Justice Department makes redacted Mar-a-Lago affidavit public

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

He expected the DOJ and FBI to tell him and the rest of the Trumpster brigade just why and who and when so they could go make sure the witnesses and such would recant and their beloved Donald would be free from this investigation or witch hunt as the Donald and his followers are calling it.  The ceiling for The Donald is slowly getting ready to collapse on him and his rhetoric will be silenced finally.

Brace for the ‘extinction burst’.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, bendejo said:

Impressive the scant coverage of this.  It took big, brass ones for Barr to do his heavy redactions on that, and it stunk to high heaven.  Espionage for the boss, obstruction for Barr -- or is obstructing a crime of treason itself treason?  Barr seems to not care:

William Barr: Death is inevitable, legacies are meaningless

And then there's prison, Billy boy.

Now we're waiting for the dots to connect: the aid to the 2016 DT campaign received from abroad, the infamous Lavrov/Kislyak meeting in the Oval (where intel tracked that DT revealed secrets), the brown-nose rendezvous with Putin in Helsinki (DT declaring at worldwide press conference that he puts more trust in Putin than his own intelligence agencies), those very long telephone calls with Vlad, and who knows whatever else he did in those 4 years, and finding out that info from the Mar a Lago boxes is known in the Kremlin.

 

 

I recall Barr making the remarks ‘Death is inevitable, legacies are meaningless’ it was chilling, a clear statement that he willingly regarded himself a pawn in the crimes he knew he was committing.

 

His objective, theocratic control of the US, Trump a stepping stone along the route.

 

He is a cold, calculating, evil man.

[LosLobo]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I recall Barr making the remarks ‘Death is inevitable, legacies are meaningless’ it was chilling, a clear statement that he willingly regarded himself a pawn in the crimes he knew he was committing.

 

His objective, theocratic control of the US, Trump a stepping stone along the route.

 

He is a cold, calculating, evil man.

Trump admired evil men.

 

Hitler, Putin, Kim Jong-Un, Xi, Maduro, Erdogan, Bolsonaro, Maduro and the list goes on.

 

Why would he not select Barr as his DOJ!

 

 

[Longwood50]

6 hours ago, LarrySR said:

Seriously, you’re baffled why there are redactions?

Clearly, you haven't been paying attention. Do a little homework before you post.

This isn't a "redaction" it is outright concealment. 

[Longwood50]

17 hours ago, LosLobo said:

One reason was to conceal the names of witnesses.

Boy there must have been a lot of witnesses since the entire group of pages is almost entirely blacked out.  CONCEALMENT

[Longwood50]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well look who got through Mar-a-Largo ‘security’:

Yes we certainly know those servers that Clinton used that contained current classified information were secure.  Oh remind me, was her home raided and was she prosecuted.  Oh yes, I now recall, James Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor will bring charges.  


I guess he was covering himself because he not only had classified information but he revealed it.  But of course that is something to ignore.

Liberals creed:  Laws are for thee not for me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/leak-investigation-james-comey.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/politics/clinton-campaign-hacked-russians.html

 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

This isn't a "redaction" it is outright concealment. 

Do you understand what redaction means? Do you understand why a judge might be concerned, among other things, what Trump supporters, riled up by Trump himself, might do to these people? We've seen evidence of a multitude of threats directed at Judge Reinhart and the FBI agents who signed the affidavit. What do you think will happen to witnesses if an unredacted version was released?

[ThailandRyan]

8 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

This isn't a "redaction" it is outright concealment. 

It should not have been released at all...but you trumpsters wanted it....what did you really expect  to get the whole case to be shown....try again.

[ThailandRyan]

3 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Yes we certainly know those servers that Clinton used that contained current classified information were secure.  Oh remind me, was her home raided and was she prosecuted.  Oh yes, I now recall, James Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor will bring charges.  


I guess he was covering himself because he not only had classified information but he revealed it.  But of course that is something to ignore.

Liberals creed:  Laws are for thee not for me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/leak-investigation-james-comey.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/politics/clinton-campaign-hacked-russians.html

 

Deflect much....this is not about anyone except Trump....classic trumpster move.

