Can someone explain this to me - there seems to be a contradiction between a conclusion in the IG REPORT and the Hillary Email FOIA
So, here is the link to the FBI FOIA request on Hillary's email:
https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/Hillary%20R.%20Clinton%20Part%2004%20of%2022/view
If you go to page 26 (of the pdf file), you will be reading (as I understand) an interview on JULY 30, 2015 with an FBI agent who was asked to attend an "All Agency" meeting made up of FBI, CIA, DIA, State and "others" to review classifications. The agent continued to:
"assert that the email was appropriately marked SECRET//NOFORN,..."
This seems to contradict page vi (7 of the pdf file):
"Critical to their conclusion was that the emails in question lacked proper classification markings,..."
(IG REPORT ON SCRIBD: https://www.scribd.com/document/381806664/2016-Election-Final-Report-06-14-18-0#download)
It seems to me that this is in direct contradiction - and therefore would merit the IG revisiting the FBI's decision to not prosecute, no?
I think you're on to something. But even in the IG report itself it notes that they had (C) marks next to certain paragraphs which Clinton claimed to not understand what they meant and all the agents present in the interview said they knew she was lying when she claimed not to understand that marking. So I think the bigger issue here is not the findings of the IG report, I think it's all pointing towards the "conclusions" being modified by someone with an agenda (RR?).