[semimojo]

he FBI assesses that Clinton was negligent in the handling of clearly labeled classified information which is contrary to the statute articulating that very standard yet recommends no prosecution.

Isn't the standard gross negligence?

I think his use the word "careless" to describe her was a way to avoid the standard.

[halo66]

Can anyone enlighten me on what General Petraeus did different to Clinton to deserve a felony charge?

[nathanbedford]

Yes I quite agree with you, the use of the word "careless" was calculated to appease those who can look at the record and come to no other conclusion yet put a value on the degree of carelessness so that it does not approach "gross negligence."

If I look at the transcript of the directors remarks, I think I will find a modifier increasing the degree of negligence but without using the word "gross."

It is odd that the FBI is making a value judgment about what is essentially a jury question, the degree of negligence involved in exposing the country and its top secrets to espionage. Normally, if the evidence meets a threshold, which the director admits, of more than ordinary negligence, it might be reconsidered gross negligence by a jury and that decision should be left to a jury. Instead, the director of usurps that function.

It's also interesting that the director does not even touch on the potential motive to line the pockets of Bill Clinton and the Clinton foundation when he talks about collateral factors which might recommend for prosecution. It is as though that huge scenario hovering over the whole affair does not exist.