OOPS! NOT CLOSE TO 150 FBI AGENTS WORKING ON CLINTON'S EMAILS

From TalkingPointsMemo:

After The Washington Post published a lengthy investigation into the origins of Hillary Clinton's email scandal, including the bombshell revelation that 147 FBI agents were looking into her private server, the newspaper corrected its report late Tuesday to note the number of agents looking into Clinton’s emails as actually fewer than 50. 

The recently edited version of the 5000 word article by Robert O'Harrow in the WP has the following correction at the very end for those who have the stamina to read that far.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that Clinton used two different email addresses, sometimes interchangeably, as secretary of state. She used only hdr22@clintonemail.com as secretary of state. Also, an earlier version of this article reported that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high. The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50. 

When I read about the nearly 150 FBI agents in the original article, the number sounded incredible to me. Since the article has been linked several times, the number 150 will stick despite the correction. My guess for the anonymous source in the original is a GOP congressional staff member who had incomplete information or who passed on incorrect information to Robert O'Harrow, and - surprise! - the reporter fell for the story.  (Added note: I did not need to guess about the anonymous source; the statement "a lawmaker briefed by FBI director James Comey" appears in the article and in the correction.)

What those who hope for an indictment don't understand or don't care to understand is that Clinton would have had to knowingly send classified emails on an insecure server. Emails that were classified after being sent would not lead to an indictment. Who knows but that Clinton's server was more secure that the State Department server? Colin Powell said he set up a private server when he was Secretary of State because the Department's server was so old and clunky.

Chris Cillizza could not resist chiming in on his WP blog, and, as of now, his blog has not been corrected.  Cillizza noted the following:

Both stories make clear that, according to legal experts, Clinton is very unlikely to be punished for her exclusive use of a private email server during her time at State since the practice was not forbidden. (Worth noting: Lots of other secretaries of state used private email accounts to supplement their official accounts; none used only a private email account and server.)

But then Cillizza goes on to add:

Potentially more problematic for Clinton is her insistence that she never knowingly sent or received any messages that were marked classified at the time. It’s been shown in the year-plus of investigations into her server that there were a number of items on Clinton’s server that were classified after the fact, but there is no evidence to make her initial statement untrue.  (My emphasis)

If there is no evidence that Clinton's initial statement is untrue, why is her insistence that she never knowingly sent classified emails problematic?  It is a puzzlement.

Full disclosure: I skimmed through most of the article in the WP, because I've already read so much about the email "scandal", and I watched much of Clinton's 11-hour grilling in which she made fools of the six Republican members of the Benghazi!!! committee. 5000 words was just too much of the same old, same old.  How unfortunate that with all that work, the reporter made such a mistake.   A source who will not go on the record is problematic, too.

Update from NBCNews:

But a former federal law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the Clinton investigation tells MSNBC an estimate anywhere near 50 agents is also off base.
"There are currently about 12 FBI agents working full-time on the case," says the source, who would only speak anonymously about an open investigation.

More anonymous sources, and the plot thickens.

A "MAJOR CAMPAIGN ISSUE"?

The report in the Washington Post on Hilary Clinton's private email account, which she used when she was Secretary of State, seems to me a long story with little substance. What Clinton is supposed to have done wrong remains a mystery to me after having read a number of articles about the FBI investigation. The article includes the throwaway line:

The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI is not targeting her.

The FBI, investigates this, and the FBI investigates that, but no officials at the FBI are named, and a further quote in the article states in another throwaway line:

A lawyer for the Denver company, Platte River Networks, declined to comment, as did multiple Justice Department officials. (My emphasis) 

The information from the FBI seems to be leaks from sources who insist on anonymity, which, of course, does not mean that the information is untrue, but a close reading of the article provides no further clue about the specifics of what Clinton is supposed to have done wrong, except that she used a private email account while she was Secretary of State. Note: Colin Powell used a private email account while he was Secretary of State.

Which makes me wonder why the WP concludes that the private account is:

...a setup that has emerged as a major issue in her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

What am I missing? The "major issue" looks very much like Whitewater, a scheme in which the Clintons lost money, but which triggered a major investigation by Ken Starr, costing $50 million that concluded that there was "insufficient evidence" of wrongdoing by the Clintons. Try as I might, I never understood Whitewater, and, thus far, I don't understand why the private email system is a "major issue", except that Republicans and the vast media conspiracy against the Clintons wish to make it so.

