Moscow Already 'Studying' Top-Secret Records From Trump Raid: Russian Media

Comey judged that there wasn't a sufficient predication to indict the former first lady, secretary of defense. If they prosecuted her, there would be severe cross examination to the points:

1. The degree that the content of the alleged emails were a threat to national security.
2. Whether or not she actually saw the emails and responded to them.
3. Whether or not there was evidence her server was hacked and by whom and if there were damage assessments done.

On point #1, Comey knows that powerful attorneys could very easily create a reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury.

On #2, I do not know if this is known.

On #3, there is no evidence established with 100% certainty her server was hacked or any foreign government benefited therefrom, or the contents resulted in real damage to US National Security. As for potentiality, see #1 above. As for damage assessments:

https://freebeacon.com/national-sec...age-assessment-clintons-leaked-email-secrets/
James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, agreed with security officials who argued against the need to carry out the damage assessment. Intelligence officials argued in internal discussions that since many details of the drone missile program targeting terrorists were disclosed in earlier leaks unrelated to Clinton’s use of a personal email server, gauging the damage done by her conduct would be difficult, and possibly unnecessary.

With Clapper's and the various security professionals' testimonies, Comey knows that reasonable doubt is achievable with not too much trouble.

Comey knows that a case has to be much stronger than the case that surrounds Hillary's Email to warrant an indictment.

You seem to think the variables which lead to prosecutorial discretion are the same in every case. That is just not true.

What is the same are the standards, but since variables vary, you can't allege a 'different standard' when two example's variables do not match, and they most certainly do not when comparing Clinton's emails to Trump's illegally obtained documents stamped 'TS/SCI'. Without the markings on the emails, the severity of content leaves tremendous room for cross examination, with Trump's illegally obtained documents marked Top Secret/Special Compartmented Information" leave a lot less room for cross examination, notwithstanding Clinton's emails were not illegal, whereas Trump's documents were illegal.

As for Trump, since Garland hasn't indicted Trump, your 'standards' argument is moot until such time. However, if he does indict, my counter argument to your claim is pretty much presented, above. But, certainly, we will know more if he is indicted.

 

18USC 793(f) does not require intentional conduct. It relies on gross negligence as a mens rea.
She routed her official email to a private location, and her official email would per se include various national defense information communications.
There, all wrapped up in a neat little bow.

 

James Comey had no authority to make that decision it was not his role to do so in the first place.

Real time TOP SECRET. The question is what degree the at least 18 month old information they found in Mir a Lago.

She wrote and responded to them.

The first three months it did not even have basic encryption, anything on it could have been read with a basic text editor. No firewall, nothing. And no one said it was not, they in fact "assed" it probably had been.

"
Mr. Comey described, in fairly blistering terms, a set of email practices that left Mrs. Clinton’s systems wide open to Russian and Chinese hackers, and an array of others. She had no full-time cybersecurity professional monitoring her system. She took her BlackBerry everywhere she went, “sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” Her use of “a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.”

In the end, the risks created by Mrs. Clinton’s insistence on keeping her communications on a private server may prove to be a larger issue than the relatively small amount of classified data investigators said they found on her system. But the central mystery — who got into the system, if anyone — may never be resolved.


“Reading between the lines and following Comey’s logic, it does sound as if the F.B.I. believes a compromise of Clinton’s email is more likely than not,” said Adam Segal, the author of “Hacked World Order,” who studies cyberissues at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Sophisticated attackers would have known of the existence of the account, would have targeted it and would not have been seen.”


Mr. Comey couched his concern on Tuesday by repeating the intelligence community’s favorite phrase — “we assess” — four times, but ultimately reached no hard-and-fast conclusion. “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account,” he said.



Mrs. Clinton, and her campaign, have always maintained that the server was secure. President Obama backed her up in an interview last October on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” “I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” he said.

But Mr. Comey painted a different picture.

“Hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact,” he said.

And that would have meant that tracking the trail of electronic breadcrumbs back to her server would have been a pretty simple task. After that, their ability to break in would have been a mix of skill and luck, but they had plenty of time to get it right."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/hillary-clintons-email-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html




On all points. The Obama DOJ did EVERYTHING it could to NOT indict her so that she would win the Presidency.

 

Everyone knows I'm a sea lawyer, not the real thing.

,

but, with your permission and credit given, may I quote you?

She did claim to separate the emails, with the aid of staff, personal from business. Out of 30,000, isn't it a fair argument a few could be missed, hence the 100 or so that were alleged to be higher than confidential, noting that only 3 were actually marked with a C, and it was a (c) at that, especially if she relied on staff to do that work for her? If that is true, do we incarcerate her for that level of negligence, or some other commensurate punishment? Censure, to me, seems like the fairest option.

 

Even if that were true, Hillary is no where near the grave threat to US National Security, on a number of levels beyond the immediate issue of documents, that Trump is.

So, I really don't give a damn. Trump, by any justifiable means, must be stopped, not allowed to run, period.

You want to go around saying someone screwed up, we all screw up. The issue, in my view, is Trump, and it goes way beyond the documents and an occasional screw up.

Way way way beyond.

 

Move the goalpost time? And you illustrate point thank you very much. This is not about these documents this is about an administration using the DOJ and FBI to stop their political opposition. Anything and everything to stop him.

 

Your assumption is that Trump is 'mere opposition'.

No, if that were true, I wouldn't state what I stated. He's not a Bush, or a Reagan, or any 'mere oppositiion'.

Trump is a clear and present threat to US National Security, which is to say, he is a five alarm threat.

So, it's a massive fire drill, all hands on deck, all other issues are unimportant and need to be cast aside.

 

He is mere opposition to Biden, opposition he and the Dems are shaking in their boots about and are now abusing government law enforcement power to stop him.

And you support that. Biden is a clear and present danger to US National Security and THAT is the investigation you should be paying attention to.

 

Well, the opposite is true so we'll just disagree.