Hillary's 'classified' smokescreen hides real crime: OP-ED

[pantsonfire]

Law makes clear DOJ should prosecute Clinton for mishandling 'national defense information,' classified or not.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/04/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-legal-definition-national-defense-information-classification-column/82446130/

So why has this not been discussed in the television and print media? Why has Clinton not been grilled by her interviewers as to whether her emails contained national defense information that could harm the U.S.? Why has everyone bought into the “marked classified” rabbit trail? One suspects that many reporters and commentators have not bothered to read the actual law or are hesitant to blow the central defense of the Clinton campaign out of the water.

Regardless, I am not confident that the Justice Department will indict. It is true that part of the reason is that the political appointees who make the final decisions will at least unconsciously be searching for ways to evaluate the case in a way that would evade an obvious debacle for the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, it is likely that, at this very moment, many good lawyers at DOJ may be using all sorts of sophistry and rationalization to try to avoid applying the plain language of the law to Hilary Clinton. A jury, which should make the final decision, may never get the chance.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. GOP is doing it's thing here.

[Avalon Sparks]

4. How convenient.....

Must be nice to claim every post that shares information and details about Clinton's possible misconduct as a right wing nut claim.

Such a weak refute.

[cosmicone]

2. Meh ... another hit piece fail n/t

[pantsonfire]

3. sorry for the fail, comment on her now 15/hr endorsement? n/t

[cosmicone]

7. She wants a national $12 PLUS more (not limited to 15) in localities

where the COL is high.

So $15 in NYC fits right into her policy.

[pdsimdars]

5. One expert pointed out that there is no government document marked "classified"

He said it was Hillary playing word games. . They are marked "confidential" or "secret" or "top secret" (I think those were the actual terms). But in any case no documents are marked "classified".

Also, whatever they are or are not marked has nothing to do with it. It has to do with their content and she well knows what content is classified. Anything that has to do with our sources, methods or assets. Like if they are about how we get information. . . that is classified. Or who our moles are, etc. They gave a bunch of examples and you got the idea. Nothing to do with marked or unmarked, but content.

[amborin]

6. yes; and at least one of the released "work" emails is too top secret to release

[pdsimdars]

8. I also liked the email where Hillary wanted to have a document faxed

So she told the guy to remove the marking off of the message and bypass the secure network and send it through the unsecure one.

Kind of hard to argue that you didn't send any classified information when we have your email instructing someone to do just that.