Washington Post: Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails

[Aloha Hoosier]

Still spinning against reality that I and others have pointed out and the articles in support.

LOL you so brave

Since this issue broke about a year ago, I've posted dozens of links supporting everything I've said, including links to so non-military cases of prosecution for mishandling classified information (cases arguably les egregious than HRC's) and what I've found is almost no one reads them, or they don't understand them. So I get asked to do it again. I'm not going to link something unless it's new. You're more than welcome to go check out old links and see lots of links. I went back several pages and those threads are still there.

You can't even agree with the relatively benign, but indisputable fact, that a lot of classified information was on that server, intentionally or unintentionally, and it should not have happened. Why can't you do that?

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Yes you are. You are overreaching when you make unverifiable claims like "classified info is passed on unauthorized systems all the time" and verifiably false claims like "it's not a crime without intent or working for a foreign government." I've been trying to convince the likes of Ladoga, et al., to stop pretending they are legal experts. Now you are claiming the same conceit.

Nope, else you could provide us with articles on that prosecution and instead of that we have them saying it just isn't prosecuted very often out here in our civilian world.

words don't prove a damn thing.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Yes you are. You are overreaching when you make unverifiable claims like "classified info is passed on unauthorized systems all the time" and verifiably false claims like "it's not a crime without intent or working for a foreign government." I've been trying to convince the likes of Ladoga, et al., to stop pretending they are legal experts. Now you are claiming the same conceit.

That is correct. I've stated many times that I'm not a legal expert. They may in fact not charge her with a crime because they don't believe they can convict or there was no intent or gross negligence. It's only my opinion based on experience that there likely is gross negligence at a minimum on someone's part. I honestly do not know of any possible way the TS/SAP could have gotten into her system without a deliberate act on someone's part. One thing for sure, it has to be determined how this happened so they can develop procedures to ensure this kind of mishandling of classified information doesn't happen again. It will be ironic and a bit perverse IMO, if it's HRC's administration that has to do that.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Reality, learn to deal with it, so far you have posted a lot of words and little to no backup to what we can read of previous events of a similar nature out here in the public world.

That is all I'm basing my opinion on, words don't mean jack. especially military regulations or how they deal with it. Different world.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That is correct. I've stated many times that I'm not a legal expert. They may in fact not charge her with a crime because they don't believe they can convict or there was no intent or gross negligence. It's only my opinion based on experience that there likely is gross negligence at a minimum on someone's part. I honestly do not know of any possible way the TS/SAP could have gotten into her system without a deliberate act on someone's part. One thing for sure, it has to be determined how this happened so they can develop procedures to ensure this kind of mishandling of classified information doesn't happen again. It will be ironic and a bit perverse IMO, if it's HRC's administration that has to do that.

That is probably the most reasonable summary from your side of the aisle yet posted on this forum.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

..

That is probably the most reasonable summary from your side of the aisle yet posted on this forum.

I happen to think I've been entirely reasonable on this since it broke.

 

[mjvcaj]

This is the same sort of speculation as Rangeline in the basketball forum regarding scholarship numbers. You're acting like you know more than the people deeply involved in the investigation. Clearly, this is something the Fox News set wants to use as a crudgel against Hillary. The problem is, there is nothing there.

Not bashing you, but THEY know what is going on.

But, even if believe that Hilary did not violate the law based on gross negligence, do you not find it troubling that someone in her position engaged in such reckless practices? In other words, forget that it is about Hilary. Replace her with Colin Powell and I feel the same way.

Perhaps it isn't either of their faults. But, as someone that is moderately in touch with technology, I know the difference between some relatively basic features of connectivity and risks based on various connections. I'd expect Colin or Hilary or anyone else in that position to know the same.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

But, even if believe that Hilary did not violate the law based on gross negligence, do you not find it troubling that someone in her position engaged in such reckless practices? In other words, forget that it is about Hilary. Replace her with Colin Powell and I feel the same way.

Perhaps it isn't either of their faults. But, as someone that is moderately in touch with technology, I know the difference between some relatively basic features of connectivity and risks based on various connections. I'd expect Colin or Hilary or anyone else in that position to know the same.