[heybruce]

24 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Yes we certainly know those servers that Clinton used that contained current classified information were secure.  Oh remind me, was her home raided and was she prosecuted.  Oh yes, I now recall, James Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor will bring charges.  


I guess he was covering himself because he not only had classified information but he revealed it.  But of course that is something to ignore.

Liberals creed:  Laws are for thee not for me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/leak-investigation-james-comey.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/politics/clinton-campaign-hacked-russians.html

 

For those who don't know, people who work in an environment in which they are immersed in classified will sometimes inadvertently make references to classified in emails and voice communications.  Such security breaches usually carry little risk, but they are breaches and when found are usually dealt with through low level disciplinary action or training.  An inadvertent release of classified has never led to criminal prosecution.

 

Taking entire highly classified documents out of a secure location, keeping them for over a year and refusing to return them is an entirely different kind of security violation.

[candide]

28 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Yes we certainly know those servers that Clinton used that contained current classified information were secure.  Oh remind me, was her home raided and was she prosecuted.  Oh yes, I now recall, James Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor will bring charges.  


I guess he was covering himself because he not only had classified information but he revealed it.  But of course that is something to ignore.

Liberals creed:  Laws are for thee not for me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/leak-investigation-james-comey.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/politics/clinton-campaign-hacked-russians.html

 

False equivalence as usual...

 

You mean the Comey who is partly responsible for Clinton's loss? Have you read the article about him? I think not, otherwise you wouldn't have linked it.

[ozimoron]

40 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Boy there must have been a lot of witnesses since the entire group of pages is almost entirely blacked out.  CONCEALMENT

No need to protect any of those witnesses?

 

Leading counterintelligence officials issued a memo to all of the CIA’s global stations saying that a concerning number of U.S. informants were being captured and executed.

The CIA’s counterintelligence mission center investigated dozens of incidents in the last few years that involved killings, arrests or compromises of foreign informants.

 

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/575384-cia-admits-to-losing-dozens-of-informants-around-the-world-nyt/

[billd766]

36 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

This isn't a "redaction" it is outright concealment. 

And your problem with that is what exactly?

 

If you want the complete unredacted version then I suggest that you contact the US Justice Department and DEMAND a complete unredacted version for your eyes only. I am sure that they will realise how important you are and who your Daddy is and email it to you immediately.

 

There is no point in you whining on an unimportant English website in Thailand, as nobody here can do anything, and a lot of us really don't care. Mostly we are patient, and realise that when the Justice authorities are ready, all will be revealed.

 

37 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Yes we certainly know those servers that Clinton used that contained current classified information were secure.  Oh remind me, was her home raided and was she prosecuted.  Oh yes, I now recall, James Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor will bring charges.  


I guess he was covering himself because he not only had classified information but he revealed it.  But of course that is something to ignore.

Liberals creed:  Laws are for thee not for me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/leak-investigation-james-comey.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/politics/clinton-campaign-hacked-russians.html

 

Trump's creed:  Laws are for everybody else, but not for me.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

Boy there must have been a lot of witnesses since the entire group of pages is almost entirely blacked out.  CONCEALMENT

Calm down buddy, wait till it goes to trial and most of its closed to the public, you need a little more energy left for your hysteria......

[Longwood50]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Calm down buddy, wait till it goes to trial and most of its closed to the public, you need a little more energy left for your hysteria......

I am merely pointing to the fact that if there was a clear predicate for the warrant, there should not be the concealment. 

In terms of a trial, do you know if that comes before or after the Clinton trial for having classified information on her server that was hacked by the Russians and where it stands in the queue with the James Comey trial for deliberately releasing classified material from the FBI. 

 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

I am merely pointing to the fact that if there was a clear predicate for the warrant, there should not be the concealment. 

In terms of a trial, do you know if that comes before or after the Clinton trial for having classified information on her server that was hacked by the Russians and where it stands in the queue with the James Comey trial for deliberately releasing classified material from the FBI.

There is always always concealment of the warrant until a trial.

[Longwood50]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

Trump's creed:  Laws are for everybody else, but not for me.

