Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Democrats Government Network Businesses Communications Privacy Security Software The Internet News IT Politics Technology Your Rights Online

FBI Finds 14,900 More Documents From Hillary Clinton's Email Server ( 528

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: The FBI uncovered nearly 15,000 more emails and materials sent to or from Hillary Clinton as part of the agency's investigation into her use of private email at the State Department. The documents were not among the 30,000 work-related emails turned over to the State Department by her attorneys in December 2014. The State Department confirmed it has received "tens of thousands" of personal and work-related email materials -- including the 14,900 emails found by the FBI -- that it will review. At a status hearing Monday before federal Judge Emmett Sullivan, who is overseeing that case, the State Department presented a schedule for how it would release the emails found by the FBI. The first group of 14,900 emails was ordered released, and a status hearing on Sept. 23 "will determine the release of the new emails and documents," Sullivan said. "As we have previously explained, the State Department voluntarily agreed to produce to Judicial Watch any emails sent or received by Secretary Clinton in her official capacity during her tenure as secretary of state which are contained within the material turned over by the FBI and which were not already processed for FOIA by the State Department," said State Department spokesman Mark Toner in a statement issued Monday. "We can confirm that the FBI material includes tens of thousands of non-record (meaning personal) and record materials that will have to be carefully appraised at State," it read. "State has not yet had the opportunity to complete a review of the documents to determine whether they are agency records or if they are duplicative of documents State has already produced through the Freedom of Information Act" said Toner, declining further comment.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Finds 14,900 More Documents From Hillary Clinton's Email Server

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Anyone who has ever sent an email knows there are at least 2 copies. One on the sender's account. One on the recipient's. If anyone else is CC'd, then they have a copy too. Did anyone believe when she 'wiped her server' (even without a cloth), that they all disappeared forever?

    • /sarcasm

      Oh you -- with your common sense -- be quiet in the back there.

      What do you think your'e trying to do, make our glorious leaders look incompetent?

      They would never LIE to us -- especially when they have "our" best interest at heart.

      Oh wait ...

      Which of the lesser 2 evils am I supposed to vote for? Hilary or Trump?? Or neither???

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by thoromyr ( 673646 )

      This is mostly due to media distortion. Her team did not "delete" emails -- that is a deliberately misleading term. What actually happened was normal discovery, but that isn't a field that many slashdotters actually have any familiarity with and so when the journalists misrepresent the facts? People predictably jump to the wrong conclusions.

      For example, one "journalist" said that Hillary's team "skimmed the subject lines" when they did no such thing. What *actually* happened is they used discovery software

      • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @05:11PM (#52751249) Homepage

        This wasn't "normal" discovery. It was half-assed discovery that might get someone sanctioned in different circumstances. Withholding evidence from a private party is bad enough. Withholding it from the Feds is yet another example of something that the little people get severely punished for.

        • by DaHat ( 247651 )

          Plus the fact she waited how long to turn over the emails? Things she was supposed to have turned over upon leaving office.

          • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @07:49PM (#52752259) Journal

            Even if you though she could have her own private email server, She had a Fiduciary Responsibility to maintain ALL the proper records and get them archived properly. She failed either due to incompetence or malice. And quite frankly, I don't care which answer people choose, both are disqualification IMHO

            • by WarJolt ( 990309 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2016 @02:47AM (#52753701)

              Her husband lied under oath. Now she's lying under oath. What do you expect from the Clintons? I thought she would wait until she became president, but she has surpassed my wildest expectations.

              There is plenty of disappointment to go around.

              Democrat, come should have know. You guys think of yourself as the educated ones and yet education must not preclude the possibility of insanity. It seems like you've repeated your mistake expecting different results.

              Republican, I can't really blame you. The rest of your candidates sucked too.

              Libertarian, too bad you can't find a candidate that isn't a non-interventionalist. Come on, Americans love to meddle. If you can't win this election you should just give up. Disband. Whatever parties do when they are no longer relevant.

              If you're not disillusioned with this election, regardless of your party, you must be insane.

      • by ArtemaOne ( 1300025 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @05:12PM (#52751257)
        This is totally false. Did you forget the 9 hard drives that simultaneously failed a few years ago? I read a nice article covering the odds that 9 drives would fail immediately upon request of the data on them, and the number of zeros before the decimal on the percentage was staggering. They did totally remove emails, just because it wasn't a delete icon on a mail client doesn't mean they were not destroyed as soon as someone asked for them.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Remember when she said there were no emails at all? Do you think she was going to turn them over without a court order? Didnt the FBI say they had to recover the emails and couldnt recover all of them due to deletion?!? oh boy....

