CLINTON'S EMAIL TREASON AND FBI DIRECTOR COMEY.

What difference could Hillary Clinton's treasonous actions with her illegal email system and criminal handling of top secret material possibly make? Well, it will likely get some of our military and intelligence community killed, and it might even get us all killed. However, this is only important if you care about life. On the primary matrix below the axis term is H. CLINTON. At the same absolute skip are MAIL, RUSSIA. and LIBYA.   Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says, “I think the odds are pretty high” countries like Iran, China, and Russia hacked Hillary Clinton’s email server. At skip +1 on the matrix are ENEMY and ROCKETS. At skip -3 is DAESH (ISIS). With the help of her Palestinian/Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas aide, Huma Abedin, Clinton feeds our greatest secrets to our Arab and Russian enemies every day. Of course Clinton wants us to believe her e-mails were all about wedding plans and yoga classes. On the main matrix FBI Director COMEY is near her name, and in the open text is IT SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. On the smaller matrix H. CLINTON is directly intersected by COMEY. On 7/4/2016 I wrote about who the findings would not be acceptable to. Now we know: It's not acceptable to true Americans. After Comey said that Clinton was extremely careless and lied, he refused to recommend prosecution. The full significance of RUSSIA being at the same skip as H. CLINTON became apparent in late July, 2016 when Trump caused an uproar by sarcastically suggesting that Russian hackers should help find Hillary's 30,000 missing e-mails. She also claimed that Russian hackers broke into the Democratic National Committee to helpTrump. Note: still to be explored - on August 2, 2016 FoxNews.Com carried a story claiming that the NSA hacked te DNC.

A WORD ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE CLASSIFIED MATERIAL AND THE POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MATRIX. This section was originally aimed at one regular reader in the U.S military community (and his or her chain of command within the military and up to the top). From tracking military and government IP addresses I know that I reached my target in February, but I have added to what was written then. While I have never spoken directly to this person, I know that the officer has a sense of humor because the person came to my site via an IP address that is on Snowden River Parkway in Columbia, Maryland. The reverse IP took me to my friend, who obviously chose that address because my article featured Snowden. In tracking sensitive articles and who reads them, such street names are common enough to form a pattern.

       I wrote Readiness/war plans for the U.S. Coast Guard and Navy until I retired from active duty in 2007. Those that were unclassified were written in a regular office setting. But for those that were secret, I worked only in a vault that provided shielding from anyone who might try to gain illegal access to what I was writing. The idea that Clinton was using her own server in her home to transmit and receive top secret and above emails is astounding and unforgiveable. When you look at the next section below and see how see was OK with working to destroy Israel and put Hamas into power, you get an idea that like Obama, her agenda is pure evil. When you think Hamas, think Iran. Also think Russia. So when we find that RUSSIAN is encoded on the matrix above at the same skip as H. CLINTON, you are looking at the truth. Clinton and Obama both serve Putin and Russia. They are both communists and enemies of the United States. Obama made his servitude most apparent when in 2012 he asked Russian President Medevev to tell Putin that on missile defense Obama could be more flexible after the election. Since then he went out of his way to ensure that Iran would get ICBMs along with nuclear weapons, and he did nothing to prevent North Korea from testing nuclear weapons and firing ICBM-like rockets into orbit where, as Senator Ted Cruz said in the debate on February 6, 2016, they can kill millions of Americans by detonating nuclear/EMP weapons over our nation.

         You will note that LIBYA too is encoded at the same absolute skip as H. CLINTON and RUSSIAN. So too for MAIL. In February, 2016 I saw the movie 13 Hours which is about the fiasco at Benghazi in Libya. When you watch the film you come to understand just how long the 13 hours-attack really was and the depth of treason that was involved in not even putting a fighter overhead to at least distract the thugs who murdered our ambassador and military personnel. But even more astounding was that when it was over and they were dead, Obama and Secretary of State Clinton couldn't even send an American aircraft to pick up their dead bodies. Instead, it was a Libyan C-130 that flew them out.

