quote:

hmmm A REP senator asked about a highly classified report regarding Loretta Lynch and Clinton staffer Amanda Renteria. Horowitz said they are working w intel community to get this issue at a lower classification so it can be addressed and shared. Seems like a very touchy subject.

posted earlier. Here is some possible related info:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/15...criticism/index.html

Comey writes in the book that he found evidence which he felt could cast "serious doubt" on Lynch's independence.

"Had it become public, the unverified material would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general's independence in connection with the Clinton investigation," Comey writes. He calls the material a "development still unknown to the American public to this day."

Congressional investigators have raised questions about any conversations Lynch had with Clinton staffer Amanda Renteria or former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz about the email investigation.

Horowitz was asked about the missing Strzok/Page texts and how his team recovered some of them.

Horowitz said

First the inhouse OIG cyber forensic team examined the FBI phones of Strzok and Page. They found some more texts.

Second, they hired an outside contractor. They found more texts.

Third, they went to DoD to see if they had special tools. They did. They found some more texts.

Then fourth, as a wrap up quality control exercise they discovered a database that had some more texts.

Too bad the FBI didn't let Horowitz try to find the Clinton emails.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Horowitz was asked about the missing Strzok/Page texts and how his team recovered some of them.

Horowitz said

First the inhouse OIG cyber forensic team examined the FBI phones of Strzok and Page. They found some more texts.

Second, they hired an outside contractor. They found more texts.

Third, they went to DoD to see if they had special tools. They did. They found some more texts.

Then fourth, as a wrap up quality control exercise they discovered a database that had some more texts.

Too bad the FBI didn't let Horowitz try to find the Clinton emails.

The incentives were wrong. When looking for something, you have to want to find it, not be afraid to look carefully for fear you might.

What’s on Weiner’s laptop?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

hmmm A REP senator asked about a highly classified report regarding Loretta Lynch and Clinton staffer Amanda Renteria. Horowitz said they are working w intel community to get this issue at a lower classification so it can be addressed and shared. Seems like a very touchy subject.

posted earlier. Here is some possible related info:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/15...criticism/index.html

Comey writes in the book that he found evidence which he felt could cast "serious doubt" on Lynch's independence.

"Had it become public, the unverified material would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general's independence in connection with the Clinton investigation," Comey writes. He calls the material a "development still unknown to the American public to this day."

Congressional investigators have raised questions about any conversations Lynch had with Clinton staffer Amanda Renteria or former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz about the email investigation.

To me this was the most interesting thing I heard when watching today. Some agency has a very high level classification on material relating to a high level official (Lynch perhaps) somehow caught up in this. How could this information be classified at probably TS and above??? damned agencies hiding evidence of corruption under the cover of Classification.

Sarah Carter

Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) of the Senate Judiciary Committee outlined the stark double standard at Monday’s much anticipated hearing on the FBI’s handling of its investigations into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for government business and the bureau’s highly partisan investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump’s campaign.

Grassley stated “justice should be blind” but contended that it was not in the case in the FBI’s handling of the Clinton and Trump investigations. He noted that based on the evidence collected in the 568-page report released by Inspector General Michael Horowitz last week, along with information and evidence collected by numerous Congressional committees, evidence of bias against Trump was insurmountable.

Grassley stressed, “most of the time, evidence of political bias is not so explicit. The details in this report confirm what the American people have suspected all along. Hillary Clinton got the kid-glove treatment.”

Grassley stressed, “most of the time, evidence of political bias is not so explicit. The details in this report confirm what the American people have suspected all along. Hillary Clinton got the kid-glove treatment.”

“The contrast to the Russia probe is stark,” Grassley stated. “The biggest difference, of course, is the appointment of a Special Counsel. Attorney General (Loretta) Lynch refused to appoint one. The appearance of political influence was inevitable.”

Horowitz and FBI Director Christopher Wray were grilled by lawmakers during the hours-long hearing, which consisted of questioning regarding the use of FBI informants in investigations, the handling of the Clinton investigation, and the extraordinary bias in the FBI by senior special agents in the field.

Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT) said he was “disappointed” in Wray’s response last week to Horowitz’s report and told Wray there was a “serious problem” within senior bureau leadership and that these cases appear not to be an aberration but a deep cultural breakdown within the FBI.


