COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

The private email server

Why she used it, what was classified, what was deleted, and why there were no charges

← Interactive guide and chronology · All Clinton cases

Why the server was a real violation

The State Department’s own inspector general said she never asked permission and would not have gotten it.

For four years Clinton did all her State Department email through a personal account on a private server. In May 2016 the department’s inspector general found she had not sought approval, and that the officials responsible for security said they would not have approved it. She also did not hand over her work records when she left, as the rules required. She declined to be interviewed for that review. [1]

Comey said she used several different servers and administrators during her four years, and numerous mobile devices. FBI notes summarised by FactCheck.org show only 13 people emailed her address directly. [2][3]

Her reasons, she said, were convenience: one device. Critics believe the point was to keep her records out of reach of public-records requests. The record proves the effect — records were harder to get — but not the motive. [1]

What we can’t tell you. Motive is inferred, not shown. The inspector general’s report could not interview her.

The sources

  1. State Inspector General: email records and cybersecurity, May 2016 ↗

    Inspector-general administrative evaluation covering several secretaries. See especially printed pages 23–24 and 36–42. It is not a criminal verdict.

  2. FBI Director Comey: July 5, 2016 investigative findings ↗

    Contemporaneous statement announcing an FBI recommendation; DOJ held charging authority. Classification-at-the-time and later classification are distinguished.

  3. FactCheck.org: what the FBI files said about deletion ↗

    Contemporaneous close reading of the original FBI record. It identifies the distinction between a December 2014 retention instruction and its March 2015 execution.

What was classified, and why no charges

Comey’s actual words, which both sides quote half of.

The FBI found 110 emails in 52 chains that contained classified information when they were sent or received: eight chains at Top Secret, 36 at Secret, eight at Confidential. About 2,000 more were classified later. Some of the Top Secret chains concerned special-access programs. [1]

Comey said: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless.” Then: “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” He said the FBI found no direct evidence the server was hacked but that “it is possible that hostile actors gained access.” [1]

Critics point out that the law, 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), covers “gross negligence,” not only intent. Comey said prosecutors had essentially never charged a case like this without intent, disloyalty or obstruction. The Justice Department’s inspector general in 2018 reviewed that legal reasoning and did not find it was driven by bias, while faulting Comey for announcing it himself. [2][3]

What we can’t tell you. Whether a lower official would have been charged is a counterfactual nobody can prove.

The sources

  1. FBI Director Comey: July 5, 2016 investigative findings ↗

    Contemporaneous statement announcing an FBI recommendation; DOJ held charging authority. Classification-at-the-time and later classification are distinguished.

  2. 18 U.S.C. § 793: gathering, transmitting or losing defense information ↗

    Statutory text. Subsection (f) includes gross negligence; absence of intent is not a universal answer to every possible charge. Liability still requires the actual elements and admissible evidence.

  3. DOJ Inspector General: FBI and DOJ actions before the 2016 election ↗

    Official June 2018 review. Its charging analysis, tarmac findings, October disclosure criticism and political-bias findings have different scopes.

33,000 deleted emails, BleachBit and the hammer

Each claim has a factual core. Each gets inflated.

In 2014 Clinton’s lawyers sorted about 60,000 emails using search terms and header information, gave about 30,000 to State and treated the rest as personal. Comey said they “did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails,” and the FBI later found several thousand work emails that had not been turned over. [3]

BleachBit is a free program, not a chemical. Clinton’s aides told the FBI she decided in late 2014 she did not need emails older than 60 days, but the contractor, Platte River Networks, had not made the change. In late March 2015 — after the 4 March House subpoena — an employee had what he called an “oh shit” moment and deleted the archive, using BleachBit on exported files. The FBI did not find that Clinton or her lawyers ordered the March deletion. Comey said the FBI found no evidence that emails were deleted to conceal them. [1][2][3]

The hammer: an aide, Justin Cooper, told the FBI he twice destroyed her old phones “by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer.” The FBI identified 13 devices; her lawyers could not locate them. Security experts say destroying old phones is standard practice. Clinton herself did not wield the hammer. [1]

What we can’t tell you. The FBI never established the content of every deleted email or what was said on the March 2015 call.

The sources

  1. PolitiFact: Making sense of the bleach and hammer claims, 16 Jun 2023 ↗

    Explains what BleachBit is, who ran it and what the hammer was used on, from the FBI file.

  2. FactCheck.org: what the FBI files said about deletion ↗

    Contemporaneous close reading of the original FBI record. It identifies the distinction between a December 2014 retention instruction and its March 2015 execution.

  3. FBI Director Comey: July 5, 2016 investigative findings ↗

    Contemporaneous statement announcing an FBI recommendation; DOJ held charging authority. Classification-at-the-time and later classification are distinguished.

The tarmac meeting and the Comey letter

Two moments that each side treats as proof the system was rigged — for the other.

On 27 June 2016 Bill Clinton crossed the tarmac in Phoenix and spoke with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on her plane, days before the FBI’s decision. Bill Clinton told the inspector general they talked about their grandchildren, Janet Reno and his golf game. The inspector general found no evidence they discussed the investigation, but said Lynch’s failure to recognise the appearance problem and cut the visit short “was an error in judgment.” [1]

On 5 July Comey announced the decision himself, without Justice Department sign-off. On 28 October he told Congress the FBI had found new emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. On 6 November he said they did not change the conclusion. The inspector general called his conduct a serious departure from department norms, and found texts by FBI officials showing hostility to Trump, but no evidence that bias affected the charging decision. [1][2]

In July 2025 Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford, after the inspector general’s classified appendix (the “Clinton annex”) was declassified, asked FBI Director Kash Patel to review material on thumb drives the FBI had held unreviewed since 2018. They say the annex describes Russian-language intelligence reports about talks involving the DNC chair and Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Those reports are Russian-sourced and unverified; the senators’ letter does not establish they are true. [3]

What we can’t tell you. An inspector general’s finding of no evidence of bias is not proof of no bias. Some 2025 material is still being reviewed.

The sources

  1. DOJ Inspector General: FBI and DOJ actions before the 2016 election ↗

    Official June 2018 review. Its charging analysis, tarmac findings, October disclosure criticism and political-bias findings have different scopes.

  2. FBI Director Comey: July 5, 2016 investigative findings ↗

    Contemporaneous statement announcing an FBI recommendation; DOJ held charging authority. Classification-at-the-time and later classification are distinguished.

  3. Grassley and Crawford request review of previously unevaluated email-investigation material, July 29, 2025 ↗

    Oversight request and the chairmen’s interpretation of declassified material. Claims about contents or FBI omissions are attributed to them; publication does not authenticate every underlying Russian-language report.

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFilesClintons shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFilesClintons.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.