"Cleetus" wrote this...

There are two populations of people in the US - those who at some point held a security clearance and those who have not.
>
The former group fully understands the training required , the vetting process, the responsibility, and those penalties that goes along with the clearance. They have either seen or heard of cases where people were escorted off site and terminated or even arrested and jailed for violating these laws and rules. These are people who understand the severity and importance of security and know that quite often you know something is secret before you even have to look at all the required markings.
>
The latter group knows nothing of this so they believe the lies written by a sycophantic press about how they THINK our security systems operate. This thinking is based on their bias that surely Hillary did nothing wrong and what they THINK is appropriate for their world they live in. In other words, they have no clue.
>
Having had a security clearance for several decades, let me set the record straight.
>
1. When Hillary decided to have her own server, the press is characterizing it as a poor choice. The truth of the matter is that when she did this, she assumed all responsibility for everything that came to exist on the server and everything that should have been there by law, but was absent. This means that since the law requires servers or computers that carry classified material to have various protections such as incriptions, firewalls, physical barriers and so forth and that these were missing on Hillary's server, she violate the regulations. These requirements vary and become more extreme with the level of security that the material present required (i.e., "confidential" material required fewer protections than does "top secret" material'). This means that as soon as a classified document became a resident of Hillary's server, that server became illegal and it matters not one bit how that information got onto her server. Intent means nothing.
>
2. When classified makes in onto a server not rated for that kind of material, it is the responsibility of the owner to notify the authorities immediately so that computer or server can immediately be removed and sanitized. If it had been a Dept. State computer,then this would have been done automatically by State who surely and routinely scanned their computers for this kind of thing. To have classified material on your computer without alerting security professionals to fix the situationt is grounds for losing your clearance (depending upon how egregious the violation was) and could be cause for termination and prosecutions if these violations were severe and/or numerous. Once again, intent means nothing.
>
3. Top secret material was found on her computer that was not marked. At one time it had been marked so either the markings had been removed and the document scanned or the document was rewritten and then put on her server. Either one of these actions is a crime, a felony.
>
There were many other crimes that occurred that are obvious to anyone who once held a clearance (e.g., sending the server out to unclassified people to back up thereby allowing those without clearances to see classified material, destruction of evidence from when she tried to wipe her server clean which is also proof of her guilty intent since innocent people never perform such actions, and so forth) . Suffice it to say that Hillary and her lieutenants are in deep, deep doodoo. Hillary's lieutenants must be indicted for they violated the law many times and to not indict them would be a travesty of justice while sending the very clear message that the law only applies to us everyday people and not the elite. Additionally, it would make a mockery of the secrecy laws of this country and detrimentally affect the ability of the government to maintain our secure systems. In other words, the government simply has no other choice but to indict her lieutenants for violating these laws.
>
That now raises the questions of how does the government justify the indicting of Hillary's lieutenants while not indicting Hillary herself since Hillary was the sole person who enabled this situation to exist and likely directed them to perform these various illegal actions? If Obama decides to give her a pardon, then that would have to assume a level of guilt on Hillary's part since innocent people have no need for a pardon. The bottom line is if the DOJ indicts, then Hillary's political future is over, If Obama pardons her or if the DOJ decides not to indict, then that means the court of public opinion will try her and find her guilty so her political future will be over.
>
Since all possible routes leads to the same result, the only question is what route does Obama take. To refuse a DOJ indictment would paint Obama is a horrible light and ensure his legacy as a lawless, tyrant who creates laws on his whim and only enforces those laws he wants will be cemented. If he does indict, then his legacy might be salvageable. It is now all up to Obama.