It is "reported" that all the former presidents have some classified information in their homes.  But I guess we will never know for sure because in the 250 years since the USA declared its independence Trump is the ONLY president it was ever deemed necessary to serve a search warrant on. 

Also omitted from the news reports was that there were ongoing negotiations with the Trump representatives over the documents.  Trump's lawyers had served a rebuttal challenging the governments claim to them.  THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A MATTER FOR THE CIVIL COURTS to adjudicate.  

However the Democrats wanted the public spectacle.  

[Longwood50]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

There is always always concealment of the warrant until a trial.

I don't believe that to be true. 

In order for a warrant to be issued it is suppose to show probably cause and it also can not be unreasonablly broad.  You can't go into a person's home saying you are looking for drugs, find guns as you search and then charge them with illegally possessing a firearm.  

Is anyone on this forum a former attorney in the USA that could speak definitely on the concealment of a warrant. 

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

I am merely pointing to the fact that if there was a clear predicate for the warrant, there should not be the concealment. 

In terms of a trial, do you know if that comes before or after the Clinton trial for having classified information on her server that was hacked by the Russians and where it stands in the queue with the James Comey trial for deliberately releasing classified material from the FBI. 

 

You're ignoring the facts that have been stated many times on why their are redactions

 While you continue to do that you are doing nothing but ranting.

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

It is "reported" that all the former presidents have some classified information in their homes.  But I guess we will never know for sure because in the 250 years since the USA declared its independence Trump is the ONLY president it was ever deemed necessary to serve a search warrant on. 

Also omitted from the news reports was that there were ongoing negotiations with the Trump representatives over the documents.  Trump's lawyers had served a rebuttal challenging the governments claim to them.  THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A MATTER FOR THE CIVIL COURTS to adjudicate.  

However the Democrats wanted the public spectacle.  

"It is "reported" that all the former presidents have some classified information in their homes."

 

Riiiggghhttt...  No need for a source for such a claim, I'm sure everyone will take your word for it.  ????????????

[ThailandRyan]

22 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

I am merely pointing to the fact that if there was a clear predicate for the warrant, there should not be the concealment. 

In terms of a trial, do you know if that comes before or after the Clinton trial for having classified information on her server that was hacked by the Russians and where it stands in the queue with the James Comey trial for deliberately releasing classified material from the FBI. 

 

You have no clue about how investigations work now do you.  Once they decide to charge the man a charging hearing will be conducted at which time discovery will be asked for.  Discovery is the act of sharing information the other side has, and that goes both ways, this helps the defense then to see what type of case the prosecutor has, and also what the defense may be using as a defense.  A case is not tried in public with releasing information so others can glean an insight into the case.  Cases are not brought for the publics review, but for a jury to review the information provided during the trial.  You however want the prosecutions case so you can see if you like it or not and wish to use the info for your own uses.  That does not happen Sir, and you know that........you wont get what you want so sit back, get the popcorn out and watch the series unfold in front of your eyes.  I am sure there will be some twists and turns before it gets to that point as the screws are tightened on others who may be involved.....

 

Still trying to deflect from the OP Topic and turn it towards someone this is not about.

Edited August 28, 2022 by ThailandRyan

[ThailandRyan]

11 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

I don't believe that to be true. 

In order for a warrant to be issued it is suppose to show probably cause and it also can not be unreasonablly broad.  You can't go into a person's home saying you are looking for drugs, find guns as you search and then charge them with illegally possessing a firearm.  

Is anyone on this forum a former attorney in the USA that could speak definitely on the concealment of a warrant. 

A warrant and its probable cause are not for public view or scrutiny, can you not get that through your trump tainted mind......

 

After 34 years of working as a LEO and a DA Investigator you sir have a lot to learn where I know the legal justice system at all levels, and that includes State and Federal......

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

I am merely pointing to the fact that if there was a clear predicate for the warrant, there should not be the concealment. 

In terms of a trial, do you know if that comes before or after the Clinton trial for having classified information on her server that was hacked by the Russians and where it stands in the queue with the James Comey trial for deliberately releasing classified material from the FBI. 

