To: Cboldt
That is inconsistent with other parts of the report - it's been scrubbed!
We further found that the statute that required the most complex analysis by the prosecutors was Section 793(f)(1), the gross negligence provision that has been the focus of much of the criticism of the declination decision. As we describe in Chapters Two and Seven of our report, the prosecutors analyzed the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), relevant case law, and the Departments prior interpretation of the statute. They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely required a state of mind that was so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention, criminally reckless, or something that falls just short of being willful, as well as evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified information knowingly included or transferred such information onto unclassified systems. The Midyear team concluded that such proof was lacking. We found that this interpretation of Section 793(f)(1) was consistent with the Departments historical approach in prior cases under different leadership, including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for mishandling classified documents.
We analyzed the Departments declination decision according to the same analytical standard that we applied to other decisions made during the investigation. We did not substitute the OIGs judgment for the judgments made by the Department, but rather sought to determine whether the decision was based on improper considerations, including political bias. We found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were based on the prosecutors assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice. We therefore concluded that these were legal and policy judgments involving core prosecutorial discretion that were for the Department to make.
Except those determinations were made by Comey & F-I - instead of the D-J - which they said was insubordination. This report is inherently contradictory. Sickening. Sad.
To: Steven W.
The report is typical government self-exoneration.
No matter how biased it is, the bias is allowed as a function of discretion, and there is nothing you can do about it.
The OIG basially says it is SOP to exonerate big players, like Gonzales, and go after the little guys.
241 posted on
06/14/2018 11:51:47 AM PDT by
Cboldt
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson