recent statements and firing of Comey besides he is desperately trying to cover up something illegal.  

    The (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 14, 2017 at 05:39:21 AM EST
    possible crimes are:
    Conspiracy to commit data theft.
    Money Laundering.
    Illegal campaign financing.
    Obstruction of justice.

    IMO tRump and his associates have been dealing with dirty Russian and Ukrainian money for years, the money trail will kill them.

    BTW: Their behaviour has been screaming coverup for months now this is just the latest escalation, yet there are plenty of political leaders, press and members of the public still can't "fathom" what is going on.

    There is no reason to fathom anything sailor, the ship of state has run aground, unless the vast majority of Americans from top to bottom come to understand that very quickly, we are doomed.


    possible crimes are: (none / 0) (#42)
    by linea on Sun May 14, 2017 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    good list
    • Conspiracy to commit data theft.
    • Money Laundering.
    • Perjury
    • Illegal campaign financing.
    • Obstruction of justice.
    • Espionage.

    i suppose it's possible that members of donald trump's staff (flynn, manafork, etc.) were involved in typical russian shenanegans. i can imagine money laundering, failure to register as a foreign agent, IRS violations of failure to report income. maybe illegal campaign financing but wouldnt that require the collusion of an accountant and finance lawyer?

    i doubt there will ever be evidence this happened:

    Ambassador Kislyak, "We hacked the DNC servers. It has some content that makes Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz look less than fair in their dealings with Bernie Sanders..."
    Candidate Trump, Can we leak that? Maybe give it to WikiLeaks?"
    Kislyak, "I'll get it done."


    linea (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2017 at 05:48:27 PM EST
    Do you have a link???

    a link? (none / 0) (#54)
    by linea on Sun May 14, 2017 at 06:20:38 PM EST
    linea (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ
    Do you have a link???

    im sorry. there is no link. i must have authored that post poorly if you thought i was referencing something, it's just my opinion.

    FlJoe provided a lists of violations that could possibly come out of an investigation and i provided my opinion on the issue:

    • given my low-opinion of russian business dealings, i could IMAGINE people working for trump might be involved with activities such as money laundering, failure to register as a foreign agent, and IRS violations on reporting income.

    • i consider "illegal campaign financing" to be less likely as an accountant and a legitimate legal finance advisor would need to be involved.

    • i completely discount this imagined scenario (see below), thought this is what some TLers seem to be expecting:

    Ambassador Kislyak, "We hacked the DNC servers. It has some content that makes Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz look less than fair in their dealings with Bernie Sanders..."

    Candidate Trump, "Can we leak that? Maybe give it to WikiLeaks?"

    Kislyak, "I'll get it done."

    there is no link.
    i authored it.


    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2017 at 07:57:28 PM EST
    You have a great imagination.

    I think it has been helped by all the speculation put out by Left Wingers.


    And stimulated also (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Sun May 14, 2017 at 08:15:36 PM EST
    by Right Wingers frightened, hyper-defensive reaction that it usually reserves only for things like new scientific advances.

    You may want to (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2017 at 08:27:47 PM EST
    read what actually is the law that Hillary violated.

    (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--.....

    (b) As used in subsection (a) of this section--
    The term "classified information" means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

    The terms "code," "cipher," and "cryptographic system" include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings
     of communications;....

    18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

    Again what Comey said:

    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,...

    Comey transcript

    My lengthy comment and a reading of the law shows that Hillary did:

    ....knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person...

    Hillary's crimes are proven by what Comey said. He tried to claim no intent but he failed. Instead he proved it. Which I think was his intent. He couldn't say prosecute her without raising a firestorm of epic proportions.  

    Whatever Trump may or may not have done is speculation. Should we ignore hers while blathering about Trump?


    it's over. sorry. but it's over. (none / 0) (#61)
    by linea on Sun May 14, 2017 at 08:46:54 PM EST
    Justice Department formally closes Clinton email investigation with no charges
    The Justice Department on Wednesday formally closed its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server... "I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation," Lynch said.

    linea, the investugation was over last July (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 15, 2017 at 07:52:46 AM EST
    It was then reopened in Oct. That is the act that Democrats hated and why they called for Comey's firing.

    Here's a very partisan Repub video showing Demos at their worst.

    Now, will the investigation be reopened? Probably not. But many on the Right are demanding it and if the Left keeps on attacking Trump you can expect him to fire back. He's not a Bushie.

    And yes. The investigation can be reopened.



    Tell him to fire away (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Yman on Mon May 15, 2017 at 09:24:41 AM EST
    The allegations against Clinton were thoroughly investigated and they rightfully (and unanimously) determined no charges should be brought.  I dare your Orange Julius to try it.  It would be yet another failure/broken promise and embarrassment if he tried.  These silly, empty threats won't stop the legitimate Trump-Russia investigation.