 

Why do you keep asking questions of the people on the forum? They know as much as you know.

 

Why not direct your questions to the people who DO know what is going on, the US Department of Justice.

 

Lay out you questions and problems clearly and concisely, and if they determine that you have a right to know before the US public and anybody else, they will tell you. If not, then please be patient and like the rest of us, just wait until all is revealed.

 

After all, it is not as if you can do anything to affect the outcome anyway.

 

 

 

[DezLez]

12 minutes ago, billd766 said:

After all, it is not as if you can do anything to affect the outcome anyway.

They could unfortunately stage another riot or so!

[eisfeld]

6 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

I don't believe that to be true. 

In order for a warrant to be issued it is suppose to show probably cause and it also can not be unreasonablly broad.  You can't go into a person's home saying you are looking for drugs, find guns as you search and then charge them with illegally possessing a firearm.  

Is anyone on this forum a former attorney in the USA that could speak definitely on the concealment of a warrant. 

You are mixing several things. What has been published in redacted form is not the warrant. It is the request und justification ("probable cause" not "probably cause") for the warrant. The warrant has been presented to the people at the premises when they came to conduct the search.

 

An application for a search warrant will be filed under seal because if it were not then anyone could see that a search warrant has been requested even before they come knocking on the door because it might take a while for the warrant to be issued. It should be obvious why that would be a bad idea.

 

As to why the request was redacted: at this point it serves very little purpose to make the information in it public and it is rare that a redacted version is released. The judge has to weigh the risks of releasing the information therein against the publics interest. The information in the request is purely for the judge so he can make an informed decision if there is indeed probable cause and if he should grant the warrant. It is at the point of discovery that both parties gain access to all the information. It is the media and Trump supporters that are trying to make this public and a show, the prosecuters try the opposite. Information about whitnesses is not the only information that must be redacted. Note: the release is for the *public* and not for Trump. There could even be information about Trump that he might not want the public to know. It might also contain references to classified information. As this is a case involving the former president, a lot of information will be released during trial. And as it is a very high profile case it must be approached with care and not rushed. It has been prepared for months.

 

Here is the justification of the request to file under seal:

 

Quote

It is respectfully requested that this Court issue an order sealing, until further order
of the Court, all papers submitted in support of this application, including the application and
search warrant. I believe that sealing this document is necessary because the items and
information to be seized are relevant to an ongoing investigation and the FBI has not yet identified all potential criminal confederates nor located all evidence related to its investigation. Premature disclosure of the contents of this affidavit and related documents may have a significant and negative impact on the continuing investigation and may severely jeopardize its effectiveness by allowing criminal parties an opportunity to flee, destroy evidence (stored electronically and otherwise), change patterns of behavior, and notify criminal confederates.

You can see that they could not be sure that they know all people involved in the criminal act nor do they know if they will be able to retrieve all of the documents. To release all that information would give the confederates a headsup jeopardizing the whole operation.

 

Further you claim that it should have been a matter for civil courts just because Trumps lawyers were in contact with the National Archive. I don't see the logic in that. The government is alledging that Trump kept classified documents at his club which is a criminal offence. You can't adjucate criminal cases in civil courts. When the two parties can't agree on something then they can bring it in front of a court. It is only the court that shall be able to decide who was right and who was wrong. Given that Trump has resisted returning the documents for about half a year I would say there was no other way than this going to court.

Edited August 28, 2022 by eisfeld

[Credo]

@Longwood50

I am not sure how relevant the Hillary Clinton server is to the Donald Trump situation but comparisons are inevitable.  So let’s break down some of the differences and some of the similarities.   

 

First, there is no evidence that Hillary had any classified documents on the server.  As the Secretary of State it is highly likely that there were references made to material that was.

 

Material on the server that was related to her work role was turned over to the proper authorities before the server was decommissioned.

 

There is no reason to believe and no evidence the server was every hacked.  The DNC and the Clinton campaign servers were hacked, but that has nothing to do with the security issues related to her use of a private server.   There is also the issue of Trump asking Russia, ‘if you are listening’, to release the emails.   I doubt Russia would sit on that information if they had it.