The problem is - and this is coming from me, I'm not defending anything Doc said specifically - that Hillary's attackers can't distinguish between the political and the legal. What Hillary did was a political liability, and legitimate criticism can be levied. But that doesn't make it a crime. People on this forum and elsewhere are absolutely 100% convinced she's a felon. See, they want to criticize her, so they jump straight to felon. They can't grasp the possibility that she might show bad judgment, and still be innocent.

Not saying that's the tack you're taking, but that's what just about every thread on this topic has been about - a group of posters who despise Hillary insisting that she broke the law, despite the fact that almost none of them have any legal expertise.

 

[mjvcaj]

They can't grasp the possibility that she might show bad judgment, and still be innocent.

While true, how does that make her qualified or fit to be President? Bad judgment arguably caused many poor decisions in the past by GWB, Carter, etc.

In other words, I'm attacking her ability, not her legal record. This instance is where the lines were blurred, even though she may in fact be innocent.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

While true, how does that make her qualified or fit to be President? Bad judgment arguably caused many poor decisions in the past by GWB, Carter, etc.

In other words, I'm attacking her ability, not her legal record. This instance is where the lines were blurred, even though she may in fact be innocent.

Given the issues with practically every republican administration we've had since and including Reagan. I think Bush Sr is the cleanest one that has came through the gate.. and he's former CIA, like a KGB head of Russian don't you think?

You want to make the case of how she's unqualified in comparison?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

While true, how does that make her qualified or fit to be President? Bad judgment arguably caused many poor decisions in the past by GWB, Carter, etc.

In other words, I'm attacking her ability, not her legal record. This instance is where the lines were blurred, even though she may in fact be innocent.

Because in real life, we have to choose between Trump and Clinton, and "Well, I won't vote for a felon" is a common refrain around here.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

As an aside, look how well a "community organizer" has worked out...

One of the best we've had by any metric you care to use. Including being the epitome of class in office facing impossibly stupid actions by the opposition.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm not the only one who immediately thought this was an official State leak: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-repo...doing-in-hillary-clinton-email-investigation/

I'd no longer just be surprised if there are any charges; I'd be legitimately shocked now.

 

[mjvcaj]

Because in real life, we have to choose between Trump and Clinton, and "Well, I won't vote for a felon" is a common refrain around here.

And yet, you don't seem very disturbed by such a choice. Nor do you seem concerned about Hilary's incompetence. Perhaps that is only because it isn't as bad as Trump's?

That is why this is such a sad state of affairs.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

And yet, you don't seem very disturbed by such a choice. Nor do you seem concerned about Hilary's incompetence. Perhaps that is only because it isn't as bad as Trump's?

That is why this is such a sad state of affairs.

What are you talking about? I'm quite disappointed. I've been consistent that I didn't want either one of these. But, if forced to choose, yes, I think Hillary is the lesser of two evils, by far. Three things:
1. Supreme court
2. Free trade
3. Trump's unpredictability
I think Hillary's a bad choice, but those three issues make Trump an unpalatable choice for me.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

While true, how does that make her qualified or fit to be President? Bad judgment arguably caused many poor decisions in the past by GWB, Carter, etc.

In other words, I'm attacking her ability, not her legal record. This instance is where the lines were blurred, even though she may in fact be innocent.

you haven't proven yet that she used bad judgement.

like i said before, there are outside enemies, and enemies within.

she saw "enemies within" as the bigger threat, and you nor anyone else has shown any evidence that that was/is not the case.

fact is, this whole fiasco only lends credence to that being the case.

there is a reason she used her own server.

far more rabid enemies across the aisle, than across the ponds.

and being that she's a hawk, it's not about "policy", but about that "D" next to her name.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

you haven't proven yet that she used bad judgement.

like i said before, there are outside enemies, and enemies within.

she saw "enemies within" as the bigger threat, and you nor anyone else has shown any evidence that that was/is not the case.

fact is, this whole fiasco only lends credence to that being the case.

there is a reason she used her own server.

far more rabid enemies across the aisle, than across the ponds.

and being that she's a hawk, it's not about "policy", but about that "D" next to her name.