    Tick, tock ... tick, tock.


    Come (none / 0) (#67)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 15, 2017 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    on Jim, in lieu of defending your boy tRump, you insist on beating your favorite deceased equine.

    I'm disappointed in you Jim, you should be spending all your time and energy describing and defining the worldwide "hoax" being perpetrated against your precious leader.


    Twisting things (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Sat May 13, 2017 at 02:38:50 PM EST
    like talking as if there was something unique and unprecedented about intent being "introduced."

    Or was that just more unbridled talk radio ignorance rearing it's ghastly head again?

    Hahahahahahaha .... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Yman on Sat May 13, 2017 at 02:41:18 PM EST
    Pence isn't guilty of assaulting that boy any more than Hillary is guilty of whatever "crime" you're imagining she committed.  The only "crime" on exhibit here is your sad attempt to interpret the law and apply facts/logic.  Whether you like it or not - and for reasons that are obvious to anyone with at least a modest IQ - the law requires intent for someone to be guilty of a crime.  The fact that you can't comprehend the reasons why and wish it wasn't true is a problem you'll just have to learn to deal with.

    Former President Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 13, 2017 at 04:09:40 PM EST
    meets with long-time acquaintance AG Loretta Lynch for a few minutes on  her plane, both claim to only have exchanged niceties about grandchildren, but it is scandalous since Mrs. Clinton was being investigated by the FBI. Miss Lynch regrets having met with Mr. Clinton, no matter the happenstance, and announces that she will recuse herself from the investigation about Mrs. Clinton's emails. The investigation continues under Director Comey.

    President Trump meets with FBI Director Comey over dinner at the White House, while at the same time, Comey is in the midst of a counterintelligence/espionage investigation of the Trump Campaign including possible criminality.  Trump acknowledges that the case was discussed during the dinner. The case involves Mr. Trump, not Mrs. Trump.

    The President subsequently fires the FBI Director , covering up the cause of the firing with a fantastical pretext, only later revealing that the cause was, really, the Russian/Trump espionage investigation headed up by Comey, his dinner guest. The president will now nominate a replacement for the FBI Director he fired and his administration has made it known that the espionage investigation should end.

    The two cases? Pepsi v Coke. Or, Bad judgment v Obstruction of Justice.


    That's what I said (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 13, 2017 at 04:13:07 PM EST
    about Pence.

    But, recognizing that it was an accident and had no intent then the matter is not criminal but may result in civil law suits.


    the law requires intent for someone to be guilty of a crime.

    Well, if I accidentally get drunk and accidentally kill somebody in a car wreck then obviously I am not guilty??

    Hooey. The results of my actions speak.

    And Hillary's actions speak. She made no attempt to obey the law. She willfully violated the law time and time again.

    Sorry, counselor. She's guilty as hell. Lock Her Up.


    Repeating a LIE again and again (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Yman on Sat May 13, 2017 at 05:58:38 PM EST
    And Hillary's actions speak. She made no attempt to obey the law. She willfully violated the law time and time again.

    .... despite being your preferred method of argument, doesn't make it true.

    Well, if I accidentally get drunk and accidentally kill somebody in a car wreck then obviously I am not guilty??

    Hooey. The results of my actions speak.

    Sorry, "counselor", but you're wrong, as usual.  Perhaps they don't ed-joo-ma-cate you 'bout the law in those red states, but you really should stop trying to do it.  You end of making arguments that would embarrass a 6th grader (i.e. bumping someone is a crime), let alone an actual attorney.

    BTW - The law on intoxication as a defense to killing someone while driving varies depending upon the state, but you would be guilty of a crime in your flawed analogy above because you would have demonstrated the requisite criminal intent under most state's statutes.  While you most likely couldn't be convicted for murder (depending on the circumstances), getting behind the wheel while drunk would demonstrate either grossly negligence or recklessness that would support a charge of manslaughter, vehicular homicide, etc., depending on the state. IOW - they could be charged because they met the criminal intent required by the statute.

    Don't try to play lawyer, Jim.

    It's embarrassing to watch.


    What typical lawyer speak and twist (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 13, 2017 at 08:20:23 PM EST
    and turn and deny.

    Hillary did what she did and if it was ever put in front of a jury she would be locked up.

    And I don't try and play lawyer. I just state plain old common sense and facts.

    Try it sometimes unless you've forgotten how.


    "Lawyer speak" - heh (none / 0) (#34)
    by Yman on Sat May 13, 2017 at 08:54:06 PM EST
    Yes, Jim.  Applying facts to the actual law as it exists in the real world is called "lawyer speak".  Applying fantasies to  imaginary law as a winger wants it to be in Wingnutia is where you come in.

