No it was not.
You're deliberately conflating two issues ("gross negligence" vs. "mishandling"). That is exactly how propaganda works.
Irrelevant to our discussion.
No, I am using Lisa Page's words, to which you have ZERO evidence to the contrary.
Like I said, I am using Page's testimony and you are posting lies. Just endless propaganda in your posts.
Bull****. The MISHANDLING was prosecuted as "GROSS NEGLIGENCE" = EXACTLY the point.
One relevant military case, United States v. McGuinness, is from 1992 – hardly ancient history. It involved a navy operations specialist sentenced to two years’ confinement (and other penalties) because, over his years of service, he retained 311 “classified items” unsecured in his home. While he was charged under Section 793, it was not under subsection (f) – the subsection of the statute most relevant to Mrs. Clinton, involving the grossly negligent mishandling of classified information – but under subsection (e), which criminalizes willful mishandling of classified information. Nevertheless, the case is highly relevant to our consideration of Director Comey’s recommendation against prosecution.
Obviously, this is very similar to Director Comey’s theory that, in a Section 793(f) case, it is not enough for the prosecution to prove mere “gross negligence,” even though that’s what subsection (f) says. The director claims the statute should be read to require additional proof of an intent to cause harm.
Finally, the court turned to the subsection at issue in Mrs. Clinton’s case: “Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through ‘gross negligence’ and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials.” (Emphasis added.)
Military Prosecutions Show That a Gross Negligence Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Mrs. Clinton | National Review
You haven't a CLUE what you are blathering about, as far as the CRIME in QUESTION.
Makeup some more bull****.
Scott was NOT the DOJ official IN CHARGE, as you kepep LYING ABOUT. He was the messenger boy. HE DID NOT MAKE THE CALL.
More of your bull****.
Apparently , you have comprehension troubles, because you clearly do not grasp what Page said, ABOUT THE EMAIL OUTRAGE, or the lack of evidence to start the Witch Hunt.
And here are her EXACT WORDS citing who told who what about the non-charges in the Hillary outrage:
Mr. Ratcliffe: Okay. So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory, but when you say advice you got from the Department [of Justice], you’re making it sound like
it was the Department that told you: “You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to.”
Ms. Page:
"That’s correct."
As the STATUE ITSELF, and PROSECUTORIAL HISTORY PROVE, CLINTON WAS WELL WITHIN THE THRESHOLD OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE...the DOJ just SPIKED THE CASE.
Just can't figure that out, can you?
