Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Clinton aide reported to have walked out of FBI interview [View all]Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Certain types of documents and information are "born classified" because such items are highly sensitive and may come to the SoS's attention BEFORE they are vetted for classification, and the SoS is presumed to have the ability to recognize them.
I assume this would be true, also, of highly sensitive docs, like those Sydney Blumenthal emailed to Clinton, where the classification had been removed. And there is at least one known instance in which Clinton ordered an aide to strip off a classification and cut & paste the doc into her private server.
So you are just playing with words, to defend your candidate, when you ask, "Out of the claimed 2000 emails how many were reclassified after Clinton left office?" That is irrelevant. If the NSA classifies a doc that Clinton mishandled and does so "after Clinton left office," she is still responsible because, as SoS, she should have known what was sensitive and what wasn't. She was the highest authority in the SoS office. Classification of senstive documents in that office was her responsibility.
And, in the case of Blumenthal, she blew it royally. She not only didn't classify these docs and turn them back over to the NSA for an investigation of where the hell he got them from (--Blumenthal was a civilian, banned from employment in the State Department by President Obama, and working at the private Clinton Foundation), she tried to cover it up. These emails were only discovered when a hacker got into Blumenthal's account. (And that is also how Clinton's private, secret email server was discovered.)
I think you are blind to how much trouble your candidate is in. It is understandable. I may be blind, myself, to how narrow Sanders' path to the nomination really is, because I want him to win. I try to be realistic, but I'm a partisan and that's a fact, too. You want Clinton to win, so you can't see what she did to herself with this private server. It reminds me of Nixon and "the tapes." He couldn't see that his vanity about taping everything he said, for his future memoirs and "for history," would be his doom.
You also seem to have faith that anybody as rich and powerful and well-connected as Clinton cannot be prosecuted. You may be right there. "We need to look forward not backward" and all that. But I guarantee you that if anything "funny" happens with this investigation--FBI report redacted, Obama pardon before the GE, that sort of thing--all hell is going to break loose, not only within the federal government, but in the country. People are FED UP with the rich and powerful running our country like their own boudior!
And we, as Democrats, also need to ask what this cloud hanging over Clinton will mean to the GE. She already has dismal trustworthy and favorability numbers. In recent polls, she already loses to Trump in one swing state (Ohio) and beats him by only 1 pt in two others (while Sanders beats Trump by 6 pts in PA, and by 2 pts in the other two swing states, OH and FLA). And Sanders continues to demolish Trump in national match-ups, while Clinton beats Trump but by far less (or actually loses in one poll--Rasmussen).
Add this FBI cloud, and what do we get, with Clinton as the nominee? Indeed, what do we get if Clinton beats Trump in the GE, but faces Articles of Impeachment the day after her inauguration?
She is a bundle of trouble for our party and for our country, in more ways than this. And she does NOT have a strong, broad-based constituency that will rally to her. She doesn't have one now as she struggles to fend off the Sanders challenge, with all odds having been against him and in her favor, and she will not have one in November or in the White House, if and when she gets into trouble, politically or legally. She is not Bill, who maintained high poll approval even through the worst of Monicagate. She is starting off with low approval and lots of dislike and distrust.