[rrggrr]

I wonder how John Deutsche and Samuel Berger feel about this. Both were charged for retaining classified data. And the many regular people whose clearances have been revoked or who faced administrative sanctions and lost jobs. The FBI recommendation is statutorily correct, but the absence of any accountability doesn't seem just.

[simbalion]

Statutorily correct, what does that mean? They claim a lack of precedent. The only reason there's a lack of precedent is that email is a young technology.

[hga]

John Deutsche was specifically using his unsecured home computer to work on and email out TS/SCI and/or SAP material. That should tell you all you need to know about why what he did was so verboten, it was material at the level where you're only allowed to access it in secured facilities, you're not allowed to remove your notes from them, etc. etc.

[rrggrr]

No, they claim no evidence of intent, which is key for proving criminality. Gross negligence is an impossible prosecution where a defendant at a jury trial is a 68 yr old grandmother and the central issue is an email server. The upside here - if there is any - is that now Comey has all the credibility he needs to investigate the Clinton Foundation.

[simbalion]

The defendant is not a 68 year old grandmother, the defendant is a former secretary of state with a staff of "experts", and everyone knew better. Ignorance is not a defense in any court of law.