Clinton's Actions: Lawful Or Criminal?

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for official and personal business while serving as Secretary of State has sparked controversy and raised questions about whether she broke any federal laws. The issue centres around Clinton's decision to use a private email address and server for her work as Secretary of State, rather than an official government email account. This has led to investigations by the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Counterintelligence Division. While the investigation is ongoing, there are several federal laws that Clinton may have broken, including the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and laws pertaining to the handling of classified information.

Did Clinton violate the Freedom of Information Act?

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a federal law that requires the disclosure of information and documents controlled by the US government upon request. FOIA requests can be made by any person and are typically used by news organisations, businesses, law firms, and individuals.

FOIA was invoked by journalists seeking to procure public documents related to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for official and personal business while at the Department of State. This use of a private email server came to light during an investigation by the US House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi into Clinton's conduct and knowledge of the Libyan embassy attack.

Clinton's use of a private email server raised questions about compliance with the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) regulations, and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.

FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information" and "foster democracy by ensuring public access to agency records and information". The State Department's review of 30,000 Clinton emails indicated that at least 671 contained classified information. However, Clinton maintained that she was unaware of their classification at the time and that the emails were not marked as classified.

The Justice Department weighed in, stating that it was "sheer speculation" that Clinton withheld any work-related emails, and that "FOIA creates no obligation for an agency to search for and produce records that it does not possess and control". Additionally, the Supreme Court held that FOIA requests can be denied if the requested records are not in the possession of the agency, as in the case of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's notes being sent to the Library of Congress rather than the State Department.

While Clinton's use of a private email server may have limited the "ready retrieval of electronic records" desired by the National Archives, it is important to note that FOIA requests can still be made for Clinton's emails, and the State Department has made 55,000 pages of her work-related emails public.

In conclusion, while Clinton's use of a private email server raised concerns about compliance with FOIA, it is difficult to determine if she violated the law without knowing the content of the deleted emails. The investigation into her conduct was in the hands of the FBI and the Obama Administration Justice Department as of 2015.

Did she break national security legislation?

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for official and personal business while at the Department of State has been the subject of much scrutiny and investigation, including by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Counterintelligence Division. The central probe into her conduct surrounds her handling of classified information.

Clinton's primary defence has been that she was unaware of the classification of the emails at the time they were sent or received. However, according to an FBI investigation, Clinton stored classified information on several private servers, and she and her colleagues at the State Department "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

Clinton, as Secretary of State, had been trained in the "Safe Handling of Information" by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. This training included instruction on the proper handling of sensitive and classified information. Clinton was also given the authority "to personally classify as 'Top Secret' government intelligence".

In addition, as Secretary of State, Clinton was bound by President Obama's 2010 executive order on "Classified National Security Information". This order prescribed a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information. It also required heads of departments to be informed of the requirements regarding classified information.

According to President Obama's order, individuals who have access to classified information must receive training on the proper safeguarding of such information and the sanctions that may be imposed for failure to do so. The order clearly prohibits removing classified information from "official premises without proper authorization."

Clinton's use of a private email server has been characterised as a blatant circumvention of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as it allowed her to insulate her official emails from FOIA requests.

While Clinton's potential legal liability for her actions may be minimal, her use of a private email server has raised serious concerns about the security of classified information and the potential risk to national security.

Did she violate the Federal Records Act?

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for official and personal business while serving as Secretary of State has been the subject of much scrutiny and investigation. The Federal Records Act requires federal officials to retain all incoming and outgoing hard copy and email correspondence as part of the agency record. This includes all work-related emails, and government employees are prohibited from removing or destroying relevant records.

Clinton exclusively used a private email account and server during her tenure, which was wiped clean after she left office. This meant that none of her email correspondence was preserved on the agency's servers at the time. While Clinton cited convenience as the reason for her actions, stating that she did not want to carry two mobile devices, her conduct has been criticised as potentially violating the Federal Records Act.

The State Department's position is that Clinton did not break any rules by using her personal email account, as federal law permits government officials to do so, provided that relevant documents are preserved for history. However, watchdog groups and legal experts argue that Clinton violated the spirit of the law, which emphasises the security and access of official records.

The State Department Inspector General conducted an audit, concluding that Clinton did not comply with the department's policies implemented according to the Federal Records Act. The audit found that Clinton's non-compliance extended beyond her tenure, as subsequent efforts to retrieve relevant emails from her internet provider were unsuccessful.

While Clinton was not charged with any crimes related to the Federal Records Act, the controversy surrounding her email practices continues to be a subject of debate and speculation.

Did she break the Espionage Act?

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for official and personal business while at the Department of State has been the subject of much scrutiny and investigation. The central probe into her conduct surrounds her handling of classified information and whether she violated the Espionage Act of 1917.

The Espionage Act of 1917 was enacted shortly after the United States entered World War I to address the growing number of spies acquiring and conveying highly sensitive information. The Act makes it illegal for anyone with lawful possession or control of documents, writings, codes, signals, sketches, photographs, or other information relating to national defence to permit their removal from their proper place of custody or delivery to unauthorised individuals through gross negligence.

Clinton has been accused of violating the Espionage Act by using a private email server to send and receive classified information while serving as Secretary of State. According to an FBI investigation, out of 30,000 Clinton emails, at least 671 contained classified information. However, Clinton has maintained that she was unaware of the classification of the emails at the time they were sent or received and that the use of a private server was permitted by State Department IT procedures. She also contended that the emails did not contain any classification markings.

Defense attorneys have disputed Clinton's defence, arguing that knowledge of classification is not a relevant factor in a prosecution under the Espionage Act. Additionally, it is important to note that the information does not need to be marked as classified to violate the statute. An intelligence community source stated that the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defence information and that gross negligence, such as using an unsecured computer network, can result in the removal or abstraction of information from its secure location.

While the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server and potential violation of the Espionage Act was ongoing as of November 2015, the political ramifications for her and her presidential candidacy were significant, especially with the upcoming Iowa Caucuses. The outcome of the investigation and any potential legal consequences for Clinton were not publicly known at the time.

Did she break federal election laws?

Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were fined for not properly disclosing the money they spent on opposition research that led to the infamous Trump-Russia dossier. The dossier was compiled by retired British spy Christopher Steele and contained unverified and salacious allegations about Donald Trump, including claims that his campaign colluded with the Kremlin to win the 2016 election.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) concluded that the Clinton campaign and DNC misreported the money that funded the dossier, masking it as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" instead of opposition research. The FEC also revealed that it dismissed related complaints against Steele, Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS, which have all previously denied any wrongdoing.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC never conceded that they violated campaign finance laws, but they agreed to drop their pushback and accept the civil fines.

In addition, Clinton's use of a private email server for official and personal business while at the Department of State has also evolved into a legal quagmire. She faces an active investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Counterintelligence Division into her allegedly unlawful use of a private server. Clinton's primary defense has been that she was unaware of the classification of the emails at the time they were sent or received.

The basis for the investigation is the fact that Clinton sent and received classified information via email on a private, non-governmental server while she was serving as Secretary of State. Strict laws govern the accessing and storage of classified government information.

Frequently asked questions