Posted on 02/08/2016 2:54:09 PM PST by Faith Presses On
WAS HILLARY CLINTON, as secretary of state, careless with classified information that could bring harm to intelligence sources or otherwise benefit U.S. adversaries, or is she being slammed by her partisan opponents over action that was not criminal and may have simply reflected a lapse in judgment? The fog was only deepened by the recent announcement that "top secret" information was found in seven email chains, covering 22 documents totaling 37 pages, in the State Department's review of her emails for release. Since the "top secret" information will remain hidden, it is hard to know what to make of it.
As we've said before, Mrs. Clinton should not have stored her official business on a private computer server based in her home. It was faulty thinking, perhaps borne of her desire to keep control over the communications and long experience in the political trenches. She has since turned everything over to the State Department for screening and release. The emails in question -- many of them sent to her by others -- came from the unclassified systems of the government, and, we are told, did not have any markings on them that identified them as classified. So it does not seem that she knowingly or willfully mishandled anything classified. The question of intent here is crucial.
It is also the case that experts in the government may retroactively discover classified information in her inbox. This does not seem surprising -- or criminal...
(snip)
In the name of fairness, we urge FBI Director James B. Comey to do everything possible to answer the question sooner rather than later. If there was no criminal behavior, allowing suspicions and doubts to linger through a campaign year would be wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“It was faulty thinking...”
How about morally wrong?
Oh, oh.
The polls are starting to scare the Democrat Post, I mean Washington Post.
Cue liberal female shrill voice:
“The FBI owes us an answer right now, so maybe we can get this scandal behind us (or start backing someone else before it is too late).”
Cracks are appearing in the libs’ wall.
How many of the Secret / Top Secret emails that have been discovered were found intact on the server and how many of them had to be recovered from among those emails Hillary deleted?
If even one of them had to be recovered from her scrubbing efforts, that's concrete evidence of obstruction of justice.
It was criminal negligence in the handling of classified information. The "intent" to mishandle classified information is not required to prove the charge. She obviously had the intent to set up the server and mishandled classified information as a result. Large volumes of highly classified information. She is criminally negligent of many felonies.
The question about weather on not Clinton knew the emails were classified or weather or not they were deemed classified after they were sent to her is MOOT. It is for this VERY reason that government officials are not supposed to use private servers to send and receive government information. You would think she knew that, actually she did know that. She just did not care.
Well, the Democrat’s Post did just list all of Hillary’s excuses: Not (marked) classified, somebody else did it, they are not really classified, that are not really important, everything needs to be exposed (or nothing matters), she did nothing wrong, it was not morally wrong, (but they forgot) everybody else already did it ...
Best I can tell, they have answers. Nothing illegal was done, the accusations are baseless.
Dear Washington Post:
Who - Hillary Clinton and her criminal accomplices.
What - Committed espionage against the people of The United States.
When - When she was Secretary of State.
Where - In Washington, D.C.. And around the world.
Why - To get herself some money!
Look at that! I saved you from having to think! Not that you would anyway.
Love and kisses!
blueunicorn6
That is, she has turned over 30,000 of 55,000 pages in unsearchable text form. Real cooperative.
The other 25,000 pages, we're supposed to believe, are recipes, yoga pose discussions, and grandma planning blather.
Of the remaining 30,000, which are deliberately non-electronic and non-searchable, we get many that are redacted (i.e., large portions crossed out). Who, that we can trust, reviews the redactions to ensure that they are really security related and not just criminally embarrassing? The State Department? Cheryl Mills?
The Washington Post is entirely too relaxed and accepting here, even if they feel they have to express some reservations.
No it isn't. It's irrelevant.
What is relevant are Hillary Clinton's actions. She set up an illegal e-mail server. She used it. And while doing so she compromised classified information. Any of which should place her in prison for the rest of her life. And all of which show she is a traitor.
It's that simple. And the Washington Post willfully trying to obscure this also shows it is the enemy within.
And according to the WaPo, Nixon's 18 minutes of tape was the crime of the millennium?
The MSM has no issue with the person in control of the football to be lacking in judgement as long as it is a lying socialist brian damaged hag like Clinton.
““It was faulty thinking.”
Try illegal.
“It’s that simple. And the Washington Post willfully trying to obscure this also shows it is the enemy within.”
Liberal to liberal, they simply identify with her. If she did something wrong, it was just “faulty thinking,” not rank deception, dishonesty and corruption. She’s one of them, and they know they’re like her.
I am a little more cynical than that. Maybe it was her way of getting classified information to our enemies. Anything to weaken or destroy the country.
And we know this how? The whole point of requiring the use of secure State Dept servers is to avoid having personnel control these records.
So it does not seem that she knowingly or willfully mishandled anything classified. The question of intent here is crucial.
Hillary intentionally ignored federal rules and intentionally bypassed security regulations. In so doing, she placed classified documents in risk of disclosure.
Intentionally bypassing security regulations is a criminal act.
The WaPo is covering her ample kiester.
Whatever she “turned-over” was BS. She is a criminal and a thug...and an old fat slob.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.