         As for my (unknown) military friend who appears to be my case worker, the person reads almost everything significant that I publish on this web site and marscorrect.com. The intermediate IP address was within 12 miles of the National Security Agency.  Now, with respect to the chain of command, I have received one very interesting contact from the U.S. Army chief of Staff that didn't have a single personal word on it. Instead, it merely spit back at me the Abstract from my report entitled Mars Correct - Critique of All NASA Mars Weather Data. If you're curious about what that says, here it is:

ABSTRACT: We present evidence that NASA is seriously understating Martian air pressure. Our 6 year study critiques 1,229 Sols of highly problematic MSL (Rover Environmental Monitoring Station (REM) weather data, and offers an in depth audit of over 8,311 hourly Viking 1 and 2 weather reports. We discuss analysis of technical papers, NASA documents, and personal interviews of transducer designers. We troubleshoot pressures based on radio occultation/spectroscopy, and the small pressure ranges that could be measured by Viking (18 mbar), Pathfinder and Phoenix (12 mbar), and MSL (11.5 mbar). For MSL there was a mean pressure of 11.49 mbar measured on its Sol 370. When we made an issue of it with JPL, it was revised to 8.65 mbar. The REMS Team then published pressures of 11.77 mbar (for Sol 1,160) and 12 mbar (for Sol 1,161). Again we made an issue of it again it, and they revised the figures to 8.98 and 8.97 mbar respectively. In fact we can demonstrate that JPL/REMS weather data was often revised after they studied critiques in this report and on our websites at http://marscorrect.com and http://davidaroffman.com.

Vikings and MSL showed consistent timing of daily pressure spikes. We link this to how gas pressure in a sealed container would vary with Absolute temperature, to heating by radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), and to dust clots at air access tubes and dust filters. Pathfinder, Phoenix and MSL wind measurement failures are disclosed. Phoenix and MSL pressure transducer design problems are highlighted with respect to confusion about dust filter location, and lack of information about nearby heat sources due to International Traffic and Arms Regulations (ITAR). NASA could not replicate dust devils at 10 mbar. Rapidly filled MER Spirit tracks required wind speeds of 80 mph at the assumed low pressures. These winds were never recorded on Mars. Nor could NASA explain drifting Barchan sand dunes. Based on the above and dust devils on Arsia Mons to altitudes of 17 km above areoid (Martian equivalent of sea level), spiral storms with 10 km eye-walls above Arsia Mons, dust storm opacity, snow at Phoenix, excessive aero braking, liquid water running on the surface in numerous locations at Recurring Slope Lineae (RSL) and stratus clouds 13 km above areoid, we argue for an average pressure at areoid of ~511 mbar rather than the accepted 6.1 mbar. This pressure grows to 1,050 mbar in the Hellas Basin.

       So let me cut to the chase here. As our military and intelligence folks know, I don't get a lot of readers at marscorrect.com the way I do here at ArkCode.com. But those who do come tend to be high in NASA, elsewhere in our Government, in the Kremlin, or in foreign space agencies. If you're curious about how I know this, it's simply by using the tools available to everyone at http://www.ip-tracker.org/locator/ip-lookup.php?ip=70.215.135.225. The Mars research that I do has defense significance on a global scale, which is why the U.S., Russian and other space agencies follow it very closely. But the things that I find in the Code and in the open news (even though it's so heavily censored) about Obama, Clinton, and other people who have great power is my primary focus here. Clinton belongs in jail. Will she go there? Only if Trump gets elected and follows up on Comey's words.

       The message that I want transmitted via him or her to the four stars at top of the chain of command is this - If you feel that Obama, Clinton, and others serve the interests of our enemies - resign if you must, but make plenty of noise in doing so. Don't collaborate with our enemies. Let the American people know just how we are being betrayed, and please do so before the 2016 election. Comey lacked the guts to follow through with the implications of what he found. Our nation cannot survive for long with such cowardice.

WHAT WAS ON HILLARY'S E-MAILS ABOUT ISRAEL? Only attempts to take down the Israeli government and start a bloody intifada. What else would you expect when her top aid, Huma Abedin, is a Palestinian?

The following is from the Jerusalem Post on February 3, 2016 (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/No-holds-barred-Torrent-of-anti-Israel-advice-found-in-Hillarys-emails-443523):

No holds barred: Torrent of anti-Israel advice found in Hillary’s emails

Clandestinely stirring up potentially violent protests in an attempt to try and force Israel to go against its best interests? Advice like this was par for the course with Clinton’s advisers.

