NY Times Looks To Protect Hillary’s Illegal Email Actions

According to Abbe David Lowell, a big shot council for Democrats during the time of the Clinton impeacment, the classification system is broken

EVERY few years, a news event demonstrates how dysfunctional, arbitrary and counterproductive the country’s system of classifying information really is. Sometimes it’s an article or book about government conduct that causes hand-wringing among intelligence officials. Sometimes it’s a prosecution under the nearly 100-year-old Espionage Act for mishandling classified information, instead of for actual spying. Now we have calls for prosecuting Hillary Clinton because, when she was secretary of state, she had documents on her private email server that have since been declared top secret.

Mrs. Clinton, along with others accused of mishandling classified information, argues that government information is “overclassified” and that it is poorly labeled, making it impossible to know what is actually top secret. They are right. This debate might prove useful if it forces the government to deal with a bigger issue: the need for a saner system for classified information.

Here’s the thing: even if he is correct, the law is the law, and as one of the top officials in the Executive branch, she should have known better, and should be held to a higher standard, instead of than at a standard less than what a very low ranking official would find themselves being treated to. She intentionally used a server in contradiction to law and rules, exposing national security to the outside, all supposedly for her convenience. You try telling the IRS that filing your taxes is inconvenient, see what happens.

Skipping to the end we read

In Mrs. Clinton’s case, people can reasonably assert that in using a private email server she thwarted open government rules or risked the possibility that sensitive information would be disclosed. But the idea that she violated laws about classified information is simply wrong. Any investigation based on after-the-fact determinations of classification would do nothing to protect national security and would distract from the need to reform classification laws.

See, this isn’t about the “broken system,” it’s about protecting Hillary. Liberals yammer on, and rightly so, about certain people, big shots, being treated differently under the law than everyone else. Should we treat Hillary differently?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “NY Times Looks To Protect Hillary’s Illegal Email Actions”

  1. john says:

    Teach the FBI has not even thought it necessary to question her, this seems to indicate that they do not think any crime has been committed

  2. You watch too many crime shows, John. The potential target of a criminal probe is not always interviewed, especially when they are looking at the forensic evidence.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    And yet john the FBI continues to look into the issue. If there was nothing there, wouldn’t you think the FBI would have stopped looking?

    The fact of the matter is john that you were one of the people who said “nothing was ever marked classified” in trying to give Clinton a pass. That’s not the law, but when it comes to liberals, other liberals don’t want the law applied to them.

    A judge ruled that the Clinton server was set to “most likely avoid” FOIA requests and transparency. That too is against the law.

    Clinton broke the law on multiple issues with the email scandal. It is just a question of whether the administration can slow play this, hoping that Hillary can get elected and then a pardon or something from Obama or whether they want to portray this as another “right wing conspiracy.”

    I know that you want to say that Hillary is something other than a criminal, but the facts don’t support that belief.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10838 access attempts in the last 7 days.