Posted on 05/09/2016 9:38:21 AM PDT by tflabo
Actually gross negligence can in fact, be criminally actionable. And the way the statutes concerning the handling of classified materials read, gross negligence in their handling, such as placing them on an unsecured server as HRC did, is in fact criminally actionable, no matter the 'intent' (to close off that particular loophole the MSM has been trying to float of late)...
the infowarrior
There is an article today in the Chicago Tribune that says the ‘intent’ was not there to harm national security so she will be ‘exonerated’
these people are bending over backwards to help her
Yes, as you pointed out -- the waterboys for Clinton are twisting themselves into pretzels to avoid the elephant in the room.
(That's not bad: 3 metaphors in the same sentence!)
And as I pointed out earlier, the commentary is just flat wrong. Intent has nothing to do with it. All the FBI has to do is show that Clinton was grossly negligent in handling classified material.
If it had been a handful of isolated instances, Clinton could have avoided a criminal prosecution. But, she would have had her clearance terminated, and that would have made it difficult for her to do her job, if she was still SoS.
This is a classic example of ignorant journalism. I wouldn't write an article on quantum mechanics without doing a lot of research. No respectable journalist should be writing an article or commentary on this issue without at least reading the law. They could also read Clinton's SF-312 (which states her responsibilities), and even the US governments own publications on what the SF-312 means -- it's open access.
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.