At the hearing Grassley laid out the extraordinary differences in the investigations and questioned Horowitz, asking him if “granting immunity is the only way to gain truthful testimony from witnesses;” a reference to the highly unusual decision by the FBI to grant immunity to Clinton and her aides before they were interviewed. Both Wray and Horowitz noted that it was not the only way to extract information from witnesses, but he did not expand on why it was handled in such a manner. Horowitz also revealed that his office is handling an investigation into Comey’s leaking of personal memos to his friend and the New York Times, which initiated the opening of a Special Counsel to investigate Trump.

Horowitz sent a strong message to the FBI during his opening statement, telling lawmakers, “as detailed in our report, we found that the inappropriate political messages cast a cloud over the Midyear investigation sowed doubt about the credibility of the FBI’s handling of it, and impacted the reputation of the FBI. Moreover, we found the implication that senior FBI employees would be willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects to be deeply troubling and antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.”

Grassley noted that had Horowitz not discovered the onslaught of anti-Trump texts between embattled FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who worked the Clinton investigation and headed the Russia investigation, and his paramour former FBI Attorney Lisa Page, “they would still be there today.”

“If the evidence had not been discovered, the pair would “still be investigating the Trump campaign,” Grassley said. “They would still be texting about how they despised President Trump and everyone who voted for him. They would still be plotting about how to use their official positions to, “stop him.”

Under questioning, Horowitz admitted that the discovery of Strzok and Page texts was disturbing.

“That should not be downplayed by anybody,” Horowitz said. “I cannot think of anything more concerning than law enforcement officer suggesting that they may use their powers to effect a presidential election.”

Grassley’s Examples of Stark Differences
in Trump & Clinton Investigations:

Under Lynch:
Comey publicly exonerated Clinton before 17 key witnesses were interviewed

A low-level IT worker lied to the FBI twice about destroying records under subpoena and got immunity.

Clinton’s lawyers and aides who improperly held classified information got carefully crafted agreements to limit searches of their computers by consent.

Under Rosenstein:
No one seriously thinks Robert Mueller would plan a press conference to exonerate Trump before his investigators’ work is done.

A low-level Trump campaign associate provided the wrong date for a conversation with a professor and got charged with lying to the FBI.

Trump’s lawyers and former aides got raided and hauled before grand juries.

Grassley also stressed the breakdown in culture at the FBI and Horowitz’s discovery that numerous senior FBI agents were being wined and dined by reporters against FBI protocol.

“The FBI has managed to promote a culture that winks at unauthorized disclosures to the press but punishes legally-protected whistleblowing. It stiff-arms Congressional oversight to hide embarrassing facts, while it leaks self-serving tidbits to friendly reporters bearing gifts. Director Wray has quite a mess to clean up,” Grassley stated.IG Diagram of FBI contacts with reporters

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) chided the FBI’s leadership team under Comey and questioned Horowitz about the IG report’s finding regarding the lack of documentary evidence of bias in the FBI. Cornyn said it was a “fair inference to draw that Comey was worried about his future during the Clinton investigation,” and changed “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”

When asked by Cornyn if he was surprised that Comey used a private g-mail account at the same time he was investigating Clinton for using a private email server, Horowitz said he was surprised and that he couldn’t judge whether or not Comey made his decision based on his belief that Clinton was going to become president.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, also demanded Horowitz open an investigation to find out whether former FBI Director Andrew McCabe attended a meeting with Strzok and Page, which they discussed in a text an “insurance policy” against Trump if he were to become president.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Horowitz said he believes “Andy” is in reference to McCabe. Horowitz noted that Strzok said McCabe was at the meeting with him, but McCabe said he could not recall the meeting.
After telling the Director that he wasn’t sure the Clinton email investigation was “on the up and up”, Wray said the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility was in the process of investigating agents and “will hold every person accountable.”

Grassley pointed out that Lynch, Former FBI Director James Comey, and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe declined to testify. According to Grassley, “McCabe’s lawyer wrote that his client would rely on his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering any questions here today.”

