Too bad that this has no distinction in the eyes of the law, no matter how Clinton and the media try to spin it. Hot Air: "“Malicious intent” is not required to break the law in Hillary Clinton’s case."
At one point in this email saga, Hillary whined that there had to be markings since she's too dim to figure out what might be classified. There do not have to be markings - this is all a red herring.
Refresher - "@HillaryClinton Meet 18 U.S.C § 793". "The fact that Secretary Clinton’s camp claims the particular emails in question were not marked “classified” or “top secret” at the time (even though the IG states that the emails “were classified when they were sent and are classified now”) is irrelevant. “Gross negligence” is the standard."
2 comments:
It's perfectly obvious that if Mrs. Rodham Clinton didn't want foreign powers and shadowy international interests to have free access to all internal U.S. foreign policy email discussions during her tenure, then she did nothing wrong by insuring they had such access.
As I recall, there was an email from her to one of her cronies telling him to strip off the security headings and just email it to her. It may not be malicious, but it certainly is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules.
LewK
Post a Comment