"It's not theirs, Its mine"

[Chillicothe]

"Why are you helping Quid Pro Joe Kill Ukrainians with Iranian Suicide Drones..."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duh!!

It should be obvious to anyone who can just fog a mirror: It' the money (actually, it's the rials) the Iranians send me for the patent license I hold on such.

Duh x2!!

What kind of American-worth-his-salt can you be poster Tree?.....if you do nothing but denigrate and criticize honest business and honest profits?
If you cannot or will not support the American capitalist system...well, maybe America ain't the right place for you?

I love this bar...
We got winners.....
We got _________!

 

[playtime]

Who was that?


You just lied, turd.

i am from CT ... & aside from various hometown (R)s for town council ... school board... & jodi rell for gov'nor; etc ...

here's some other (R)s i have voted for & you can google & find out about thier various crimes & prison time.

john rowland - gov'nor

joe santopietro - mayor

& here's a REAL doozy ...

phil giordano - mayor.

here's a hint ... why in the world would i admit to voting for the last three, if i didn't?

lol ... go ahead google 'em.

 

[bripat9643]

i am from CT ... & aside from various hometown (R)s for town council ... school board... & jodi rell for gov'nor; etc ...

here's some other (R)s i have voted for & you can google & find out about thier various crimes & prison time.

john rowland - gov'nor

joe santopietro - mayor

& here's a REAL doozy ...

phil giordano - mayor.

here's a hint ... why in the world would i admit to voting for the last three, if i didn't?

lol ... go ahead google 'em.

A Republican in Connecticut is indistinguishable from a Democrat in any other state.

 

[The Original Tree]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duh!!

It should be obvious to anyone who can just fog a mirror: It' the money (actually, it's the rials) the Iranians send me for the patent license I hold on such.

Duh x2!!

What kind of American-worth-his-salt can you be poster Tree?.....if you do nothing but denigrate and criticize honest business and honest profits?
If you cannot or will not support the American capitalist system...well, maybe America ain't the right place for you?

I love this bar...
We got winners.....
We got _________!

Joe helped Iran sell Suicide Drones to Russia.
Aren't you proud of your bloodthirsty dictator?
Your dirty diaper god is going to have to put people you know in The Draft to fight his WWIII he started with Putin.
Maybe you will get drafted. Might knock some sense into your fool ass.
Maybe you don't give a shit about that, like you don't care about killing babies, and could care less how many people die in a war or from Obama and Fauci's BIOWEAPON. I'm pretty sure you could care less as your Death Cult believes in Depopulation.

How about you show you care and help us save the planet by refusing to exhale any more CO2 from this point on?

I think God cares about your bloodthirsty earth worshipping death cult, and there will be Hell to pay for people like you and the ghoulish fiends you worship who trade lives for a dollar and sell the souls and lives of men and women to fill their greedy pockets.

Good luck talking your way out of that on Judgement Day.

 

[playtime]

A Republican in Connecticut is indistinguishable from a Democrat in any other state.

hardly, jr. the extremist rw nutter platform was alive & well during local elections last november & they are back. & thankfully most, if not all lost bigley to their more reality/sane counterparts in the primaries or opponents in the actual election. not to mention the
' (R) 'douchebag running for gov'nor again, after losing 4 years ago. in 2018, he was endorsed by the NRA ( uh ...sandy hook, anyone ? ) AND he gave donny a grade of A for his performance as prez.

that's hardly a (D) ideology. so stfu, you know not of which you speak.

yet again.

 

[bripat9643]

hardly, jr. the extremist rw nutter platform was alive & well during local elections last november & they are back. & thankfully most, if not all lost bigley to their more reality/sane counterparts in the primaries or opponents in the actual election. not to mention the
' (R) 'douchebag running for gov'nor again, after losing 4 years ago. in 2018, he was endorsed by the NRA ( uh ...sandy hook, anyone ? ) AND he gave donny a grade of A for his performance as prez.

that's hardly a (D) ideology. so stfu, you know not of which you speak.

yet again.

Horseshit.

 

[playtime]

Horseshit.

what is ' the substance bripat9643 is made from? ' alex ...

for the win.

 

[playtime]

Horseshit.

oh ya - AND the bitch running for senate against blumenthal was endorsed by donny AND an election denier.

lol ....

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[surada]

What records did he withhold? Post me the article. I will read it.

He's claiming the clemency letters belong to him.

 

[White 6]

He's claiming the clemency letters belong to him.

Not familiar with the clemency letters, or whether they came to him personally through the US mail or through the system. I guess the judge will have to decide on that. I don't have a dog in that race, so I will wait for the result.

 

[surada]

Not familiar with the clemency letters, or whether they came to him personally through the US mail or through the system. I guess the judge will have to decide on that. I don't have a dog in that race, so I will wait for the result.

