New York Post says probe is not just a civil one.
By Raif Karerat
WASHINGTON, DC: As the FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured email account and whether she “mishandled sensitive government information” continues, sources have informed the New York Post that the inquiry is in fact a criminal probe and not just a fact-finding mission.
Federal agents are currently attempting to ascertain exactly how much Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, The Post’s sources said.
“The [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source insisted. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”
According to the Washington Post, the controversy over Clinton’s e-mail dates back to the summer of 2014, when, according to government officials, State Department lawyers realized they didn’t have access to some of her records as they prepared responses to congressional requests related to the 2012 attacks on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.
In March, the New York Times reported that Clinton exclusively used a private e-mail system. Clinton has said she handled her e-mail this way for the convenience of carrying just one phone.
Critics allege Clinton’s private server arrangement put her discussions with some aides outside the oversight of government investigators, congressional committees and courts seeking public records from the State Department.
If investigators prove that Clinton knowingly sent, received, or stored classified information in an unauthorized location, she risks prosecution under the same misdemeanor federal security statute used to prosecute former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, former federal prosecutor Bradley Simon told The Post.
“They didn’t hesitate to charge Gen. Petraeus with doing the same thing, downloading documents that are classified,” Simon stated. “The threshold under the statute is not high — they only need to prove there was an unauthorized removal and retention” of classified material, he added.