The Associated Press has a "news" story out today which proclaims that legal "experts" see no possibility of an indictment of Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information. Without all the extras, here is the essence of what is in the story:
1. The emails thus far have been released to the public after the State Department "scrubbing them of any classified or sensitive information."
2. The so called legal experts say that Hillary can be prosecuted only if she "knowingly" sent classified information on her private unsecured email system.
3. None of the emails were marked classified.
4. No email has emerged yet that contains "material emerges that is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was highly classified whether marked classified or not."
5. Therefore, Clinton cannot be indicted.
Now let's assume that the first four items listed above are correct (they're not, but we'll accept them for now.) How could experts point to the lack of any email containing super sensitive classified information when the State Department has removed all such emails from the ones that were released? That's roughly the same as if first there were a shooting at Hillary's house and the police came in and confiscated all the firearms in the Clinton's home, and then the AP got experts to say that there was no chance Hillary shot anyone because there were no weapons in the home.
This is not difficult logic to understand. Surely, the AP reporter gets it. Surely, the AP editor gets this. Nevertheless, we get a story announcing that Hillary cannot be indicted when there is no basis for the reporter or the so called "experts" to say that. The ones who are best situated to make that call are the FBI agents who are pouring over Hillary's computer and emails. But we don't even need them. Hillary was aware of the guidelines for what constituted classified information. So far, about 500 out of roughly 10,000 emails met those guidelines. Hillary's defense surely cannot be that she did not know what it took for a document to be classified. That might work with one or two emails, but with 500, there is just no way.
1. The emails thus far have been released to the public after the State Department "scrubbing them of any classified or sensitive information."
2. The so called legal experts say that Hillary can be prosecuted only if she "knowingly" sent classified information on her private unsecured email system.
3. None of the emails were marked classified.
4. No email has emerged yet that contains "material emerges that is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was highly classified whether marked classified or not."
5. Therefore, Clinton cannot be indicted.
Now let's assume that the first four items listed above are correct (they're not, but we'll accept them for now.) How could experts point to the lack of any email containing super sensitive classified information when the State Department has removed all such emails from the ones that were released? That's roughly the same as if first there were a shooting at Hillary's house and the police came in and confiscated all the firearms in the Clinton's home, and then the AP got experts to say that there was no chance Hillary shot anyone because there were no weapons in the home.
This is not difficult logic to understand. Surely, the AP reporter gets it. Surely, the AP editor gets this. Nevertheless, we get a story announcing that Hillary cannot be indicted when there is no basis for the reporter or the so called "experts" to say that. The ones who are best situated to make that call are the FBI agents who are pouring over Hillary's computer and emails. But we don't even need them. Hillary was aware of the guidelines for what constituted classified information. So far, about 500 out of roughly 10,000 emails met those guidelines. Hillary's defense surely cannot be that she did not know what it took for a document to be classified. That might work with one or two emails, but with 500, there is just no way.
No comments:
Post a Comment