“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.
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.
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.
To me, that is precisely how a guilty individual might act.
In other words, if she wasn't trying to pull multiple and illegal fast ones with the private server, and if she wasn't an American-valuesless scofflaw, then she would/should have been mortified that something classified was unprotected on her private server, and would have turned absolutely everything (recipes and all) over to the FBI, instantly and voluntarily, in order to help the investigators figure out what may have been compromised.
.
Really? How do we know this, Compost? Because she said so?
The Compost and most everyone else who talks about this in the media are missing the point. The server is 100% tied up with the "Foundation," which was a money-laundering bribe machine. It's all part of a family criminal scheme to sell official information and favors to certain corporations and foreign governments. The information from state was vetted by Sullivan, Abedin and Mills, which they sent through the servers and on to the purchasers, the phoney-baloney "speeches" were scheduled for Hillary, Bill and Chelsea, and the money went to the Foundation where it was laundered to the Clintons as "expenses."
The whole point of the server was to hide the activity from the American people. If confidential, classified, secret or sensitive (or however Hillary parses it today) State Department and national defense information went there, too, that was not part of the scheme for sale, that was simply an unintended by-product of setting up the home brew server to handle the information requirements of the criminal enterprise.
Everyone is "looking at the squirrel" with the classified information. Yes, the improper handling of state secrets should get her indicted. But that was not what she inted the crime to be. It's the "personal e-mails" she says she deleted and never turned over to State that was the real purpose of the server. Those e-mails contain evidence of flat-out bribery of one of the highest public officials of the United States, and that's what I hope the FBI is looking at.
By the way, here's the irony. Various corporations and sheikhs paid really good money for whatever tidbits the Clintons offered up. Meanwhile, the Russian FSB, the Chinese MSS and probably Iranian intelligence got the whole box of cookies for free.
“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?”
Was Hillary “careless” or did she simply have “a lapse in judgment”?
That was quite a lot of reality in this situation for the Washington Post to acknowledge.
But in this framework, they seem to suggest that she didn’t do anything criminal unless some harm can be proven to have come from her actions.
It’s an absurd argument so often made these days when someone does something negligent but apparently no harm occurred - or can be proven. They took an illegal risk with the lives of others, but if nothing happened, they shouldn’t be punished.
Here’s a recent example of a law student who crashed his drone during a University of Kentucky football game. His drone was flying around parachutists.
Quote:
After a four-month legal battle, the University of Kentucky law student whose drone crashed in Commonwealth Stadium during a UK football game said he feels exploited by officials looking to make an example out of him.
“In my opinion it’s just an overzealous prosecution,” Peyton Wilson said...
(snip)
A few minutes later, Wilson lost connection to and control of the drone. But he had taken precautions. The drone had a preprogrammed return flight it would follow if it lost connection, he said. The flight path was supposed to be low enough to avoid nearby helipads while staying high enough to clear the stadium.
“For whatever reason, it did not do that,” he said.
Instead, the drone flew toward the suite patio deck on the south side of the stadium, according to court records. The drone crashed into a glass wall of the patio area occupied by 10 people, according to court records. A patron later told police he was within “four steps” of the crash.
(snip)
What he did “wasn’t a dangerous thing,” Wilson said. “There is no way that that drone hit anyone on that balcony.”
(snip)
The FAA in 2007 also banned drones from being used within 3 nautical miles of any stadium holding more than 30,000 people from one hour before to one hour after a sporting event. The restriction includes reckless endangerment and trespassing as possible criminal charges that could be applied to a drone pilot, according to FAA documents.
The FAA could still take action against Wilson, particularly if it’s determined that the September flight was for commercial purposes before he had proper documents. He said he received a “terrifying” letter in November alerting him to an ongoing investigation.
Unquote
“University of Kentucky student speaks out about crashing drone in football stadium”
http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article53915475.html
There’s only one question that needs answering:
As you never used a state dept. email account, how did you ever intend to NOT get sensitive material on your own server? She must have known such information would come her way, where else would it end up?
Unless she had, and used, the state dept. email account then this was always a problem from day one. I’ve not heard anybody say she had used a secure account ever. Why was there a gap in the emails around Benghazi timeframe?
I think the FBI has it all, it’s just at the feet of the DoJ....and nobody is pressuring them. Imagine if it were a republican, with a republican President, the media would be asking about it non-stop.