“Mr. Comey’s attorney tells us he is out of the country, although I saw he was in Iowa over the weekend,” Grassley stated in his opening statement. “According to his twitter feed, he seems to be having a wonderful time. This is the second time since he was fired that Mr. Comey refused an invitation to testify here voluntarily. He has time for book tours and television interviews, but apparently no time to assist this Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over the Justice Department.”

Link

Horowitz at House Judiciary comm now.

Chairman Goodlatte burning FBI and DoJ in opening remarks. Proclaiming the FBI and DoJ not in the constitution, but president is. A handful of individuals in FBI and DoJ tried to damage the president.

Can't capture everything Goodlatte is saying but it is smoking.

Now DEM Nadler talking: pounds that the IG report says there was no bias in the FBI email investigation. Also attacks President Trump for trying to smear Mueller.

DEM Nadler protests the revealing of the "confidential informant" who spied on the Trump campaign. what a joke

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Horowitz at House Judiciary comm now.

Chairman Goodlatte burning FBI and DoJ in opening remarks. Proclaiming the FBI and DoJ not in the constitution, but president is. A handful of individuals in FBI and DoJ tried to damage the president.

Can't capture everything Goodlatte is saying but it is smoking.

You missed Gowdy, who laid it on pretty good, and the star of the farce, and Cummings who claims these hearings will not end until Clinton is jailed, and when are we going to investigate Trump whose policy of separating children in unAmerican

yes, I tuned in late.

My personal opinion - I am not all that excited about the Clinton email investigation.

What is important (to me) is that the text messages came out, and the same FBI team moved on to the Russia collusion investigation.

What is important now is that Comey and McCabe get exposed as liars and cheats. Also that DoJ gets exposed with unfair and dirty tactics.

This hurts Mueller in trying to charge "obstruction" against Donald Trump.

The real action will hit when the IG report on the FISA warrant against Carter Page comes out.

Gowdy reads a bunch of Lisa Page texts. Then reads Strzok texts. Points out that Page and Strzok were on the email investigation, Russia investigation, and Mueller team. Laying out how biased these two were. Gowdy doing a good job of hitting the worst of the texts.

BTW, FBI Dir Wray is not present today. Just Horowitz.

Trey Gowdy...like him or not, he just hit a grand slam in the hearings. He asks no question that he doesn't already know the answer to. He laid it all out chronologically so that even a thick headed liberal could understand it. It is obvious to me that he is a prosecutor of the highest level. After hearing him, it logically calls into question the existence of the special council investigation and the question of why there were no charges against hillary.

It's nothing we didn't already know, but Gowdy blasted the dems spin off its axis.

quote:

Originally posted by Top Gun Supply:
Trey Gowdy...like him or not, he just hit a grand slam in the hearings. He asks no question that he doesn't already know the answer to. He laid it all out chronologically so that even a thick headed liberal could understand it. It is obvious to me that he is a prosecutor of the highest level. After hearing him, it logically calls into question the existence of the special council investigation and the question of why there were no charges against hillary.

It's nothing we didn't already know, but Gowdy blasted the dems spin off its axis.

Don’t worry too much about criticism seen here. The critics are just venting. The ones with the most vitriol are usually those whose knowledge and experience in these areas is the least. It must be cruel to care so deeply and yet have so little capability to accurately evaluate events and assess individual abilities, which is hard enough when one does have the background and experience.

Keep in mind, too, that all we have to go on is media coverage and statements. We don’t get the inside stuff except for leaks which are seldom complete and hardly reliable.

We have seen Gowdy go from fair haired boy, champion of the universe, and the oppressed to miserable treasonous scoundrel, all since the first of the year.

I am not going to get into a Ping-Pong debate about Trey Gowdy, but it certainly seems that he has shifted from this:

"I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got, and that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump,"


https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29...mp-russia/index.html

After the IG report came out, Gowdy has adopted a much more negative posture regarding the FBI.

Horowitz is implying that the issue of the impact of bias will change for the Russia investigation. (That the bias may be a factor in October 2016 and after)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

in earlier posts there was discussion that Horowitz said there was a highly classified report about Loretta Lynch that he was trying to get classified at a lower level. The question that triggered Horowitz's comment asked about Lynch and Amanda Renteria.