        All we wanted to know is why Hillary told us that Benghazi happened due to a youtube video! Its not OUR fault than she didnt get that out of the way a long time ago!

        'what difference does it make'? Well now... we're going to drag her face down across a bed of coals from now unti

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22, 2016 @07:03PM (#52752011)

          She told us that about Benghazi because it was a few short weeks before the election. Obama was campaigning on a "everything is just fine, we have been doing a great job" campaign theme. Hillary needed to control the narrative. It doesn't help that the reasonAmbassador Stevens was in Benghazi was to sell weapons to ISIS.

          So few people mention the timeline. It was a burgeoning October Surprise, and so they decided a Filmmaker protest would work as an explanation until after the election.

      • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @05:22PM (#52751335)

        Her team did not "delete" emails -- that is a deliberately misleading term.

        Yes, they did delete them. They even SAID they deleted them. That the server that had contained them had had all of its contents destroyed once they were done picking out the stuff that was work related.

        What *actually* happened is they used discovery software to filter emails based on keywords.

        But the lie she told was that her lawyers read each and every email. She knew that wasn't true, and so was lying. But that's OK, because her supporters know she lies to them, and they like being lied to.

        People should really appreciate the amount of effort the FBI put into looking for malfeasance.

        People should also recognize that they FBI could only look for corruption (and worse) within the material they had available. Clinton did not provide all of the requested material. She said she did, but that was another lie. Not an oversight, but a lie. Because we're not talking about "oops, a couple of emails you should have seen slipped through the cracks" - but "oops, thousands and thousands of emails you should have seen in that pile I printed out without header info were deleted."

        In short: this fantasy that Hillary attempted to delete evidence is completely without basis

        Other than the part where, you know, her records were deleted after her team put on a show of pulling out what they thought would make the appearance of complying with her requirements ... years after she was supposed to have turned ALL of it over to State so their archivists could make the distinction between personal and work-related records from her deliberately co-mingled collection.

        What she *has* done is tried to *misrepresent*, the most egregious being her assertion that Comey agrees with her.

        That was egregious, but it's hardly the worst of it. She knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly lied about her motivations and actions, and deliberately slow-walked and stonewalled at every turn. The fact that she'd whip up yet another lie to make it sound like the FBI's very clear identification of her multiple "untruths" on the matter is only egregious because it shows that she's still willing to lie even when she knows that we all know she's doing it. None of that matters, of course. Her supporters like that she lies, and none of that is legally meaningful. What IS legally meaningful is her testimony in front of congress. She spent long hours carefully avoiding direct answers to questions to she wouldn't perjure herself. We'll see if she's still as slippery on that front as her reputation suggests.

        Separate from all of that, of course, is the actual content of the messages now being read. They exhibit a very clear pattern of tying access to her and her policy influence to being willing to dump piles of cash into her family business while she was in office. Legal jeopardy there? Hard to say. That would once again be Loretta Lynch's call, and we already know where she stands.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22, 2016 @08:50PM (#52752479)

          It came out today she lied to the FBI when they questioned her as well.

          She said Colin Powell suggested she use a private email server when talking to the FBI, that is her public claim that she told the FBI. Powell said he explained his AOL account usage 9 months into her term as Secretary of State. He said he never encouraged her to use a private email, or private email server. Not that it mattered what he told her, she set it up before he had contact with her.

          So she lied under oath to Congress, destroyed evidence, and lied to the FBI when they questioned her.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22, 2016 @05:22PM (#52751337)

        I think we would all understand your naive point of view if it weren't for the fact that

        a) She intentionally went through the pain to have this server to begin with

        b) She tried to obliterate every e-mail that she didn't directly approve to hand over (i.e. you can't try to run discovery again, with better parameters or per a court order)

        c) Lie to the public about what her team did when handing e-mails over (she said repeatedly that with certainty she had handed over every work e-mail). She did not say "we tried our best" and would be happy to look again if you think we made a mistake

        d) Lie to investigators about what her team did

        e) Knowingly lie about transmittal of classified information

        f) Lie about (not?) knowing what classified information marks are

        g) Lying about approval of the setup...

        Shall I go on?

