Yeah, who says this?

You said the words "knowingly". We have factual evidence of MARKED classified information.

Maybe you are unsure of what the word marked means, but in case you don't, there is no factual or logical way one could not understand they are removing and re-communicating MARKED classified information to an unsecured system.

Also, the FBI gave HRC such training that she signed off on.

The level of intent, as you are making it out to be, is a straw man.

OK, Mr. Honesty. He also did not say that they didn't charge her with a crime because of who she is.

Damn, I boldfaced the key word so that you could not miss it again, but you did. Petraeus gave the classified data to an unauthorized THIRD PARTY. Clinton sent emails to authorized State Dept. personnel. It's to answer the question from the sordid guy about how Petraeus is guilty of a crime and Hillary is not. Classified material was not released, certainly not given away intentionally, just handled carelessly. Big difference.

It is his claim, long after the emails had been released. Never proven. Nor have the allegations on the web that China and Russia hacker her. No smoking gun here.

Again, under US law, miss-handling of classified information is illegal. It doesn't matter if you carry it to Russia or move it to a non-secure server; under the law, it is illegal.

Incorrect, sir. Petraeus gave classified documents to his mistress, Paula Broadwell, and then lied to the FBI about it; both of which show criminal intent. Clinton was sloppy but broke no laws. There is a massive difference between these two cases.

The key word here is potential. If there was enough evidence they would not be considered potential violations....they would just be violations. By potential I took him to mean that the opportunity for her data to be compromised was more readily available than it would have been otherwise, like when she traveled abroad.

And I still love you too, pal.....

But it is true. Go look up the statute yourself. It says in black and white. There must be evidence of intent to commit a criminal or treasonous act.

Because at this point what the FBI says is all that matters. The FBI says there were no crimes committed here. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks about it. The law is clear.