It’s already been established that one of Hillary Clinton’s most trusted advisers, Sid Blumenthal, sent her anti-Israel articles, ideas and advice during her time as secretary of state. But the stream of anti-Israel advice received by Clinton was much more comprehensive. NOTE: For a more comprehensive view of Blumenthal's nazi-like hatred of Israel and the Jewish people see http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/189172/max-blumenthal-and-anti-zionists.

In the entire forced dump of Clinton’s emails, you will be hard pressed to find a single one sympathetic toward the Jewish state from any of the people she relied on. The negative, poisonous approach to Israel throughout this email expose shows the atmosphere that she had established around herself. These emails seem to demonstrate that a huge segment of her close advisers and confidantes were attacking Israel, condemning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and strategizing how to force Israel to withdraw from Judea and Samaria at all costs.

This was occurring against the backdrop of Israel’s recent Gaza withdrawal, which led to the takeover of Gaza by Hamas. There is almost zero mention of the huge risks to Israel’s security in withdrawing as Clinton and the Obama administration did everything they could to pressure Israel to capitulate to their demands.

Take a look at a sampling of the advice being sent to Clinton from her many advisers that we have now become privy to.

Sandy Berger was Clinton’s foreign policy adviser during her 2008 presidential campaign. In September of 2010 he sent her ideas on how to pressure Israel to make concessions for peace. Berger acknowledged “how fragile is Abbas’s political position,” and how “Palestinians are in disarray,” and that “failure is a real possibility.” Berger was well aware of, and informed Hillary of, the very real possibility that Israel would be placing its national security at grave risk in a deal that would very likely fail and lead to a Hamas takeover.

But Berger felt the risks to Israeli lives were worth it.

He advised the need to make Netanyahu feel “uneasy about incurring our displeasure....”

Berger emphasizes the need “to convince the prime minister – through various forms of overt persuasion and implicit pressure – to make the necessary compromises” and talks of the “possibility – to turn his position against him.”

Astoundingly, Berger seems to accuse the Jews in America of racism toward Obama. He writes, “At a political level, the past year has clearly demonstrated the degree to which the U.S. has been hamstrung by its low ratings in Israel and among important segments of the domestic Jewish constituency....” He then adds, “Domestically, he faces a reservoir of skepticism on this issue which reflects many factors, including inexcusable prejudice.”

Anne Marie Slaughter was Clinton’s director of policy planning from 2009-2011. She wrote to Clinton in September of 2010 and devised a scheme to encourage wealthy philanthropists to pledge millions to the Palestinians (which no doubt would have been embezzled by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies as were other funds).

She wrote: “This may be a crazy idea.... Suppose we launched a “Pledge for Palestine” campaign... Such a campaign among billionaires/multi-millionaires around the world would reflect a strong vote of confidence in the building of a Palestinian state....”

She adds: “There would also be a certain shaming effect re Israelis who, would be building settlements in the face of a pledge for peace.”

Clinton’s response to this email: “I am very interested- pls flesh out. Thx.”

Thomas Pickering, former US ambassador to Israel, wrote to Clinton on December 18, 2011, and suggested a secret plan to stir up major Palestinian protests in an attempt to force the Israeli government into peace negotiations.

He stated that the protests “must be all and only women. Why? On the Palestinian side the male culture is to use force.”

Pickering’s goal was to ignite protests that would engulf the West Bank, “just like Tahrir square.” He adds that the Palestinian “leadership has shied away from this idea because they can’t control it,” and they are “afraid of being replaced.”

This idiotic reasoning that somehow only women would participate and things would stay peaceful is obviously absurd. As Pickering himself notes, “Palestinian men will not for long patiently demonstrate – they will be inclined over time and much too soon to be frustrated and use force. Their male culture comes close to requiring it.”

Regardless, Pickering writes that the protests could be used against Israel “to influence the political leadership.”

The idea was as dangerous for the Palestinians as it was for Israel. As Pickering himself admits, widespread protests could overthrow Abbas’ government, and if Palestinian men joined in, widespread violence would inevitably break out. It would obviously be impossible to prevent men from participating in these demonstrations.