    But don't worry.  Your fantasies are sure to come true any day, now.  Your Orange Cheetoh's going to make sure she goes to prison.  We know this because he promised his gullible supporters.

    Heh, heh, heh ...


    Nope, you understood my point (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2017 at 10:18:42 AM EST
    but my bad for letting you get to me with the result that I criticized a group that is important and does good things.

    So laying aside all your twists and all your turns and your criticizing I again make my point regarding intent, Hillary, Comey and Lynch.

    Hillary had intent. Her intent was to hide her words and actions. She did so because she hates criticism and is use to getting her way. I am speaking of a woman who was given $100,000 when she needed it, stymied an investigation by "hiding" documents in her closet, fired people who had worked in the WH as travel agents for years and hired her friends as pay back, lied about Benghazi even though there was a video of her and on and on. So she knew establishing a special private email system was wrong.

    She is not stupid and she was not uninformed. She knew classified information would be sent over it.

    She knew what would happen and she knew it would be wrong. But her fear of being caught and knowledge that emails showing how she was selling influence to the presumed to be office of the president to both foreign and US people/organizations would be on the server made her decide to set up the email system.

    Her intent was to conceal a crime. Selling  influence. Pay for play. Quid pro quo.

    And the proof is not just the demonstrated sending of classified information regarding government information. It is the thousands of emails illegally deleted.

    The classified emails are the smoking gun. The missing emails are the bullets. They are the "dog that did not bark." That is the proof of intent to commit a crime. That is the proof of a crime.

    Now, let's look at some of the players who got pulled into the crime as it started to collapse.

    First we have ex President Clinton and the Attorney General of the United States.

    Why in God's name would these two try to meet in secret just before an agency of Lynch's DOJ, the FBI, was set to interview Hillary?

    Well, they didn't think they would be caught and they needed to make sure all the plans were in order. That each knew what was expected of the other. Why wasn't the interview with Hillary taped?

    But it didn't work out. They were seen and in the resulting media coverage and criticism, Lynch was forced to recuse herself.  Enter Comey.

    The question about Comey's entrance and subsequent public actions becomes, "Why?"

    Why did Comey decide to become a prosecutor rather than a investigator?  After all, it is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not the Federal Bureau of Prosecution.

    If you believe, as I do, that Comey is basically a honest man and wanted to do what was right, he was unhappy that Lynch had slipped aside and turned it over to her Deputy AG.  I think he had the information, knew that multiple crimes had been committed and knew that if he just sent the information up the chain of command the result would be that a report would be issued that no crime had been committed, no intent, just at its worst, a minor error of judgment on Hillary's part. And no details provided because it contained classified information.

    At that point he decided that the American people should know. That's why he seized the initiative, gave out all the details so that the public could see just how nefarious Hillary was.  But to save the FBI as an organization....can you imagine the fire storm that would have descended on the FBI if he had recommended prosecution?......he claimed there was no intent.

    And the Democrats mostly loved him. They wished he hadn't done anything and the Republicans disliked him because they felt he had done nothing. But then the information about more emails came forth and he was trapped. If he ignored it and it was proven to be criminal the FBI would be greatly harmed. If he announced it the FBI would be shown impartial in its dealings and Hillary would win anyway. So he did.

    But Hillary did not win and the Democrats hated him.

    And the rest is history. The Left, with the willing help of a corrupt media, concocted a story about Russia and Trump that is still in play.

    Now Trump has decided that Comey couldn't continue to lead a fractured organization so he fired Comey.

    And the Left has proven itself to be Mother Of All Hypocrites and attacked Trump for doing what they wanted to do until it was done.


    There's no hypocrisy ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Yman on Sun May 14, 2017 at 01:40:18 PM EST
    ... except for you laughable Trumpers.  If a local police chief engages Obama questionable conduct that is contrary to department policy, there's nothing wrong with firing him.  If, OTOH, the mayor decided not to fire hon and even praises gin for that conduct, then fires him 9 months later in order to obstruct an investigation of thatsame mayor, that's wrong.

    But I understand why half of the delusional Trumpers pretend they can't understand those facts, while the other actually are incapable of comprehending those simple facts.

    Which half are you in?


    this is over (none / 0) (#35)
    by linea on Sat May 13, 2017 at 09:01:45 PM EST
    Justice Department formally closes Clinton email investigation with no charges

    The Justice Department on Wednesday formally closed its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server... "I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation," Lynch said.

    it's been over. long ago.