 

The question of why wasn’t Clinton’s home raided is a rather silly one.  What would they have found?  What would they be looking for?  The emails in question were deleted.  There is no probable cause that she had printed out 33,000 emails and stored them in her closet, protected by a padlock.   

 

Now compare that to Trump having physical copies with the classification markings stored in a place to which a large swath of the public has access.  Hillary’s home most likely does not have much foot traffic and if it did, the Secret Service would have vetted anyone entering.   But being in her house, they would have had to access her computer system a feat more safely done outside of her residence.   

 

At the Mar-a-Lago estate there have been at least two known foreign nationals who gained admittance by deception.  Some time back, Yujing Zhang, a Chinese national with two passports and a fair amount of cash, lied saying she was a member planning to use the pool.  Once in, she again lied and said she was attending an event although there was no event.  She ended up being deported.  The second, and more recent was Inna Yashchyshyn, a Ukrainian/Russian national who claimed to be a Rothschild princess.  She is under investigation in Canada as well as the US.   

 

But the overriding decision not to charge Clinton with anything had more to do with her level of cooperation.  She sat for numerous depositions, she appeared at numerous congressional hearings and cooperated at every turn.  She also acknowledged that using a private server was a bad decision and one she regretted.  On the other hand, Trump has done little to signal cooperation.  He’s been asked, but has not fully complied.  He has had the records subpoenaed but still didn’t comply.  One of his attorneys, at his request, even signed an official paper saying there were no classified documents when, in fact, there were.   

[Eric Loh]

10 hours ago, Credo said:

@Longwood50

I am not sure how relevant the Hillary Clinton server is to the Donald Trump situation but comparisons are inevitable.  So let’s break down some of the differences and some of the similarities.   

 

First, there is no evidence that Hillary had any classified documents on the server.  As the Secretary of State it is highly likely that there were references made to material that was.

 

Material on the server that was related to her work role was turned over to the proper authorities before the server was decommissioned.

 

There is no reason to believe and no evidence the server was every hacked.  The DNC and the Clinton campaign servers were hacked, but that has nothing to do with the security issues related to her use of a private server.   There is also the issue of Trump asking Russia, ‘if you are listening’, to release the emails.   I doubt Russia would sit on that information if they had it.

 

The question of why wasn’t Clinton’s home raided is a rather silly one.  What would they have found?  What would they be looking for?  The emails in question were deleted.  There is no probable cause that she had printed out 33,000 emails and stored them in her closet, protected by a padlock.   

 

Now compare that to Trump having physical copies with the classification markings stored in a place to which a large swath of the public has access.  Hillary’s home most likely does not have much foot traffic and if it did, the Secret Service would have vetted anyone entering.   But being in her house, they would have had to access her computer system a feat more safely done outside of her residence.   

 

At the Mar-a-Lago estate there have been at least two known foreign nationals who gained admittance by deception.  Some time back, Yujing Zhang, a Chinese national with two passports and a fair amount of cash, lied saying she was a member planning to use the pool.  Once in, she again lied and said she was attending an event although there was no event.  She ended up being deported.  The second, and more recent was Inna Yashchyshyn, a Ukrainian/Russian national who claimed to be a Rothschild princess.  She is under investigation in Canada as well as the US.   

 

But the overriding decision not to charge Clinton with anything had more to do with her level of cooperation.  She sat for numerous depositions, she appeared at numerous congressional hearings and cooperated at every turn.  She also acknowledged that using a private server was a bad decision and one she regretted.  On the other hand, Trump has done little to signal cooperation.  He’s been asked, but has not fully complied.  He has had the records subpoenaed but still didn’t comply.  One of his attorneys, at his request, even signed an official paper saying there were no classified documents when, in fact, there were.   

Excellent post. Just like to add that no Dems in Congress came out strongly to support her as regards to the email controversy unlike the Elise Stefanik, Kevin McCarthy, Mike Turner etc etc rushing to contort themselves in defense of the indefensible Trump. In fact the mere mention of Clinton's travails sent Dems scrambling to avoid nor defend her. Not those GOP cowards worshipping Trump. 

