Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

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.

Originally posted by airforce:
But he didn't exactly let her off scot-free, either.

Originally posted by McMedic:
Yeah, he did. He nor anyone else in DC has the balls to stand up to that ****. If it wasn't clear to anyone before, it should be crystal clear now that we are under an oligarchy. One set of rules for them, another for lesser beings such as you and I....

...When it comes to low-level government employees with no power, the Obama administration has purposely prosecuted them as harshly as possible to the point of vindictiveness: It has notoriously prosecuted more individuals under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined.

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ’s claims that he “mishandled” classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, “a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials” despite no “evidence he intended to distribute them.” Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it....

... If his case goes to trial and he is convicted, Manning could face life in prison. The government has said it would not seek the death penalty.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Manning’s alleged actions damaging and unfortunate in remarks to reporters at the State Department on Thursday.

“I think that in an age where so much information is flying through cyberspace, we all have to be aware of the fact that some information which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships, deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so,” Clinton said....

Originally posted by mak9030mag:

And the masses still believe it isn't that bad.

Originally posted by Breacher:
Hold up for a hoax alert. Some people saying the website reporting this might not be telling the truth.

Hillary’s Lies, The Air Gap Rule, and Systematic Perfidy
By James Wesley Rawles | July 6, 2016

FBI Director James Comey flat out lied to the American people yesterday, when he described Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s staffers as “extremely careless” and declined to refer her case for prosecution. What they actually did was far more serious than “careless”. Without a doubt, they willfully, criminally, treasonously carried out deliberate steps to copy classified paragraphs to an unsecure private server, and then they lied about it and also tried to delete files and confound investigators to cover their tracks.

By not confirming this perfidy with a criminal referral, Mr. Comey just made himself an indirect party to their crimes. Let me explain why I know this with certainty:

First, all classified documents are kept on dedicated independent encrypted computer systems and networks that do not cross over into the unclassified world. These computers are all very carefully air gapped–meaning that they NEVER have a physical connection to computers on unclassified networks. Therefore, there were only three ways that those 2,100+ classified paragraphs (some of them TS Codeword!) could have ended up in unclassified e-mails:

While reading one screen, someone laboriously keyed them in by hand, to appear on another screen. (This is unlikely, or human transcription errors would have been obvious.)
Someone “bridged the air gap” with an Ethernet cable or other data cable. Also unlikely, but that is possible in a worst-case security breach.
Someone copied classified files (or excerpts from them), using a memory stick or other removable memory media. (The most likely method used.)

Second, even if the Air Gap Rule violations could somehow be explained, then there is still the issue of the systematic removal of the classification markings on the documents. Not only does the top and bottom of each page carry a classification marking, but each individual paragraph contained within the document carries a classification prefix. These paragraph prefixes include:

(U) Which stands for Unclassified

(C) Which stands for Confidential

(S) Which stands for Secret

(NF) A secondary marking which stands for No Foreign (NOFORN) dissemination (So, for example, in might read: S/NF”)

(TS/Codeword) Which stands for Top Secret and the initials of a SCI compartment codeword.

Note: There are also other variations of these markings. And I can’t even mention any of those codewords or their initials because they themselves are considered classified!

The inescapable and inconvenient truth is that those top, bottom, and paragraph classification markings don’t disappear without someone taking the time and trouble to painstakingly remove them! Again, this could not have been any sort of carelessness.
Conclusion

If anyone else in government service (whether military or civilian) had done what Hillary perfidiously ordered her staff to repeatedly do, then if detected they’d be immediately arrested and within a few short months they’d face trial and probably be serving 10+ years of hard time in a Federal Pen. But apparently Hitlery Clinton is so witchy special that laws don’t apply to her–at least in the eyes of the politically-appointed FBI director.

As a former Intelligence officer, I am absolutely sickened and appalled to see Director Comey sell out the way that he did. Curse you, Mr. Comey! If J. Edgar Hoover were alive today, he would spit in your eye.- JWR

Note: Permission is granted for re-posting of this entire article, but only if done so in full, with proper attribution to James Wesley, Rawles and SurvivalBlog, and only if the included links are preserved.)

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

Dear Mr. Comey,

Do you not realize that public distrust and disgust with the U.S. federal government is at its highest level since this nation was founded? And are you not willing to admit that there are very good reasons why so many Americans feel the way they do about their federal government?

We have watched the federal government cover up fiasco after fiasco. We have watched as our public servants in Washington, D.C., have allowed the privileged class (mostly those in the employ of the federal government) to walk away “scot free” from crime after crime--crimes that had any of us ordinary people committed, there would have been absolutely no mercy shown us.

I believe you, Sir, have attempted to conduct yourself honestly and admirably throughout your long and celebrated career with the FBI. You have the respect and admiration of the vast majority (if not all) of the agents who serve under you. Many of us very much respected the way you stood on the Constitution and rule of law when President G.W. Bush tried to bully you into issuing warrantless searches and seizures, and you courageously refused to do so. And we were depending on you to once again speak truth to power and stand upon your oath to the Constitution as you examined the misdeeds of Secretary Clinton.

But you let us down. You failed the agency, the American people, the Constitution, the rule of law, and even yourself. You are better than that; and you know it. I’m really not sure how you are going to live with yourself after all of the years of priding yourself as being a man of character, honesty, and integrity. The Clinton crime machine has claimed another victim: James Comey.

You said, “No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.” You must know that almost no one outside the Clinton political machine believes that. And even they don’t believe it; they just don’t care. You have provided more reason for many Americans to say what they have been saying since Ruby Ridge and Waco: “The rule of law no longer applies to the power elite inside the Beltway.”

From the creation of our Declaration of Independence, which we celebrated the 240th anniversary of this past Monday, our country was dedicated to being “a nation of laws, not men.” Granting special treatment to officers of the Crown was one of the many reasons that our thirteen colonies fought a bloody revolutionary war to break free from Great Britain. But you know all of this.

You were given a position (by God and the American people) that had the authority (and responsibility) to show the world that America is still a nation of laws and not men, that the U.S. Constitution and rule of law is still held sacred in this country. But you brought disgrace to that position and made a mockery out of that uniquely American doctrine held sacrosanct from the days of our Founding Fathers.

A majority of the American people (from both ends of the political spectrum) feel betrayed by their own government. And now, you, Sir, have joined the seemingly ever-burgeoning cabal of betrayers.

I realize that had you chosen the valiant and honorable course and rightly recommended that criminal charges be brought against Ms. Clinton that the Attorney General--the partisan lackey that she is--would have in all likelihood ignored your recommendation. You may have even experienced political and vocational retaliation yourself. But at least yours would have been the honorable part. Plus, know that many of your fellow Americans have suffered (and still suffer) such retaliation for being true to their convictions. So, you would have been in good company.

History will one day reveal the corruption of the Clintons. And as history has revealed the honesty and integrity of those brave men in Colonial America who were willing to stand courageously against corruption within their own government, so you, too, had the opportunity to have had your name forever inscribed among the august body of patriots who were willing to show the world that America is still “a nation of laws, not men.”

Mr. Comey, count me deeply saddened by your betrayal. I expected more from you.