They came to Trump when he was president. They belong to the National Archives.

 

[White 6]

They came to Trump when he was president. They belong to the National Archives.

The ones that were acted upon and clemency granted or pardons issued probably are the property of the government, as they went into the decision-making. But, that is for the judge.

 

[bripat9643]

Secretary of State?

You know you're full of horseshit.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Secretary of State?

You know you're full of horseshit.

[You are full of what considering that you insist on this lie? Do you have the evidence which would put her in prison? Show it.]

The investigation, the results of which were released on Friday by Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley’s office, centered on whether Clinton, who served as the top U.S. diplomat from 2009 to 2013, jeopardized classified information by using a private email server rather than a government one.

Clinton turned over roughly 33,000 emails from her private server in 2014, and the State Department probe found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”

The State Department investigation found that 38 current or former employees were responsible for 91 separate violations of security protocols involving Clinton’s server. Those 38 people were not identified. None of the emails at issue were marked as classified, according to the investigation.

The State Department found an additional 497 violations for which no individual was found responsible.

“While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience, by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations,” the report said.

Clinton email probe finds no deliberate mishandling of classified information

A U.S. State Department investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state has found no evidence of deliberate mishandling of classified information by department employees.

www.reuters.com

 

[bripat9643]

[You are full of what considering that you insist on this lie? Do you have the evidence which would put her in prison? Show it.]

Comey listed the evidence just before he let her off.

The investigation, the results of which were released on Friday by Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley’s office, centered on whether Clinton, who served as the top U.S. diplomat from 2009 to 2013, jeopardized classified information by using a private email server rather than a government one.

That's immaterial. The statutes make is absolutely clear that she committed a crime.

Clinton turned over roughly 33,000 emails from her private server in 2014, and the State Department probe found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”

The State Dept found that the secretary of state didn't mishandle classified information? The State dept run by Hillary Clinton? They all knew she was breaking the law when she was doing it.

The State Department investigation found that 38 current or former employees were responsible for 91 separate violations of security protocols involving Clinton’s server. Those 38 people were not identified. None of the emails at issue were marked as classified, according to the investigation.

The State Department found an additional 497 violations for which no individual was found responsible.

“While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience, by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations,” the report said.

Clinton email probe finds no deliberate mishandling of classified information

A U.S. State Department investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state has found no evidence of deliberate mishandling of classified information by department employees.

www.reuters.com

That's an admission of guilt.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Comey listed the evidence just before he let her off.


That's immaterial. The statutes make is absolutely clear that she committed a crime.


The State Dept found that the secretary of state didn't mishandle classified information? The State dept run by Hillary Clinton? They all knew she was breaking the law when she was doing it.


That's an admission of guilt.

She was absolved. She did not have ONE Classified document in her service.

END of story.

 

[bripat9643]

She was absolved. She did not have ONE Classified document in her service.

END of story.

Comey said she had hundreds, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

[You are full of what considering that you insist on this lie? Do you have the evidence which would put her in prison? Show it.]

The investigation, the results of which were released on Friday by Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley’s office, centered on whether Clinton, who served as the top U.S. diplomat from 2009 to 2013, jeopardized classified information by using a private email server rather than a government one.

Clinton turned over roughly 33,000 emails from her private server in 2014, and the State Department probe found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”

The State Department investigation found that 38 current or former employees were responsible for 91 separate violations of security protocols involving Clinton’s server. Those 38 people were not identified. None of the emails at issue were marked as classified, according to the investigation.

The State Department found an additional 497 violations for which no individual was found responsible.

“While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience, by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations,” the report said.

Clinton email probe finds no deliberate mishandling of classified information

A U.S. State Department investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state has found no evidence of deliberate mishandling of classified information by department employees.

www.reuters.com

Wrong.

​

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI​

​

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).​

​

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.​

​

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.​

​

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.​

​

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”​

​

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.​

​

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.​

​

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.​

​

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.​

​

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.​

​

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.​

​

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.​

​

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:​

​

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 in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.​

​

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).​

​

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.​

​

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.​

​

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.​

​

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.​

 

[Sixties Fan]

Wrong.

​

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI​

​

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).​

​

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.​

​

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.​

​

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.​

​

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”​

​

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.​

​

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.​

​

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.​

​

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.​

​

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.​

​

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.​

​

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.​

​

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:​

​

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 in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.​

​

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).​

​

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.​

​

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.​

​

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.​

​

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.​

That was in 2016.

Let us now compare to more information since then:

August 31, 2022

In the Trump case, federal authorities have identified more than 322 individual documents containing classified information that were kept at Mar-a-Lago: 184 "unique documents" containing classified information were retrieved early this year, another 38 such documents were retrieved in June, and then more than 100 more documents marked "classified" were found during the FBI raid on August 8, according to Justice Department filings in court.