Here is a May 2017 article that might be germane

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.cb71c76f7576

A secret document that officials say played a key role in then-FBI Director James B. Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation has long been viewed within the FBI as unreliable and possibly a fake, according to people familiar with its contents.

In the midst of the 2016 presidential primary season, the FBI received what was described as a Russian intelligence document claiming a tacit understanding between the Clinton campaign and the Justice Department over the inquiry into whether she intentionally revealed classified information through her use of a private email server.

The Russian document cited a supposed email describing how then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch had privately assured someone in the Clinton campaign that the email investigation would not push too deeply into the matter. If true, the revelation of such an understanding would have undermined the integrity of the FBI’s investigation.

Current and former officials have said that Comey relied on the document in making his July decision to announce on his own, without Justice Department involvement, that the investigation was over.

by August the FBI had concluded it was unreliable.

The document, obtained by the FBI, was a piece of purported analysis by Russian intelligence, the people said. It referred to an email supposedly written by the then-chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), and sent to Leonard Benardo, an official with the Open Society Foundations, an organization founded by billionaire George Soros and dedicated to promoting democracy.

The Russian document did not contain a copy of the email, but it described some of the contents of the purported message.

In the supposed email, Wasserman Schultz claimed Lynch had been in private communication with a senior Clinton campaign staffer named Amanda Renteria during the campaign. The document indicated Lynch had told Renteria that she would not let the FBI investigation into Clinton go too far, according to people familiar with it.

Current and former officials have argued that the secret document gave Comey good reason to take the extraordinary step over the summer of announcing the findings of the Clinton investigation himself without Justice Department involvement.

Comey had little choice, these people have said, because he feared that if Lynch announced no charges against Clinton, and then the secret document leaked, the legitimacy of the entire case would be questioned.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

now this article starts out by saying the document is a fake.

But Horowitz acknowledged there is some highly classified info about Lynch and Amanda Renteria

What a tangled mess.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

While both DEMs and REPs keep pounding Comey in these hearings for making his announcement on 5 July 2016, let's not forget Comey had good reason to think the Loretta Lynch DoJ was totally in the tank for H Clinton.

While I disagree w Comey's conclusion on 5 July 2016, his public disclosure of Clinton's gross negligence was a good thing for the American people.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

Naturally!

Watching this thing play out is simply mind-boggling.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

Well of course, that's why they are unnamed!

Just so I'm clear.....Sessions had to recuse himself from an investigation because that would give the appearance of bias....but the folks actually conducting the investigation don't have to recuse themselves even after they are proven biased?

At this point, I'd give Muller 14 days to investigate Sessions, and either clear him or indict him. After that time, Sessions takes over (or resigns in disgrace at being indicted.)

Clinton Emails: What the IG Report Refuses to Admit

National Review
Andrew McCarthy

The fix was in.


Despite the sprawl of Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz’s 568-page report on the Clinton-emails investigation, there is precious little discussion of the most important issue: The Justice Department and FBI’s rationale for declining to prosecute Hillary Clinton. I believe this is intentional. The inspector general’s message is: “Despite pervasive political bias and investigative irregularities, which I have comprehensively documented, rest assured that nothing too terrible happened here.”

That silver-lining version of this dark spectacle could not have survived a searching analysis of the decision not to indict.

In explaining themselves to the IG, Obama Justice Department and FBI officials contended that the make-or-break issue in the case was whether they could prove mens rea — criminal state of mind. In this instance, that involved former secretary of state Clinton’s knowledge and intent regarding the unauthorized transmission and retention of classified information. Investigators say it dawned on them at a very early stage that they could not. Hence, they urge, their decisions to allow the election calendar to impose a time limit on the investigation, to limit the amount of evidence they considered, to be less than aggressive in obtaining evidence, and to draft an exoneration of Clinton months before interviewing her (and other key witnesses), were entirely reasonable.

Yet their analysis left out the best intent evidence, namely, Clinton’s willful setting up of a private, non-secure server system for all official business.