        You claim normal discovery. I think it was normal discovery + a through scrub + a bunch of other shady shit.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Her team did not "delete" emails -- that is a deliberately misleading term

        Okay, so incompetence is better than intent? Because that is what you're REALLY telling us, is that she (and/or her team) was incompetent. Because here are your options

        1) It was deliberate (really bad for her)
        2) She had a duty and was incompetent or negligent or carelessly deleted emails she was supposed to keep.

        In order for you to believe the lies/misstatements/untruths/mistakes/ she spewed, you have to think she has some sort of MENTAL issues. And given the careful parsing of language that changed over th

      • by jrumney ( 197329 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @08:17PM (#52752357)
        And it turns out they "forgot" to add a couple of important keywords that has revealed that a shocking 33% of her secret communications as Secretary of State have been with various members of Nigerian royalty concerning what appear to be corrupt transactions, possibly even money laundering.
      • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2016 @12:00AM (#52753273) Journal
        So if she wanted to be all above-board, and use good software - why did she PRINT them out, forcing the FBI to scan and do OCR and patchup on tens of thousands of pages of text? She could have just turned over that database you claim she could filter through...
    • by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @05:18PM (#52751305) Homepage Journal

      Can't be too hard to find the emails.

      1) Trump suggests that Russian hackers find the missing emails for us.
      2) Major hack attributed to Russians.
      3) ???
      4) FBI finds thousands of Hillary's missing emails.

      • by DaHat ( 247651 )

        FYI: The Trump suggestion occurred after the Russian attributed DNC hack.

        Who then should we blame?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22, 2016 @04:46PM (#52751013)

    Of course she had intent. She used a personal email server to avoid this very event. Now it is happening anyway.

    Of course, it will be whitewashed anyway, too.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22, 2016 @04:58PM (#52751145)

      She's even gone as far to blame a black man for telling her to do what she did.

    • by lgw ( 121541 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @05:01PM (#52751183) Journal

      Of course she had intent. She used a personal email server to avoid this very event. Now it is happening anyway.

      Of course, it will be whitewashed anyway, too.

      While I agree she's dirtier than a coal miner working overtime, "what difference, at this point, does it make". We've established pretty thoroughly that she's above the law, so why is the FBI even continuing this farce? Further budget negotiations? I had assumed that FBI and DOJ had secured the appropriate monetary concessions from the coming Clinton budget when Justice announced no intent to bring charges. This is just baffling.

      • by bongey ( 974911 )
        The State Department is doing this, not the FBI. The State Dep is just handing over the emails the FBI found months ago.
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @07:55PM (#52752283) Journal
      What difference at this point does it make?
      No reasonable prosecutor can be found in the US.
  • by CajunArson ( 465943 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @04:48PM (#52751037) Journal

    Not because he's necessarily more honest than Hillary but simply because 95% of the press will refuse to give him a free pass for literally everything he does.

    If Hillary gets elected then press-protected official bribery becomes the new "normal".

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22, 2016 @04:51PM (#52751061)

      Good point. A President that the media hates means that the President is held accountable.

    • by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @05:07PM (#52751215)
      That certainly was the case with Nixon. He didn't do any more than what Kennedy did to him ten years earlier, but the press loved Kennedy and hated Nixon.
      • by geek ( 5680 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @05:45PM (#52751517)

        That certainly was the case with Nixon. He didn't do any more than what Kennedy did to him ten years earlier, but the press loved Kennedy and hated Nixon.

        Shit man, Nixon got us out of Vietnam and the press still fucking hated him.

        • It's endemic to the left. This weekend, down in Santa Monica I came across a guy with a "Dump Trump" and "Trump = war criminal" posters, pushing "Peace" and Hillary! stickers on his table on the 3rd street Promenade. I asked him which candidate was the one that voted for the Iraq war, started the Libya mess, and let Syria/ISIS explode into the nightmare it is? The spittle was intense...
  • bern (Score:5, Funny)

    by blackomegax ( 807080 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @04:53PM (#52751081) Journal
    I can't wait to see Hillary in an orange jump suit and Bernie Sanders in his rightful place as King of murica
  • by nimbius ( 983462 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @04:55PM (#52751101) Homepage
    These are the candidates. You either vote for a walking Meme, conveniently resuscitated as a living anachronism of our post apocalyptic plutocratic future, or a woman who could have faced charges for everything from obstruction of justice to murder or even treason yet unaccountably shows up once a week in a $12,000 designer potato sack to advocate on behalf of the middle class.

    alternate candidates? why i thought youd never ask! it boils down to a woman who openly questions the science of everything from GMO's to simple vaccination, and laundry list of "break glass in case of party meltdown" candidates with about a fortnight of facetime with the american people. See you at the polls! and in 3 years immediately behind the burnt out wreckage of an MRAP as we trade rations for ammunition and clothing amidst what used to be a shopping center.
    • it boils down to a woman who openly questions the science of everything from GMO's to simple vaccination,

      Wrong. []
      The smear campaign by the Hillarites was extremely effective - even intelligent (and ostensibly well-informed) people like you got deceived.