Yet Pickering felt this extreme risk was worth taking, even if it meant the replacement of Abbas with another Hamas-led government. And even if meant violence breaking out across the West Bank leading to a third intifada and the murder of countless Jews. He also emphasizes the need to hide all US involvement in this plot. Clinton forwarded this email to Monica Hanley and asked her to “pls print.”

Clandestinely stirring up potentially violent protests in an attempt to try and force Israel to go against its best interests? Advice like this was par for the course when it came to Clinton’s advisers.

In a follow-up column we’ll illuminate even more anti-Israel advice that was given the then-secretary of state. Sadly, there was just so much of it.

The author, “America’s Rabbi,” is the international bestselling author of 30 books including his upcoming The Israel Warrior’s Handbook. Follow him on Twitter @ RabbiShmuley.

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF FIGURE 1 (Primary Matrix). As per my standard protocol, no statistical significance is assigned to the axis term, here H. CLINTON at its 8th lowest skip in wrapped Torah. The primary a priori word sought was MAIL. Before factoring in ELS rank 8 of the axis term MAIL was found at a special case skip (+/-1 or the absolute skip of the axis term) against odds of about 49.3 to 1. RUSSIAN was found this way against odds of about 44.8, ROCKET was likewise found against odds of about 48.7, and LIBYA was again found against odds of about 9.5 to 1. DAESH/ISIS was found against odds of about 1.93 to 1 and ENEMY had about 1 chance in 22 to be there at skip +1. COMEY had about a 90% chance to be on the primary matrix, which is a 50-letter (2 row) expansion of what I published originally back in February, 2016. Overall, after factoring in ELS rank 8 of the axis term, the matrix was found against odds of about 5,715,396 (down from 9,206,598 to 1 for the smaller 575-letter matrix originally posted). It's still judged to be highly significant. There was no match with the word President on this matrix. Hopefully that implies that she'll find her way to a jail house rather than the White House. But why expand it to show Comey? Well, when former President Bill Clinton got his hands caught in the cookie jar on Attorney General Loretta Lynch's aircraft during the FBI investigation of the Clintons, FBI Director James Comey got to decide the fate of the Clintons. On the line that Comey's name ends (the top line of the primary matrix) in the open text is IT SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. No matter whch way Comey had ruled, there were bound to be a lot of people who would find Comey's decision unacceptable. Had he found her guilty the list would have started with the Clinton's and gone on to include all those who support her treasonous, criminal actions.  What is shown is the singular form of TO YOU, however if I expand the matrix by one column to the left, the open text really reads IT SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU (plural). The plural form could have referred to both Clintons, or to them and all Democrats, but it could also have referred to those of us who despise what the Clintons stand for. Or if Clinton got tossed off the ticket, it could have referred to all the Bernie Sanders fans who would likely find that their hero was not allowed to lead the ticket either, even though polls have shown him beating Trump. If I had been smart enough to search for IT SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU ahead of the experiment, then it would have been found against odds of about 488 to 1. 

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF FIGURE 1 (Secondary Matrx). The best match of H. CLINTON with COMEY was at the 6th lowest ELS of H. CLINTON (at skip -60,118). COMEY was found at skip -60,117 in a 32-letter matrix with H. CLINTON. The two names shared a letter kuf. After factoring in ELS Rank 6, the matrix was found against odds of about 26 to 1.

       And what can we say if Clinton goes on to win the White House? Then I, and my Republican friends, are the sad saps that are addressed with the phrase IT SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. Compare that wit what Cmey said: "I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation." This match of IT SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU with H. CLINTON was a surefire winner, even if we turn out the losers. Why encode such a blurry fate in Torah? Perhaps because in the end, without the two outcomes, we would be denied free will. This is a major theme in Torah. There is no conflict between the choices we are given in the open text, and those that are encoded. Deuteronomy 30:15-29 is just one example:

UPDATE OF JULY 5, 2016: HOW CLOSE DID COMEY'S FINAL WORDS COME TO WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN TORAH?

The Torah said, "It shall not be acceptable to you." Comey said, "I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation."

The full text of Comey's decision follows here with his criticism of Clinton highlighted in light blue:

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

Criticism of Clinton is given with bold fonts highlighted in blue.

Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

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.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.