and they're always right -- just ask 'em! -- j
.

If only Hillary were a dingbat she wouldn't be dangerous. People, including me, refer to people as "stupid" who we disagree with, but it's an example of language evolving in a bad way. Hillary is anything but stupid or unintelligent. She's smart, conniving, ambitious, vicious and well-connected. That makes her evil.

Bernie has a lot of bad policy positions, and somewhere around 10% to 15% good ones. But I don't think he'd be nearly as successful at implementing his policies as Hillary would.

The longer she can keep getting away with things, the more she will try to do. We only need a small percentage of the people to wake up and begin demanding accountability to sway her prosecution. My fear is that we will run out of time and that people will be more interested in handouts.

I'd love to get rid of the unions and their influence in government as well. We'd need another Reagan, however (remember the Air Traffic Controller strike?)

Any way to remand this to the Military Justice Court system? It is national security.

The issue of course is that this places the Obama Administration in a very difficult position. They either have to cover for one of their own and take the political heat which comes from it, or they have to throw her to the wolves with the very real possibility that they lose the Presidential election.

At this point, a non-working government might be a good thing... ;)

If only the possibility of convictions were real! If Dems retain power then the Att'y General won't prosecute. If the Reps gain the presidency they might try to prosecute, but then one of these things will happen:

1) The Dems will find or invent some Republicans who did something as bad or worse

2) The Reps will realize that if they prosecute then the next time Dems are in power they'll start prosecuting Republicans.

Neither side will be inclined to break the unwritten rule that they don't enforce the rules on each other. They may make a tremendous amount of noise and have investigations and committee hearings, but in the end they'll pretend there was no intent (as if that matters) or that the laws that were broken aren't important enough to worry about.

Years ago CT sent its governor, John Rowland, to federal prison. He was corrupt to the core and had broken lots of laws and was charged with numerous counts of very serious crimes. In the end he was convicted of the least important charge, akin to parking on the street during a snow ban, and the rest were dropped. He took a federal vacation for a little over a year.

I will shout for prosecutions and convictions and hope that not only do they take place, but they conclude in February of 2017 when a new President is in office.

Both are serious problems, but having sensitive intelligence information on a non-secure server is an unmitigated disaster for national defense AND our abilities to negotiate with other nations. The only reason they are trying to cover things up is because they knew it was wrong and unlawful in the first place!

As to classification levels, much of that is automatic based on the topic. And I find no problem with initially classifying something at one level and then moving it down later. Actionable information always has a time frame. If one is still within that time frame, that information is far more sensitive than it would be later when the window of opportunity has closed.

Difference being none of those you mentioned held Federal Office - especially in the State Department - and therefore fell under Federal laws for document protection and disclosure. I'm all for prosecuting someone who falls afoul of the law, but you're going to have to persuade me that there is a case against these others.