    It can be reopened (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2017 at 10:19:13 AM EST
    But it won't be (none / 0) (#44)
    by Yman on Sun May 14, 2017 at 01:46:53 PM EST
    Because there's no evidence to support charges, as the investigating team determined unanimously.  These were career FBI agents and prosecutors.

    Did you actually believe Commisar Trump when he said he was going to have her arrested and locked up???

    Not sure if that's seriously funny or just pathetically sad.


    Even with a wingnut house and senate (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Sun May 14, 2017 at 02:29:54 PM EST
    whose main consituencies are out-for-blood opioid-addled tea baggers and geriatric Joe Arpaio groupies chanting Lock Her Up! and waving confederate flags it Still won't be reopened.

    Sorry, Jim. They ain't even gonna reopen the Vice Foster murder investigation either.

    It's one massive Leftie conspiracy to thwart justice.


    i miss the days when (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 14, 2017 at 03:57:20 PM EST
    the trolls were at least not embarrassing

    When Jim posts nonsense like this, ... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 14, 2017 at 05:09:31 PM EST
    ... it just dangles there like a big fat piñata, daring us to take a whack at it -- only we ought to first don a HAZMAT suit before doing so, because it's usually full of toxic waste.

    Nobody reads his blog (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Sun May 14, 2017 at 07:19:04 PM EST
    so he's forced to bring the mountain of flaming monkey dung to Muhammad.

    Then engage or run and hide. (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2017 at 05:37:01 PM EST
    Wait, we know your choice.

    My solution (none / 0) (#38)
    by ding7777 on Sun May 14, 2017 at 06:50:11 AM EST
    would be to release the emails that she sent with everything redacted except for the classification markings (if the markings exist)  

    What law, exactly, Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Lora on Sun May 14, 2017 at 11:36:56 AM EST
    What law did she break?

    Glad to help (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2017 at 01:56:23 PM EST
    read my comment.

    Sorry, don't see it there (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Lora on Sun May 14, 2017 at 04:03:21 PM EST
    Convenient to attribute criminal behavior to emails that aren't there. You can buy her rationale for deleting personal emails or you not. Doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

    The "classified" material is a non-starter also. Not clearly identified, much of it classified after the fact, and much of it probably would not be considered classified by many experts.

    It doesn't make sense, if she were as nefarious as you say, to turn over all this supposed evidence of her criminal actions.

    The rest of your post is evidence-free sheer speculation.


    There is plenty of evidence to have a (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2017 at 05:35:48 PM EST
    GJ indict and I will take my chances on the intelligence of the American citizen.

    You can always play pretend (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Sun May 14, 2017 at 06:25:28 PM EST
    she gets indicted, the way you play pretend things like that Darwin was wrong, that Trump does the American Presidential tradition proud, and that you're a true blue patriot.

    Anything to soften the collision with reality.


    When does Trump get indicted (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 14, 2017 at 09:11:29 PM EST
    For using his old android phone and shunning any kind of protected device issued by NSA?

    How many do you want? (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2017 at 05:43:30 PM EST
    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).

    Comey's 7/5/2015 statement


    Big yawn (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Lora on Sun May 14, 2017 at 10:27:10 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton's emails would have been sent regardless of which server was used.  It isn't the emails that's the issue, it's the server.  Technically, she should've used the government server.  She used her own, which in retrospect may have been more secure than the government's.

    Whether she committed a crime or not is unclear.  Whether it could be proved is unlikely.  As far as we know, no classified information was hacked off her server.

    While not nothing, it doesn't come even a little bit close to Petraeus's leaking huge amounts of highly classified information to his mistress and then lying about it.

    And Trump even considered Petraeus for Secretary of State!


    evidence to support a conclusion (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 15, 2017 at 01:06:46 AM EST
    is not the test for whether prosecutors file charges. It is whether they have a good faith belief they can prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Here Comey correctly found the Govt. was unlikely to prove she had the intent required by statute.

    Comey is not the one who decides if charges are filed. He merely submits the FBI's findings and recommendation. DOJ is free to accept or disregard.

    Comey's July 6, 2016 statement

    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.

    Jim, we've heard your views. Move on to another topic. They are not supported and you can't spread misinformation here.


    Speaking of hooey (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Sat May 13, 2017 at 04:30:54 PM EST
    Lock you up and take away your talk radio privileges -- for not even being able to slap together a good strawman.

    The law Never allows people to claim they "accidentally got drunk", so your example is completely nonsensical.

    Your blood sugar must be getting low again.


    Your (none / 0) (#70)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 15, 2017 at 10:46:07 AM EST
    favorite whistling tune:
    Dead horses always drag me away
    Dead, dead horses I'll ride them all day
    My apologies to Mick and Keith.