This isn't an espionage case, and you discredit the investigation by calling it that. Clinton may have "sold secrets", but even she isn't stupid enough to leave around evidence of it.
Setting aside the potential for conflict of interest (the donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was SoS), this is really about her failure to safeguard the secrets that were entrusted to her. That's "gross negligence", not espionage (which requires intent).
Clinton is trying to misrepresent it as "not marked classified" (it doesn't matter), and as "mistakes were made" (an admission of guilt, in this case). But, only a relative handful of people have worked in the national security field, and know it's a smokescreen. She is counting on the media to carry her water and convince the rest of her version of the "truth".
Gosh.
There’s nothing I enjoy more than having a word debate on Free Republic.
Thank you for coming onto a thread of Hillary Clinton’s actions and trying to parse words with me about what “espionage” means.
Let’s see what the FBI comes up with.
As of now, no one can be sure that Hillary wasn’t a filthy spy selling us out to our enemies for money.
Spies using “drops” can also claim they were just throwing away paper or photos. Leaving our nation’s secrets on an unguarded computer system may be the same as running a “drop”.
Thanks again for your unsolicited and inaccurate comments.