This post is as crazy as your posting style. Even HRC admits that it was a "mistake" to set up her personal server. There really is no argument to be made that it wasn't bad judgment. The criminal investigation is not being conducted by her "enemies," it's being done by the Obama administration's FBI. If any charges are recommended and she is prosecuted, it will be by the Obama administration's Justice Department. And it's a very sad state of affairs that the people "across the aisle" are called "enemies." You and HRC both have said that, and that's sad.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

And it's a very sad state of affairs that the people "across the aisle" are called "enemies." You and HRC both have said that, and that's sad.

Meh. It's bad language, and no politician should say it out loud without expecting blowback, but let's not pretend it's not partially true. Partisanship has absolutely reached "enemy" levels in this country, whether we are willing to say the word or not.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Meh. It's bad language, and no politician should say it out loud without expecting blowback, but let's not pretend it's not partially true. Partisanship has absolutely reached "enemy" levels in this country, whether we are willing to say the word or not.

I refuse to consider Democrats enemies. After all, I used to be one and probably half my family and many of my friends are Democrats. I just might be able to say that I used to be a Republican soon too. I'm apparently not agreeing with enough of Republican voters now to nominate a reasonable Presidential candidate. If and/or when I become officially independent, I won't consider Republicans or Democrats enemies. We, as a country, are far more partisan now than 20 or 30 years ago and we should stop it..

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I refuse to consider Democrats enemies. After all, I used to be one and probably half my family and many of my friends are Democrats. I just might be able to say that I used to be a Republican soon too. I'm apparently not agreeing with enough of Republican voters now to nominate a reasonable Presidential candidate. If and/or when I become officially independent, I won't consider Republicans or Democrats enemies. We, as a country, are far more partisan now than 20 or 30 years ago and we should stop it..

I like partisanship done right. We have disagreements about policy. We should talk about them and push our own agendas. But the enemy thing is a step too far, I agree. I'm just saying, it's not just the people who let the word slip out that look at it that way. It's been building on both sides of the aisle for years. Decades, maybe. It's as bad now as it's ever been. Hillary's off-handed comment is a symptom, not a cause.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

What are you talking about? I'm quite disappointed. I've been consistent that I didn't want either one of these. But, if forced to choose, yes, I think Hillary is the lesser of two evils, by far. Three things:
1. Supreme court
2. Free trade
3. Trump's unpredictability
I think Hillary's a bad choice, but those three issues make Trump an unpalatable choice for me.

Then vote for a Libertarian instead.
Stop rewarding what you dislike.
I refused to support McCain or Romney, knowing full well it would elect a Democrat.

Whigs are dead.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Then vote for a Libertarian instead.
Stop rewarding what you dislike.
I refused to support McCain or Romney, knowing full well it would elect a Democrat.

Whigs are dead.

I firmly believe that Romney could have been one of our better Presidents.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Then vote for a Libertarian instead.
Stop rewarding what you dislike.
I refused to support McCain or Romney, knowing full well it would elect a Democrat.

Whigs are dead.

I don't support the Libertarian platform. I like them on some things, but hate them on others.

I don't fully support the Greens, either, but if I were to vote for "Least of All Evils," it would be Stein.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I don't support the Libertarian platform. I like them on some things, but hate them on others.

I don't fully support the Greens, either, but if I were to vote for "Least of All Evils," it would be Stein.

I did the isidewith.com quiz earlier and I apparently "side with" Libertarian Austin Peterson on 91% of issues. I don't know who he is and haven't looked him up yet, but that's a pretty good percentage. Not that it matters since a Libertarian won't win and I think that Gary Johnson will be the Libertarian nominee (I agree with him 83%). This will likely be the first time in my life that I vote for someone, probably the Libertarian, when I know that my candidate can't win. Trump isn't getting a vote (though I supposedly agree with him 73% - how they know what side of every issue that he's been on is his true position is a mystery) and HRC definitely won't either (unsurprisingly, I agree with her and Sanders on few of the issues).

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I did the isidewith.com quiz earlier and I apparently "side with" Libertarian Austin Peterson on 91% of issues. I don't know who he is and haven't looked him up yet, but that's a pretty good percentage. Not that it matters since a Libertarian won't win and I think that Gary Johnson will be the Libertarian nominee (I agree with him 83%). This will likely be the first time in my life that I vote for someone, probably the Libertarian, when I know that my candidate can't win. Trump isn't getting a vote (though I supposedly agree with him 73% - how they know what side of every issue that he's been on is his true position is a mystery) and HRC definitely won't either (unsurprisingly, I agree with her and Sanders on few of the issues).

