No, that's an inference you're making based on his comments. The most straightforward, face-value read of his comment is that he is simply referring to departmental differences in policy. FBI has their policy and and other government bodies have their own. It's got nothing to do with level of government, since even the EPA can have access to Secret/Top Secret material, for example.
Yes, it's an inference that I'm making; a perfectly valid one. One that most people are drawing based on Comey's words in fact. Even the New York Times believes that his words could be interpreted generally (and not strictly "FBI = FBI")
Mr. Comey said he could not address the specific question of what disciplinary measures might be taken, but he suggested that, in general, an official who did what Mrs. Clinton and her aides did would almost certainly be punished, though not charged criminally.
NY Times
It's a suggestion.
You don't think that the person asking the question of Comey isn't trying to draw a parallels and make suggestions about the closeness of the FBI and the State Department in this context? And you don't think that Comey realizes this? And I would think it incumbent of him to clarify how "fundamentally differently" these department operate (based on these distinctions that you are drawing)...lest people think that he's
suggesting that discipline at the FBI (regarding the mismanagement of classified material) would be similar to that of the State Department.
Take for instance this exchange between Robert Siegel (NPR host) and Susan Hennessey (former NSA lawyer)
SIEGEL: What have been some examples of carelessness with classified information by, say, career government employees and what kinds of discipline were imposed?
HENNESSEY: Right. So certainly there's examples that run the gamut. There have been historical examples of really very serious compromises of classified information and very careless compromises of classified information by government officials. In fact, CIA Director John Deutch had his security clearance suspended by George Tenet after he left office based on allegations that he had prepared classified documents on an unclassified computer.
NPR discussion
Now why do you think she they brought up the CIA (like how Comey and the the person asking him questions brought up the FBI)? Just for no apparent reason? Because they want to discuss how fundamentally different the CIA is from the State Department? No, because they're drawing parallels between the two since they both operate at the top of the government, and thus disciplinary actions for the same issues are likely to be similar at both departments.
And with that said, they addressed Clinton specifically:
SIEGEL: We're trying to get the situation as close as possible to that of Secretary Clinton's, of course, the idea of having a server at home in your basement seems to be extremely unusual if not unique. But if a rank-and-file State Department employee were to send and receive messages - some classified - with a personal email account, what in your experiences would the likely repercussions be for that?
HENNESSEY: So obviously it would differ dramatically based on the individual circumstances, but certainly it would not be unusual for someone to lose their security clearance, and it would not be unusual for someone to lose their employment based on that kind of activity.
So I don't see how you don't think that all these people aren't trying to make implications and suggestions here.
As far as the EPA is concerned, I'm not sure why you think mishandling sensitive information there would be treated any differently than it would be at the FBI.
Do they allow for more carelessness when it comes to mismanaging classified information? I doubt it.
I think you're assuming a lot about how well coordinated the government is.
Well I don't know what you mean by "coordinated" but I think it's a fair assumption that there is no fundamental difference between how seriously each department treats the mishandling of classified/sensitive material, especially since we're talking about the State Department.
If his conduct involved a _commercial_ email account as the passage suggests, it's rather fundamentally different than setting up a standalone, private email server.
I don't understand this. A private server is considered an even
worse infraction than just a commercial email account. Not to mention that both ignored clear policy not to do so (which is what made it a problem).
This is a particularly odd complaint. You're pointing to a somewhat similar case of an ambassador violating the rules, who wound up resigning, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that Hillary herself....has resigned.
He was fired, which is why I put "resigned" in quotes.
MIMIC, you say you have "trust" issues with Hillary. Well inevitably I have to ask, what would, for you personally, she need to do to regain your trust?
I don't know. Rebuilding trust is more of a process rather than a checklist. For starters, she could be more transparent, like doing another thing that people are sick of hearing about