The article in the WP had nothing in the way of evidence of wrongdoing by Hilary Clinton, but the implication was there. The story follows on the heels of the New York Times story linking Clinton to a "criminal investigation", which was filled with inaccuracies, and which the NYT took its sweet time to correct until cries of outrage became impossible to ignore.

Also in the Washington Post, Dana Milbank opines on Clinton's private email system.

Clinton, lacking a sparring partner other than the socialist Bernie Sanders, has reverted to her instincts for secrecy and a distrust of the media that borders on paranoia. And the media, in the absence of the back-and-forth of a competitive primary, have taken on the role of opposition. Clinton’s insularity and the media’s prosecutorial zeal feed each other — as they have for nearly a quarter-century.

“It feels sometimes like the primary is Hillary against the media,” a top Clinton aide told me Tuesday, one of several in Clinton’s orbit who said the candidate would be better off with a viable primary opponent.

Whoa!  If a top Clinton aide, who remains anonymous, dismisses Bernie Sanders, then the Clinton campaign needs to rethink its strategy.  Does the fact that Sanders is a socialist make him the equivalent of a potted plant, with the result that Clinton has no sparring partner?  He's striking the right chord with a number of people, and, were I in charge of the Clinton campaign, I'd take Sanders more seriously.  In truth, I think the campaign leadership is somewhat alarmed by Sanders' candidacy, but they see attacking him head on as a strategy likely to do more harm than good and choose rather to pretend he's not a real challenge.  On the other hand, according to Milbank, if Joe Biden entered the race, he'd be a serious contender, and Clinton would be forced to pay attention, but Biden won't, thus it's Clinton against the media.  Make what you will of this logic, and count me dubious about the Clinton campaign's longing for "a viable  primary opponent".

Rather than label Hilary Clinton paranoid about the media, I'd call her realistic.  Even supposedly left-wing media sources have failed miserably in their reporting and writing about the "scandals" of Bill and Hilary Clinton for years.  Yes, there was a major scandal in the Monica Lewinsky affair, for which Bill Clinton was duly impeached, and which was widely reported and commented upon by the media.  But there were a number of trumped up scandals besides Whitewater, such as the suggestion that Hilary Clinton murdered or had Vince Foster murdered and covered up the murder with the suicide story, which, in itself is enough to make a person wary of the press. 

Why continue to bang the drums about Benghazi and the private email account?  I don't understand, unless the press wants to keep the stories alive, just in case there is a real story which has not yet surfaced.  Why not investigate further and report on a real story, if there is a story to report?

Do you see a trend here? Rather than have to walk back their email story, the writers of the article in the WP chose obfuscation by many words to make their points.  Milbank's column does pretty much the same, by dissing Bernie Sanders, pumping up Joe Biden, and taking at face value the words of an anonymous source in the Clinton campaign to arrive at the conclusion that Clinton is paranoid about the media.  And blah, blah, blah....  The article and the opinion column in the WP are both classic examples of the kind of bullshit Jon Stewart warns about in his final, splendid monologue on The Daily Show.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

UPDATE: More from the AP. 

The two emails on Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server that an auditor deemed "top secret" include a discussion of a news article detailing a U.S. drone operation and a separate conversation that could point back to highly classified material in an improper manner or merely reflect information collected independently, U.S. officials who have reviewed the correspondence told The Associated Press. (My emphasis)

Bullshit again. The only persons named in the article are Inspector General Charles McCullough and Sen. Charles Grassley (whose commentary about Clinton should always be suspect), and their quoted words are quite brief and without context. Note the could in the paragraph above.  The other sources are anonymous "officials", "an auditor", and "the intelligence community"? Who in the intelligence community is leaking information and why? There is no there there, so far as I can see, and reporters should wait until they have real information to impart before they submit articles for publication, and the editor(s) should say, "This is bullshit. Give me a story I can publish." Of course, that does not happen in today's media. 

Still, the developments suggested that the security of Clinton's email setup and how she guarded the nation's secrets will remain relevant campaign topics. (My emphasis)

Why? Only because reporters continue to publish non-stories about Hillary Clinton "scandals", about what could be and what is suggested by sources who are not named, which is not news and which anyone with half a brain can see is more bullshit.