Ugh. Petersen. Dude looks like he's too young to even run for President. And he's a clown. Look up some video of Johnson and Petersen debating. It will not make you feel good about your new party affiliation.

I really think if the Libs had a genuinely likable candidate, they could challenge the GOP enough for the right flank of this country that they might poll enough to get in the debates, and once that happens, who knows? Not saying it's likely, but it could happen. But with Petersen or Johnson, I just don't see it.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Ugh. Petersen. Dude looks like he's too young to even run for President. And he's a clown. Look up some video of Johnson and Petersen debating. It will not make you feel good about your new party affiliation.

I really think if the Libs had a genuinely likable candidate, they could challenge the GOP enough for the right flank of this country that they might poll enough to get in the debates, and once that happens, who knows? Not saying it's likely, but it could happen. But with Petersen or Johnson, I just don't see it.

Haven't bothered looking him up. He has no chance and neither does Johnson. I did hear Johnson on Julie Mason's show on POTUS and wasn't impressed much though I agreed with him on several issues. He's no more charismatic then HRC and she's got little charisma, but right now I'm leaning towards voting for Johnson as my protest vote. It's also not my new party. If I leave the GOP, it will be to be an unaffiliated independent voter. The GOP probably won't know. The GOP and Democratic Party both think I'm a loyal voter for them since I get emails and mail from both all the time. I doubt that will change.

 

[NPT]

That is correct. I've stated many times that I'm not a legal expert. They may in fact not charge her with a crime because they don't believe they can convict or there was no intent or gross negligence. It's only my opinion based on experience that there likely is gross negligence at a minimum on someone's part. I honestly do not know of any possible way the TS/SAP could have gotten into her system without a deliberate act on someone's part. One thing for sure, it has to be determined how this happened so they can develop procedures to ensure this kind of mishandling of classified information doesn't happen again. It will be ironic and a bit perverse IMO, if it's HRC's administration that has to do that.

I have a question...I'll be the first to admit that I haven't followed the story closely so I may have missed a lot. My question is that unless she knew that every email she was gonna send from her email account was never gonna be classified then isn't she committing a crime just by sending emails from the system.? Maybe none of the emails she sent was ever gonna be classified .... I don't know. I don't get the "intent" argument but then I don't understand the legal system that well. That argument seems like someone getting a ticket for reckless driving then going to court and telling the judge that they didn't intend to hurt anyone.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I have a question...I'll be the first to admit that I haven't followed the story closely so I may have missed a lot. My question is that unless she knew that every email she was gonna send from her email account was never gonna be classified then isn't she committing a crime just by sending emails from the system.? Maybe none of the emails she sent was ever gonna be classified .... I don't know. I don't get the "intent" argument but then I don't understand the legal system that well. That argument seems like someone getting a ticket for reckless driving then going to court and telling the judge that they didn't intend to hurt anyone.

Not exactly. She was never authorized to send or store any classified emails on her server. She claims that she never sent anything that was "marked classified." It has been reported that she was the originator of 20 something (I believe) emails that are classified now. I don't know if they were among those that have been found to have been classified at the time. Even if she sent emails that were classified at the time she might not have done it intentionally. I will freely admit that after you've been exposed to a lot of classified information, you have to really think about whether what your talking about is classified or not, most especially at the Confidential level, but not so much at the Secret or Top Secret level. It's possible she didn't recall that some classified information was classified when she sent it in her emails. HRC could have used her SIPRNET account which is for classified information. She chose not to and I think that is likely to have resulted in a staffer or staffers to send her classified information via unsecure means. That would definitely be a crime if intentional. Might be a crime if they should have known they were doing this, which would be gross negligence. We'll see - maybe no one at all will be charged. It seems highly unlikely to me, but since she's a high profile politician and the presumptive Democratic nominee I won't be surprised.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I have a question...I'll be the first to admit that I haven't followed the story closely so I may have missed a lot. My question is that unless she knew that every email she was gonna send from her email account was never gonna be classified then isn't she committing a crime just by sending emails from the system.? Maybe none of the emails she sent was ever gonna be classified .... I don't know. I don't get the "intent" argument but then I don't understand the legal system that well. That argument seems like someone getting a ticket for reckless driving then going to court and telling the judge that they didn't intend to hurt anyone.