  • by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @04:57PM (#52751125)

    None of Hillary Clinton's work-related emails discovered by the FBI after being deleted from her private server have been released, raising questions about whether any will be seen in public before Election Day. []

  • Would you want a president who is incapable (or simply unwilling) to separate her personal affairs from work related ones? Of course, the other choice is a guy completely out of touch with reality. This will be an amusing election, and the next 4 years....

  • Appraisals (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @05:06PM (#52751203)
    The people at State who have to appraise this material are the ones she was supposed to turn ALL of her co-mingled material over to on the day she left office. State's archivists are the ones who are supposed to weed through and figure out what's personal and what's not when someone in her role chooses to make everything personal. If she'd actually followed the rules and delivered all of it to them years ago as she was supposed to, she could have spent a solid year or two talking down all of the conflicts of interest and signs of corruption between her family business and access to her and her power as SoS and have Clinton-ed most of it into "the past" by now. She's got only herself to blame for deliberately ignoring her departure requirements, and then for slow-walking and hiding all of this stuff until it had to be pried out by the damn FBI and through suits pointing out FOIA shenanigans.

    State will now say that it will take until next year to review this new material - plenty of time to stonewall and foot-drag past November. Her supporters are still running around claiming she hasn't once lied about any of this, and that nothing inappropriate to a private home-based mail server ever passed through her hands, despite the FBI pointing out the opposite.
  • by DMJC ( 682799 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @05:18PM (#52751299)
    Vote for the Libertarian and the Greens and get a proper debate going for once. America has a lot of problems which need real attention. The two major parties are a crapfest of corruption and greed. There needs to be an open dialog. It's time the third parties got a say. It's funny how Americans bang on about free speech yet they deny their political parties a voice.
    • >"Vote for the Libertarian and the Greens and get a proper debate going for once"

      If only that would work..... But it won't. We can't ever elect a third party in a major race because of our broken system. To fix it would would at least need some type of instant runoff voting system []

      Even getting third parties into a debate is extremely difficult.

    • Gary Johnson is a gun grabber. About the only thing libertarian about him is DUDE WEED.

      • He's not going to win anything except matching federal funds for the libertarian party in 2020 (and possible debate access).

    • by bongey ( 974911 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @07:31PM (#52752169)
      Jill Stein: WIFI harms our kids(1). Gary Johnson: Jews should be forced to make wedding cakes for Nazi party members by the government(2).
      Jill Stein and the green party doesn't believes in a free press, wants flat or negative GDP(3). The GP VP hangs out with holocaust denier and 9/11 truther.(4)
      Gary Johnson isn't Libertarian at all.(5)
      1) []
      2) []
      3) []
      4) []
      5) []
      • 2 is actually pretty close to the law. If you run a public business, you can not exclude members of protected classes. For example, a Westboro Baptist Church baker has to make wedding cakes for homosexual couples, if their business is open to the public.

        Analogies are never perfect, since Nazi party members are not a protected class.

        If you don't want to make a cake for someone you hate, charge an "annual membership fee" for the first cake any customer buys and give them a "membership card" good for the cur

  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @05:25PM (#52751355) Journal

    There needs to be more investigations into Hillary Clinton. It's not like Congress is busy doing anything else.

  • by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @05:33PM (#52751415)

    I guess they didn't use the secure erase towel when Hillary's minions wiped the server.

  • by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ) on Monday August 22, 2016 @05:42PM (#52751491)
    Hillary is stupid, not malicious. Let's assume for the moment that neither Donald or Hillary are actually as evil as we make them out to be.

    Let's also assume for the moment that Hillary wanted to have an e-mail address with a domain name the added to her marketing value and she asked some egg-head if he/she could make it happen. Now assume that the egghead recognizes that she's the secretary of state as well as the former first lady of a two term president.