[johnnybangkok]

10 hours ago, Credo said:

@Longwood50

I am not sure how relevant the Hillary Clinton server is to the Donald Trump situation but comparisons are inevitable.  So let’s break down some of the differences and some of the similarities.   

 

First, there is no evidence that Hillary had any classified documents on the server.  As the Secretary of State it is highly likely that there were references made to material that was.

 

Material on the server that was related to her work role was turned over to the proper authorities before the server was decommissioned.

 

There is no reason to believe and no evidence the server was every hacked.  The DNC and the Clinton campaign servers were hacked, but that has nothing to do with the security issues related to her use of a private server.   There is also the issue of Trump asking Russia, ‘if you are listening’, to release the emails.   I doubt Russia would sit on that information if they had it.

 

The question of why wasn’t Clinton’s home raided is a rather silly one.  What would they have found?  What would they be looking for?  The emails in question were deleted.  There is no probable cause that she had printed out 33,000 emails and stored them in her closet, protected by a padlock.   

 

Now compare that to Trump having physical copies with the classification markings stored in a place to which a large swath of the public has access.  Hillary’s home most likely does not have much foot traffic and if it did, the Secret Service would have vetted anyone entering.   But being in her house, they would have had to access her computer system a feat more safely done outside of her residence.   

 

At the Mar-a-Lago estate there have been at least two known foreign nationals who gained admittance by deception.  Some time back, Yujing Zhang, a Chinese national with two passports and a fair amount of cash, lied saying she was a member planning to use the pool.  Once in, she again lied and said she was attending an event although there was no event.  She ended up being deported.  The second, and more recent was Inna Yashchyshyn, a Ukrainian/Russian national who claimed to be a Rothschild princess.  She is under investigation in Canada as well as the US.   

 

But the overriding decision not to charge Clinton with anything had more to do with her level of cooperation.  She sat for numerous depositions, she appeared at numerous congressional hearings and cooperated at every turn.  She also acknowledged that using a private server was a bad decision and one she regretted.  On the other hand, Trump has done little to signal cooperation.  He’s been asked, but has not fully complied.  He has had the records subpoenaed but still didn’t comply.  One of his attorneys, at his request, even signed an official paper saying there were no classified documents when, in fact, there were.   

Excellent post and clearly outlines the key differences between the two situations. However, it won't matter to the MAGA brigade whose cognitive dissonance as far as Hillary is concerned supercedes all logic and reasoning.
This constant 'but, but Hillary...' has now gone on for some 6 years (probably longer when you count all the numerous probes she's successfully defended) but it still doesn't deter the MAGites (new word for them) bringing up numerous false equivalents in defence of the indefensible coming from Trump. This poor woman has had to endure probe after investigation after Senate committee in defence of so many things (to include the recent John Durham non- event) and has passed (mostly) with flying colours.

If Trump was half the man that Hillary is, we wouldn't be having these conversations.

[ozimoron]

His attention was hard to secure and maintain we had found ourselves using a lot of graphics and images just to get his attention. Things that were sort of catchy, maybe kind of conforming a bit more to it he would appreciate, sort of the headlining approach. And when he did get enthusiastic about certain reporting, these questions were less about the nature of the information, the reliability, but how it played for something on his agenda or interests.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-stealing-documents-hurts-america/

[Longwood50]

14 hours ago, Credo said:

First, there is no evidence that Hillary had any classified documents on the server

Not only did she have classified information, it was current since she was serving as Sec. of State.  

Further she shared that information with the people who were servicing her server ANOTHER VIOLATION

She also gave access to Huma Abedin her aide which who did not have classified clearance. 

Huma forwarded the contents of the server to her husband Anthony Weiner (the person convicted of sending sexually explicit photo's to minors)  

That was also a crime by Huma

ALL THE CLINTON PEOPEL WERE GIVEN IMMUNITY

They included but not limited to  her lawyer Cheryl Mills, Human Abedin and Paul Combetta who worked on Clinton Server and deleted the emails. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/three-more-hillary-clinton-witnesses-were-given-immunity-by-fbi

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html