That's a shocker
WaPo reports scant evidence of clinton guilt? Really? I never saw that story coming.
Meanwhile in the reality based community. There is enough evidence in the public record to establish a pima facie case of guilt. Understanding that in a "state of mind case" the evidence will always be mostly circumstantial, consider these circumstances:
1. Clinton knowingly and deliberately set up a private e-mail server away from the work site.
2. Clinton knowingly and deliberately had personal control over the server to the exclusion of any government official.
3. Clinton knowingly and deliberately directed 100% of her official and government e-mail to be routed to and stored on the private non-governmental server.
4. Clinton knowingly and deliberately used the private server to initiate 100% her official e-mail communications.
5. Clinton made no effort to separate classified information from non-classified information.
6. Clinton had been personally instructed in how to handle and protect classified electronic communications. Clinton knowingly and deliberately ignored these instructions.
7. Clinton must be held to the knowledge that some of her e-mails sent and received must have contained classified material; she knowingly and deliberately omitted to have a protocol to protect those.
8. Classified material was in fact on Clinton's private server.
These are pretty much acknowledged and established facts. I think these facts are sufficient to sustain a jury verdict that she knowingly mishandled classified information. To rebut this, the burden would be shifted to her that she had no intent to do what she did.
One way to rebut the presumption created by these facts would be to establish a level of ignorance that Clinton was essentially clueless about these matters. That isn't too far fetched. She demonstrated cluelessness in several instances during the Benghazi! hearings. She has demonstrated cluelessness at times on the campaign trail. The question then becomes does this level of cluelessness belong in the Oval Office?
No, it doesn't. The server is irrelevant. Did she or did she not knowingly (or through gross negligence) cause classified info to be somewhere it wasn't authorized? That's the only question. Everything else is a sideshow. By thinking the server matters, you are falling into the trap set by the Repub conspiracists.
There is a difference. Standards of negligence are based in what a reasonable person would do in the same circumstance. Gross negligence is purposefully a higher standard, which changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I think the most common difference is that it is not only a lack of reasonable care, but an active disregard for any level of care whatsoever. Not salting the sidewalk in front of your office might be negligence. Turning down someone who offers to salt it for you for free might be gross negligence.
Lol ... Will be easily proved she acted with gross negligence, even if the standard is higher than regular negligence.
The board's amateur legal experts have no idea what they're talking about.
I don't think DOJ officials make this leak without direction. It's ground-softening.
She's an executive and is responsible for how she uses her account. She's especially responsible for how her personal server is used. It's not about who set up the server in the least.
My guess is she wanted to skirt FOIA. I think she's in trouble in the civil case. Most of the rest of what you said is gibberish. If you can't separate the FOIA issue from the classification issue, you really shouldn't be talking about this.
Again, paragraph one isn't true. No one, Republican or Democrat, has "come forward" to say that they've done the "very same things," because no one has.
Yes it is. Someone is hoping to make it seem less shocking if she or any of her staffers aren't charged with anything. The FBI leaks are probably designed to let people know that at least some involved think there could be charges. They're probably to provide some political pressure to those at Justice that will make the call. My guess is that either way it goes there will be more leaks. If she's charged anonymous official will say that she shouldn't have been and that politics led to "unwarranted and unprecedented charges" (and I wouldn't be surprised to see that exact wording. If she's not charged anonymous officials will say that there was ample evidence that crimes were committed and that she (and/or staffers) were not charged because she's the Democrat nominee for President. This won't go away in either case - except in the even that she's charged, she drops out of the race, and then she's convicted or acquitted at a trial. Then again, it probably won't even go away then.
We're likely stuck with this one for a while, including throughout her Presidency if she's elected.
Sorry, no one has come forward to say that they used a personal account for all official business and that their account was full of classified information from Confidential to Top Secret/SAP. No one.