For his part (as I discussed in Friday’s column), IG Horowitz took the position that it was not his job to question the correctness of the investigators’ legal conclusions and exercise of prosecutorial discretion. He blithely accepted the investigators’ crimped construction of knowledge-and-intent proof, making it a foregone conclusion that he would find their decision-making defensible — much as their adoption of this crimped standard, uncalled for by the applicable law, made it a foregone conclusion that Clinton would not be charged.

A comprehensive critique of the investigators’ approach would have described the evidence they chose not to weigh. That would have been consistent with other parts of the report, in which Horowitz dilates on the minutiae of investigative techniques the agents and prosecutors eschewed.

A detailed description of the grossly improper communications system Clinton established would have illustrated that she knew full well the risk she was running. A large percentage of the secretary of state’s job involves classified matters. We are not talking merely about the exchange of documents marked classified but, more commonly, constant deliberations about sensitive intelligence in classified documents, briefings, and conversations. Clinton’s willful concoction of a home-brew communications network — not a harried official’s occasional, exigent use of private email for official business, but her rogue institution of a private, non-government infrastructure for the systematic conduct of State Department business — made the non-secure transmission and storage of classified information inevitable.

Horowitz’s fleeting conclusion that the decision not to charge Clinton was rational and not necessarily motivated by political considerations hinges on the assumption that the intent evidence truly was as sparse as the FBI and Justice Department described it. Of course the decision to decline prosecution was defensible, if not incontestable, if one accepts that false premise. And Horowitz does not just accept the premise; he treats it as a background assumption, writing as if there’s no other conceivable way to look at the case.

What made Clinton’s conduct outrageous was not that national-defense officials emailed each other frequently. That happens in every government agency that deals with national security. The unique fact here was that Mrs. Clinton willfully set up a system in which those communications would transit though and be retained on a non-secure system, outside the government’s layers of protection. That system was extraordinarily vulnerable to penetration by hostile actors, a fact of which Clinton was undeniably, intimately aware. (See, e.g., Clinton’s banning of State Department employees from using private email for official business due to security concerns; Clinton’s citing of an ambassador’s use of private email for government business in firing him; Clinton’s acknowledgment that she “received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information”; Clinton’s memoir, Hard Choices, in which she vividly recounts the thorough training she received about protecting intelligence from the omnipresent threat of espionage, including instruction to leave communications devices on planes with batteries removed during her frequent foreign travel, as well as the need to use an “opaque tent” or “a blanket over our head” when she and her staff read “sensitive material” outside the secure U.S. government setting.)

The IG report indicates that this indisputable evidence of intent and knowledge played little if any part in Justice Department and FBI hand-wringing over whether the evidence of intent and knowledge was sufficient to justify an indictment. Instead, the report recounts that “various witnesses told the OIG that the investigation focused on identifying what classified information transited former Secretary Clinton’s server, who introduced it, and why.”

In other words, obsess over the trees, ignore the forest. The Justice Department and FBI narrowed the lens to each individual instance of classified information passing through the home-brew server, and essentially asked, “Did the official responsible for the specific transmission know the specific information was classified, and did the official intend to transmit classified information — or, at least, was the official so grossly irresponsible in doing so that bad intent could be inferred?”

With that as the investigators’ focus, the IG uncritically reports that no one was charged because:

(1) classified information exchanged in unclassified emails was not clearly or properly marked, and (2) State Department staff introducing classified information into emails made an effort to “talk around” it.

Now, let’s put aside for the moment that (1) people with security clearances know that whether information is marked classified is irrelevant; and (2) when people “talk around” information (an obtuse term for speaking in elliptical or coded fashion about something in order to avoid stating it directly and unambiguously), prosecutors usually regard this as valuable consciousness-of-guilt evidence (people only “talk around” things when they know they shouldn’t be talking about those things at all).

The Obama Justice Department and FBI spin on intent takes no account of the 800-pound gorilla in the room: The only reason officials were put in this position of compromising intelligence was that their boss, Clinton, established an improper communications network. And, again, she perfectly well understood that this was a monumental security breach.

It was not just a matter of whether any single transmission was an intentional flouting of the rules. It was, more significantly, a matter of erecting a renegade network for the systematic conduct of the State Department’s most sensitive work — including communications with the president and other top national-security and foreign-policy officials.