No. She only committed a crime if she actually knowingly sent or stored classified info, or did it out of gross negligence. If her policy (as it apparently was) was to use other authorized communications infrastructure for classified info, and only discuss non-classified things on her email, that's not negligence. The thing about knowledge is, just as the law requires them to prove you guilty, rather than you prove your innocence, the law requires them to prove she knowingly broke the law, rather than her prove that she knowingly didn't.

 

[NPT]

No. She only committed a crime if she actually knowingly sent or stored classified info, or did it out of gross negligence. If her policy (as it apparently was) was to use other authorized communications infrastructure for classified info, and only discuss non-classified things on her email, that's not negligence. The thing about knowledge is, just as the law requires them to prove you guilty, rather than you prove your innocence, the law requires them to prove she knowingly broke the law, rather than her prove that she knowingly didn't.

I'm not arguing what you are saying is not true but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That's like me going out and doing 50mph in a 30mph zone and then arguing that I didn't do it intentionally because I was distracted and didn't notice how fast I was going.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm not arguing what you are saying is not true but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That's like me going out and doing 50mph in a 30mph zone and then arguing that I didn't do it intentionally because I was distracted and didn't notice how fast I was going.

That's not at all what I'm saying. First of all, speeding, like most traffic violations, falls under the category of "strict liability offenses" in most (all?) states, so they don't have to prove a state of mind at all. Just the fact that you do it makes you guilty. Most serious crimes (including the ones Hillary is being accused of) aren't like that. They have to prove both the act and the appropriate state of mind.

But, more importantly, I'm not talking about intent here. I'm talking about burden of proof. It's not Hillary's job to prove she was careful and responsible. It's DOJ's job to prove she wasn't. If they can't make a case, she has no obligation to prove a damn thing. And thank all the gods we live in a society where that is the case. You look at how she behaved, and say, "Come on, obviously she was negligent." That's fine from a political standpoint, but it's extremely faulty from a legal standpoint. It's the burden of the DOJ to prove actual, specific violations.

 

[NPT]

That's fine from a political standpoint, but it's extremely faulty from a legal standpoint. It's the burden of the DOJ to prove actual, specific violations.

That doesn't seem hard to prove to me. If the rules are that you use the secure email to conduct your business then if you go outside of that you are negligent unless you have an exemption in writing. It's in the same category of taking classified stuff home and it gets stolen in a burglary isn't it? Be patient....I am trying to understand.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That doesn't seem hard to prove to me. If the rules are that you use the secure email to conduct your business then if you go outside of that you are negligent unless you have an exemption in writing. It's in the same category of taking classified stuff home and it gets stolen in a burglary isn't it? Be patient....I am trying to understand.

But the rules aren't that you use secure email to conduct your business. The rules are that sensitive information be passed using secure channels. There are many other channels besides email. She could use whatever email she wanted for non-sensitive government business, so long as she followed appropriate record-keeping laws. I'm not sure she did, to be honest, but that's a separate issue that's independent of the security issue (FOIA violations don't, AFAIK, constitute actual punishable crimes).

 

[DrHoops]

What I think is bizarre about this whole witch hunt is that crimes have motives. What do Republicans think Hillary was trying to do with this information? Was she planning on passing it along to someone? That's obviously not the case. There is simply no nefarious reason for her to be indicted for anything. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Hillary Clinton were essentially the only ones who probably were using email the most (since email was invented). They ALL used personal accounts.

This entire thing is a bunch of nonsense created for the sole purpose of hurting her chances in the election. I always hear Hillary has SO much baggage. What baggage does she have that has essentially been proven to be complete nonsense?

