Matt Zapotsky has written a great non news story in the Post to deflect the gravity of Hillary’s crimes from the scrutiny it deserves.
Deflect and obfuscate. That’s the WAPO for you.
I sense a deliberate attempt by leftist media to devalue the importance of the crime Hillary committed. She defeated established national security procedure for some benefit for herself.
Is malicious intent an element of the crime?
Wouldn’t it be simple knowledge regardless of intent, possibly recklessness or criminal negligence?
What elements was Petraeus guilty of?
Was a crime committed? Who done it? She did intend to store data on her unsecure server?
Is malicious intent an element of the crime?
Wouldn’t it be simple knowledge regardless of intent, possibly recklessness or criminal negligence?
What elements was Petraeus guilty of?
Pure unadulterated crap. The law is the law. Lex Rex, not Hillary rex.
Actually she set up a separate system to protect herself from Obama.
But, in her defense, she was told that not following the security rules could lead to agents being “blown” and, naturally, she didn’t think the agents would mind that...
FBI agents on the case have been joined by federal prosecutors from the same office that successfully prosecuted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui
>>>Zacarias Moussaoui is a French citizen who pleaded guilty in U.S. federal court to conspiring to kill citizens of the United States as part of the September 11 attacks.
call it cowpo, call it bulshift, stinks all the same. R.
By the way... intent can be conclusively established by the registration date of clintonemail.com
https://who.is/whois/clintonemail.com
Registered January 13, 2009.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Nomination_and_confirmation
January 13, 2009 is also the date her confirmation hearings began, hearings which did not end until the 21st of that month, and she was sworn in on the same day.
This scheme can therefore be conclusively established to have been her intent before she took office.
Furthermore, she has repeatedly put a false statement on the record, that she set up the server for her “convenience”. But there was no way this could have been an issue on January 13, 2009, as she had not experienced the inconveniences of the security setup at State yet and decisions as to what specifically was allowed to her in terms of electronic communications devices were not even made yet.
Odd that the Washington Post has this. This is a FBI criminal investigation. Who is leaking it? Obviously it is coming through Obama’s DOJ and reaching his administration to manage the media message for Clinton.
It's so obvious she did what she did partly for convenience and mostly to hide what she was doing from Obama and FOIA requests from Republicans who did catch at least one lie, but she "held up so well"
The fix has been in all along.
Bull squat! And does that matter when breaking the law?
Public Records Act of 1950....no need for intent. She failed to take care of all kinds of public records to skirt FOIA discovery. Judicial Watch is doing the work that the DoJ refuses to do.
It has been reported over and over - the section of US Law covering this has NOTHING to do with intent.
So she knowingly broke the law, but not in a bad way in her own mind. Got it.
Queen Cankles the First is above the law you foolish peons!!
the FBI will knell in subservience to Her Crustiness by the prayer of King Obunghole First DickTater of the USSA and Chief Affirmative Action Reciepiant Lor-Et-A Catfish.
Scant evidence of “intent” when Robert Hansen passively left SCI/TS info in certain cafes. Of course, we now know his intent; Hillary is likely just an arrogant idiot. Hansen was an arrogant idiot traitor. How many years does dippy get?
But she really did violate the law, and what she intended to do with the materials does not change that. It is impossible that she could have been married to a sitting president, be in the U.S. Senate, and be Secretary of State without having an adequate understanding of such things.