@mrmhead Said 
Another
Witch Hunt , lasting 3 Years - The longest ever of it's kind, has turned up incredible numbers:
38 people sent classified emails to Hillary Clinton's private email server
and
nearly 100 violations of classification rules
Oh, and ...
"There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information," the report states.
So maybe it was more of a snipe hunt.
(since the other witch hunts actually ended in convictions)
So... just a few points on this...
Let us say there there
had been evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.
1. 100 violations. Now, let's say that each of the 38 people sent 3 "classified emails" to Hillary during her 4 (+/-) years as Sec. State, that would be 114 violations.
Now that would be 114
violations regardless of whether the information was at the lowest level of classification (Confidential) or highest level (Top Secret SCI+).
2. Also, just because someone sent Hillary an email, doesn't mean she violated any classification rules herself.
To understand this point think of your front door having one of those mail slots. Someone walks up to your front door and slides a piece of mail through the slot. You get that mail regardless of whether you wanted it or not.
Now imagine that the mail was "classified" information, but the person pushing the mail through your door mail slot removed all of the classification markings"... Even if you "wanted" the information, you might not know that it was actually classified.
So, it is not inconceivable that the "persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information" was evidence that didn't actually point to Hillary.
5. The "deliberate mishandling of classified information" is not necessarily a crime.
It depends on the information, the classification level of the information, who "sent" it, who "received" it, when it was sent, and
why it was sent/received.... the who/what/when/where/why/how of the incident.
Example: Let's say there is some highly classified information about a U.S. military operation, and someone wrongfully sends that informal to someone else; i.e. a "deliberate mishandling of classified information. Now comes the who/when/where/why was is sent?
> A. It was sent to the "enemy" before the operation with the intent to aid the "enemy", etc... Treason.
OR
> B. It was sent to a government department head, who knew about the operation, it was sent
after the operation was successfully completed, etc... not "treason", just stupidity.
____________________________________________
On the other hand, a quote from Tulsi Gabbard to Hillary >>> "You (are) the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain..."
Some... many... would not call that hyperbole.
Oct 18, 2019 @ 03:44:02
