"An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral - it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes . The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials."
- Note - no suggestion of any wrong-doing; merely the "potential compromises" of information.
To illustrate -- wrongdoing would be knowingly and intentionally sharing classified information like Petraeus did. Compromise would be something along the lines of having a password that's too easy to hack; which is not "wrong doing" and certainly isn't criminal.
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf
____________________________
Notice I answer Pale's questions; but he won't answer mine.
Do you have any idea why the IG issued a statement spelling out that it was not a criminal