    Now the egghead hears her ask for this and he's like "Well, I can't put that on our internal servers... what else can I do to make it happen?" Of course the egghead isn't a lawyer and he/she doesn't want to be cock-blocked by some manager and then go back to Hillary and tell her/him (still not sure) that he screwed up and now her dreams of having a her marketing slogan as a domain name for her e-mail will not be possible.

    So... what does he do? Well, not being a lawyer or understanding what it would mean, he sets up a new mail server that would allow her to send messages to Bill like "Make sure you leave your cigars at your intern's house before coming home... oh and buy milk." without them ending up as public record.

    I honestly wonder if the e-mail is the best thing they can come up with. Hillary isn't particularly exciting, but she's pretty awful at her job... unless you consider her job as Secretary of State as a personal self-promotion, optimal for ladder climbing... where in that case, she's great at her job. She has to have incredible amounts of crap they can use on her without even digging too deep. And the e-mail thing which I'm damn near convinced is basically technical incompetence as opposed to intentional malicious deception of the country.

    Let's also consider that there's absolutely nothing related to the e-mail that will cause Trump to win. He's like the golden goose or the gift that keeps giving to anyone who opposes him. After all, I think that even Dan Quayle could have won running against Trump. Al Gore could have creamed him. Instead, the country leaves Hillary as the opposition and while she looks like she has a landslide, you know you suck when it's months before election and people can still identify a possibility that Trump could possibly win.

    Democrats... what the hell were you thinking when you supported Hillary?
    Republicans... what the hell were you thinking when you supported Trump?

    You both had better candidates and you actually chose the most entertaining ones as opposed to someone you might actually want in office.
    • Republicans... what the hell were you thinking when you supported Trump?


    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      There's also the Bengazi smeer:


      I've lost count of how many congressional investigations have been run on that subject now, and none of them have ever found any concrete evidence she mishandled the situation, but just being under perpetual investigation can hurt.

    • Democrate here (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
      we were thinking "How the _fuck_ are we suppose to create a viable progressive candidate when we've got to deal with the right wing in our party who think Jesus will somehow make Flint's water clean again?".

      Hilary is a compromise between our right wing and our progressives. That's kinda the point of progressivism: Progress. Hilary is progress. Not a lot. Lots of us want more. But there's a _lot_ of aging baby boomers scared out of their wits right now who don't want _anything_ changed. Hilary's there for
    • by dfenstrate ( 202098 ) <> on Monday August 22, 2016 @08:00PM (#52752297)

      Democrats... what the hell were you thinking when you supported Hillary?

      The super delegate system, plus some rigging at the DNC, ensured there was never really a choice. Potential qualified competitors realized that Hillary had all the super delegates bought and paid for, so they didn't even bother. Bernie was dug up as an 'opponent', a sham primary was had- it got a little out of control- and in the end, the pre-determined outcome was obtained.
      I think few people really support Hillary. They're just being obedient to the party.

    • Republicans thought they had been lied to for the last ~20 years by their party. Because they had - Republicans had been using various "wedge issues" to maintain power while not actually addressing those issues. If they had addressed those issues, Republicans would have lost the things that got them elected. So they fought for tax cuts for the wealthy instead of making serious efforts at rounding up all the homosexuals and brown people.

      Which resulted in a lot of people who's anger had already been stoked

    • You both had better candidates and you actually chose the most entertaining ones as opposed to someone you might actually want in office.

      Whoever they picked, Fox News would just make something up and their side would believe it. Fox News viewers still think Obama is a muslim and that he was born in Kenya.

  • Whoever may win will have numerous officials (military, state dept, several other agencies) who will not give the President deference like they traditionally have done. So get ready for some embarrassing moments. Oh also various diplomats from various countries.
  • Can't the FBI just get copies of *all* Clinton's email from the NSA? :-)

  • Clinton's Success stories:
    Movie : Clinton Cash Movie:Free []
    Movie Fact Sheet: Fact Sheet []
    Clinton Death Count: Death list [] Dont forget Julian assanges head attorney hit by a train, the father of the doc that did hillary's checkup who released some info.
    Bill Clinton's Rape Sheet: Victim list [] Not sure if the 19 year old when he was in the CIA in oxford is on that one at 19 or his supposed best friend at 16 either.
    Hillary getting a rapist off, while accusing a 12 year old virgin of being hot for older men:

Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.