In Clinton's case, the most sensitive "top secret" information on her servers was deemed by authorities to be "relevant to" and "associated with" a tightly-guarded "Special Access Program" -- and the inspector general said that "investigators found evidence of a conscious effort to avoid sending classified information, by writing around the most sensitive material."

Comparing classified info​

Some of Trump's allies claim that the way Clinton allegedly mishandled sensitive information was -- as one pundit put it -- "a lot more serious" than the way Trump allegedly did.

Just on the surface, the number of items containing classified information is different. In the Clinton case, federal authorities identified "approximately 193 individual emails" that, when sent, contained some level of classified information, according to a 2018 report from the Justice Department's inspector general.

"It's not unusual for folks with clearances to sometimes discuss classified matters in unsecure settings," said Tony Mattivi, a former federal prosecutor who coordinated the Justice Department's counterintelligence and counterterrorism cases in Kansas. "You can't always be in a [secure room] when you need to talk to some people or do certain things, so the way you do that is talk around the classified part. ... [But] that's very different than possessing classified material."

In contrast, federal authorities have recovered from Mar-a-Lago more than 100 "unique documents" marked "secret" and dozens of other documents marked "top secret," including "Special Access Program materials," according to the Justice Department and National Archives. Some of those documents marked "classified" were found inside Trump's desk in his office, the Justice Department said.

Accordingly, there "is a meaningful distinction" between Trump's alleged handling of classified documents and what the Justice Department's inspector general says transpired in the Clinton case, according to Mattivi, a Republican who recently lost a primary race to become attorney general of Kansas.

Where's the evidence -- literally?​

In accusing the FBI of treating Trump and Clinton differently, Trump's allies have publicly noted that -- even though Clinton potentially compromised classified information -- "we didn't raid her home," as Trump's former CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recently put it.

But in his report on the Clinton matter, the Justice Department's inspector general made clear that federal investigators in that case were able to obtain the materials at issue -- Clinton's private email servers and the emails themselves -- without raiding her home.

"Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement after the raid on Trump's estate.

As described in the inspector general's report on the Clinton matter, "the FBI obtained more than 30 devices" from Clinton and her aides, and "received consent to search Clinton-related communications on most of these devices." Among those 30 devices were two of Clinton's three private email servers, after the third server had been "discarded" years earlier "and, thus, the FBI was never able to access it for review," the inspector general's report said.

In Trump's case, the evidence at the center of the ongoing investigation was still being held at Mar-a-Lago, even after a federal grand jury subpoena three months earlier instructed that "any and all documents" marked "classified" be turned over.

------------

So prosecutors decided "there was no basis" to charge Clinton or her aides, the inspector general said.

That decision "was consistent with the Department's historical approach in prior cases under different leadership," the inspector general said, noting his office "found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations."

Nevertheless, in his controversial July 2016 press conference announcing the FBI's findings, Comey said that -- despite a lack of sufficient evidence to bring charges -- Clinton and her aides were still "extremely careless" in handing "very sensitive, highly classified information," noting that "none" of the emails they sent "should have been on any kind of unclassified system."

[Comey has apologized for his harsh words, since then in another article ]

Records 'torn up' by Trump​

According to the redacted affidavit released in Trump's case, the FBI is also now investigating whether Trump or his aides may have violated a federal law that criminalizes the "willful" concealment, removal or mutilation of federal records.

In 2016, federal prosecutors contemplated charging Clinton or her aides for violating the same law -- Section 2071 of U.S. Code 18 -- after more than 30,000 emails, which her legal team erroneously deemed personal in nature, were deleted from a server.

Witnesses in the Clinton case told investigators they "expected that any emails sent to a state.gov address would be preserved" -- and many of those emails were acquired from other devices -- so "there was no evidence that Clinton or anyone else" intended to conceal, remove or destroy the emails from government systems, the inspector general said.

In addition, federal prosecutors concluded that, unlike the electronic communications underpinning Clinton's case, "every prosecution under Section 2071 has involved" the "physical removal" or destruction of a document, the inspector general said.

Federal authorities now suggest Trump's actions might fit that mold.

In January, after a months-long effort to retrieve government records from Trump, the National Archives publicly released a statement saying "some of the Trump presidential records" it received from Mar-a-Lago "included paper records that had been torn up by former President Trump." The National Archives then referred the matter to the Justice Department, flagging that it could constitute a violation of Section 2071, the Justice Department said in its Tuesday filing.


(full article online)

No, the FBI's Trump investigation is not just like the Hillary Clinton email probe. Here's why

Donald Trump says the FBI is treating him differently than it treated Hillary Clinton during her email controversy -- but documents suggest there are key differences.

abcnews.go.com