No. She only committed a crime if she actually knowingly sent or stored classified info, or did it out of gross negligence. If her policy (as it apparently was) was to use other authorized communications infrastructure for classified info, and only discuss non-classified things on her email, that's not negligence. The thing about knowledge is, just as the law requires them to prove you guilty, rather than you prove your innocence, the law requires them to prove she knowingly broke the law, rather than her prove that she knowingly didn't.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What I think is bizarre about this whole witch hunt is that crimes have motives. What do Republicans think Hillary was trying to do with this information? Was she planning on passing it along to someone? That's obviously not the case. There is simply no nefarious reason for her to be indicted for anything. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Hillary Clinton were essentially the only ones who probably were using email the most (since email was invented). They ALL used personal accounts.

This entire thing is a bunch of nonsense created for the sole purpose of hurting her chances in the election. I always hear Hillary has SO much baggage. What baggage does she have that has essentially been proven to be complete nonsense?

Of course it's political nonsense. That's as undeniable as the fact that her decision was also politically stupid.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

When I first started working to bring one of the on base codes (think depts.) network up to Navy compliance our off-site building had a direct connection to the post network. At some point in the first few years there was a policy change that cut off all outside entities, iirc it was the advent of NMCI, though it was just another thing to do and I don't recall when that was exactly. Point is policy as been evolving for some time and there may be some who are just unaware of changes in that that have been SOP for years.

Folks at Crane balked big time, it was one of the first post the changeover started on and one of the last actually completed due to so much custom software in use that had to be tested and accepted for use or replaced.

 

[DrHoops]

Well, to be fair to Hillary, do you REALLY think she thought this would blow up in her face like this? If her predecessors were doing the exact same thing...and it looks pretty obvious she won't be charged...why is this still a thing?

And I know this is taking the conversation in a slightly off topic direction, but what exactly is the baggage that Hillary has? People keep talking about her having all this baggage. What is actually factual? I know no one here will read it, but David Brock's book Blinded by the Right explains in great detail what Richard Mellon Scaife and the loonies with the Arkansas Project were trying to do to the Clintons at any cost. David Brock was about as right wing as the come until he started looking into the characters in Arkansas who were trying to damage the Clintons.

The fact is...there was very little credible anything...which is what led David Brock to leave the Republican Party. He began to think they were a bunch of nuts. So, that's a long winded way of saying...what is Hillary's baggage? I can understand people's hatred of Bill Clinton, given he was a philanderer, but what on Earth has Hillary done to deserve the scorn and outright hatred she is shown?

When I ask my many Republican friends, I get a lot of "She's a whore". "She's a dyke." "She's hidious." To me, all that is is a bunch of sexist nonsense. No one seems to have any concrete reasons to hate here, other than they just do.

Of course it's political nonsense. That's as undeniable as the fact that her decision was also politically stupid.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Of course it's political nonsense. That's as undeniable as the fact that her decision was also politically stupid.

No it's not. Of course people will try to use this for political reasons, but the criminal investigation the FBI is conducting isn't about politics. They're doing the investigation because classified information was where it wasn't authorized to be and at a exponentially higher risk of compromise than if it had been handled properly. No nefarious motives are necessary. In one of the several cases I linked of people being prosecuted and convicted due to mishandling classified information was a guy that merely took it home to work with it and he had no intention of passing it on. Taking it home, an authorized location, exposed it to an increased risk of compromise. He made it worse by lying about it, and HRC's situation is similar. No, we don't know it was intentional, but it was indisputably put at a higher risk of compromise, and I'm sure she had no intention of passing it on.

 

[DrHoops]

It's not similar because Hillary never received classified information. The information was classified after the fact. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for people to grasp.

No it's not. Of course people will try to use this for political reasons, but the criminal investigation the FBI is conducting isn't about politics. They're doing the investigation because classified information was where it wasn't authorized to be and at a exponentially higher risk of compromise than if it had been handled properly. No nefarious motives are necessary. In one of the several cases I linked of people being prosecuted and convicted due to mishandling classified information was a guy that merely took it home to work with it and he had no intention of passing it on. Taking it home, an authorized location, exposed it to an increased risk of compromise. He made it worse by lying about it, but HRC's situation is similar. No, we don't know it was intentional, but it was indisputably put at a higher risk of compromise, and I'm sure she had no intention of passing it on.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

It's not similar because Hillary never received classified information. The information was classified after the fact. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for people to grasp.

Wrong. You've not bothered to keep up on this apparently, because it has been reported that much of the information was classified at the time it was sent, received and stored on HRC's private server.