Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comey, Who Investigated Hillary Clinton For Using Personal Email For Official Business, Used His Personal Email For Official Business (buzzfeed.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Former FBI Director James Comey, who led the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of personal email while secretary of state, also used his personal email to conduct official business, according to a report from the Justice Department on Thursday. The report also found that while Comey was "insubordinate" in his handling of the email investigation, political bias did not play a role in the FBI's decision to clear Clinton of any criminal wrongdoing.

The report from the office of the inspector general "identified numerous instances in which Comey used a personal email account (a Gmail account) to conduct FBI business." In three of the five examples, investigators said Comey sent drafts he had written from his FBI email to his personal account. In one instance, he sent a "proposed post-election message for all FBI employees that was entitled 'Midyear thoughts,'" the report states. In another instance, Comey again "sent multiple drafts of a proposed year-end message to FBI employees" from his FBI account to his personal email account.

10 of 464 comments (clear)

  1. But did he send any classified information? by MrNJ · · Score: 5, Informative

    That was the issue with Clinton. Handling classified material improperly. Bid difference.

    --
    I don't respond to or upvote ACs
  2. The OIG report also says by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The OIG report also says Comey claims he didn't know Anthony Weiner was married to Clinton's chief of staff Huma Abedin...

    Director of the FBI.

  3. Unsurprising. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've long suspected that use of personal email accounts is so rampant in government that if the FBI did prosecute, half of congress would be torn between destroying their own emails and trying to dig up anything the other party sent them from a person address. It's only a big deal with it can be turned into a political weapon.

  4. Re:It is only Illegal if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The rhetoric about this issue is highly partisan, including your post. However, I don't think this is a liberal/conservative issue, really.

    As a state employee, I'm allowed to use my personal email address for official business. Once in awhile I do so, if I want to have a particular discussion outside of work hours while not checking my work email for other business. Nothing I'm doing is sensitive, and I'm allowed to do it provided the emails are sent to an official state email address reasonably soon.

    If Comey is using a personal email address to send himself drafts of agency-wide letters, that doesn't seem problematic. Comey isn't going to be sending sensitive information to the entire FBI.

    Comey did completely mishandle investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. Neither liberals nor conservatives approve of how Comey handled that investigation, so I don't think that's a controversial statement. Clinton was also incredibly reckless, to say the least, in using a personal email server for handling sensitive information. That is, indeed, problematic. As for there being a political bias, Mike Pence also used a personal email account to conduct official business while he was the Governor of Indiana. That email account was hacked, exposing sensitive information. Mike Pence didn't break Indiana law, and I'm not aware of him ever being investigated over the matter.

    While both Clinton and Pence have been heavily criticized for using personal email for conducting work-related business, neither has faced serious consequences for doing so. I don't see a political bias here, for or against conservatives.

    As for Comey, using a personal email address for a few emails that don't appear sensitive doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Comey's credibility is gone, but it doesn't have anything to do with this. This seems like a non-issue to me, especially compared with all of the other issues surrounding Comey.

  5. Re:Hypocrisy in government? by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I don't understand about Comey is that he all but threw the election to Trump while panning Trump left and right.

    It's easy to understand. Comey and the rest of the beltway didn't even suspect Trump might get elected. The purpose of that farcical reopen/close stunt was to clean the slate; Clinton would win the election and enter office with no outstanding investigative hangups.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  6. Re:Sites back, grabs a tub of popcorn... by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Amusingly, her server turns out to have been more secure than the State Department server. The State Department got hacked, but the Clintons didn't. https://securityintelligence.c... [securityintelligence.com] "

    The OIG report released today SAYS that foreign governments had at least one of her emails marked Secret - from her server.

  7. No, Different leak [Re:Sites back, grabs a tub...] by XXongo · · Score: 5, Informative

    The State Department got hacked, but the Clintons didn't.

    Then how did those darn Russians get her emails? The alternative to badly secured server hacked by Russians is the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Pick your poison carefully.

    The DNC email leak was from the DNC, not the Clinton server (and was years after Hillary left the Secretary of State office). It was done by phishing John Podesta's account: https://www.apnews.com/dea73ef...
    https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/03/ap-investigation-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-emails/

  8. Re:Sites back, grabs a tub of popcorn... by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "As Secretary of State, she had the authority to declare what server are secure!"

    Not true. The Sec of State only has classification authority over documents originating with the Dept of State. The classified info they found originated in other agencies.

  9. Re:Whut? by fafalone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He cleared Hillary of violating a law with no intent requirement because she lacked intent and claimed being extremely careless wasn't negligent. Almost everyone with a security clearance will tell you there's not a chance they'd not get charged for similar behavior, and indeed people have been prosecuted for far less, the submarine guy being the most egregious example. He clearly gave a pass to Hillary; the most reasonable explanation for the other actions was to try to make it seem like that's not what was going on. And if you think this is just one more partisan opinion, a quick glance at my history will illustrate how much I loathe Trump (and all (R)'s), a necessary point to make since people automatically assume anyone who thinks Hillary should have been charged is a Trump supporter.

  10. Re:Hypocrisy in government? by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Informative

    > That and the FBI was actually pretty pro-Trump.

    Are we reading the same report?

    Page 5:

    A paragraph summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that hostile actors accessed Clinton’s server was added, and at one point referenced Clinton’s use of her private email for an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary. This reference later was changed to “another senior government official,” and ultimately was omitted.

    Page 420 shows a text saying "we'll stop" Trump from becoming President--a text that was somehow completely omitted, rather than redacted, from previous disclosures.

    Page 430 shows FBI agents getting 'gifts' from the media.

    Page 461-2:

    First, Kadzik did not recognize the appearance of a conflict that he himself had created when he initiated an effort to obtain employment for his son with the Clinton campaign while he was participating in senior staff meetings where Clinton-related matters were discussed and signing letters to Congress regarding Clinton-related matters on behalf of the Department. Second, Kadzik created an appearance of a conflict when he sent Podesta the “Heads up” email that included government information about the FOIA litigation in an effort to be helpful to the Clinton campaign without knowing whether the information had yet been made public. His willingness to do so raised a reasonable question about his ability to act impartially on Clinton-related matters in connection with his official duties. Additionally, although Department leadership ultimately decided to recuse Kadzik from Clinton-related matters upon learning of Kadzik’s “Heads up” email to Podesta, Kadzik subsequently forwarded several emails communicating information related to Clinton-related matters within the Department and indicated his intent to speak with staff about those matters. We therefore concluded that Kadzik exercised poor judgment by failing to strictly adhere to his recusal.

    You may want to read more than just the conclusions at the end.