And observe how perverse this is: The Justice Department and FBI’s crimped construction of intent and knowledge enabled Clinton — the person singularly responsible for creating the problem — to escape liability on the ground she could not be held responsible for poor decisions by her staff. Investigators reasoned that the secretary of state was one of the nation’s highest government officials, who was more often than not receiving, not sending, sensitive information, and who was inundated by so much information that she had no choice but to rely on underlings to make judgments about what information could safely be sent to her.

It is a classic in the Clinton genre: rules-don’t-apply-to-me sense of privilege causes mess; subordinates blamed for mess; Washington looks the other way. If the FBI thought it was tremendously important that Clinton was on the receiving end of most (but not all) classified emails (inference: it was not her fault that people who should have known better sent her secret intelligence), how could it not have been even more important that Clinton imposed a non-secure, non-government server on her subordinates’ ability to communicate with her?

Remarkably, even blinding themselves to critical evidence was not enough to bury the case. In order to conclude that there was no prosecutable offense, the Obama Justice Department and FBI still had to rewrite the applicable statute (the Espionage Act, codified in Section 793 of the federal penal code). That’s because, for all the supposed obsession about whether investigators had enough evidence of criminal intent, the law does not actually require such evidence — if one is an official who has been schooled in the handling of national defense secrets, gross negligence will do.

The IG obligingly confines this aspect of his perfunctory assessment to a footnote (number 124):

Even though Section 793(f)(1) does not require intent, prosecutors told us that the Department has interpreted the provision to require that the person accused of having removed or delivered classified information in violation of this provision possess knowledge that the information is classified. In addition, based on the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), the prosecutors determined that conduct must be “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” be “criminally reckless,” or fall “just a little short of willful” to meet the “gross negligence” standard.

In other words, the Justice Department added proof elements that are not in the statute. The Espionage Act literally says that if you are a government official who has been entrusted with sensitive information, you are guilty if you either willfully cause its transmission to an unauthorized person or place (Section 793(d)), or are grossly negligent in permitting it to be removed from its proper custody, transmitted to an unauthorized person, or lost, stolen, or abstracted (Section 793(f)(1)).

What could be more gross, reckless, and willful than imposing a non-secure private email system on the communications of the government’s highest-ranking national-security officials?
Notice, to establish guilt, the law does not require proof that the official had knowledge of every individual bit of classified information that was transmitted. If the government official establishes a blatantly unauthorized, absurdly non-secure system for government communications among officials who have top-level national-security duties, a rational jury could surely find the willful transmission of classified information to unauthorized persons or locations.

And if the jury had doubt about that — notwithstanding the thousands of emails containing classified information on Clinton’s system — gross negligence is the fall-back position. The official is also guilty if, by her recklessness, she enabled to exposure of classified information in an unprotected setting, enabled its transmission to unauthorized people, or created a situation that directly caused its compromise, theft, or loss. On that last score, Fox News’s Catherine Herridge reports that two congressional committees have found that “foreign actors obtained access” to Clinton’s emails.

There is nothing in the statute that inflates “gross negligence” into a requirement that infractions be “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” be “criminally reckless,” or fall “just a little short of willful.” But even if there were, what could be more gross, reckless, and willful than imposing a non-secure private email system on the communications of the government’s highest-ranking national-security officials?

Yet that is the aspect of Mrs. Clinton’s conduct that the Obama Justice Department and FBI decided not to factor into their consideration of intent evidence. And apparently, the IG had no problem with that.

Link

Interesting:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/19...er-strzok/index.html

Washington (CNN)- FBI agent Peter Strzok was escorted from the FBI building Friday as part of the ongoing internal proceedings at the bureau on his conduct, according to a source familiar with the matter.

As of Tuesday, the source says, Strzok is still an FBI employee.

Representative Meadows asked Horowitz about the Intelligence Community IG.

Meadows said the Intel Community IG was one of the referrals to kick off the email investigation. The Intel Comm IG drove to the FBI and told them they had seen anomalies in the metadata that suggested a foreign actor was getting copies of potential emails.

Meadows said the FBI never followed up with the Intel Comm IG. The next time they went to them was to tell them the case was closed.

Horowitz said he was generally aware of this but it was not in the report. Meadows asked Horowitz to follow up.