(…apparently decide if there are to be penalties for it…or not)

FBI Director Comey’s recent concluding comments about the results of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email system while Secretary of State should not be construed as any kind of a “not guilty” verdict.

While he went at great lengths to parse all the legalistic reasons for not being able to recommend bringing criminal charges against her and various members of her staff, for mishandling of classified material, he did bluntly blast her and her cohorts for “negligence” in the way they handled some of it. He even went so far as to call that negligence “reckless”. Yet, even with that, it seems that the nuances applied to the word “negligence”…apparently decide if there are to be penalties for it…or not.

Maybe our understanding of the word – negligent – is deficient because, as we have encountered it, negligence, is negligence, is negligence, and, no matter how one might try to qualify it…unintentional…gross…reckless…or otherwise…it is still… negligence. So as far as we’re concerned this raises some serious concerns in our mind about her qualification for that higher office beyond being Secretary of State.

Anyone who has ever had to handle classified material has to know that strictly abiding by the rules governing how they are to be handled, how they are to be controlled, etc. is absolute, and does not allow for any excuse of any kind. Whether intentionally or not any failure, omission, or otherwise, to abide by those rules is subject to sanctions, the severity of these depending on the level of classifications and the circumstances involved. But the bottom line is always this: whoever is the cause of such failures usual ends up paying dearly for it, but in Hillary Clinton’s case that isn’t about to happen. Dare we wonder why not?

So here we are, with a former high official now running for the highest office in the land, who deliberately set up a private server system to avoid scrutiny of her personal emails, and who used that same system for some official and classified ones as well, thereby bypassing the official channels which should had been used for these instead. Such “reckless negligence” is the equivalent of that other legal term “reckless endangerment” applied to individuals who by their actions are the cause of vehicular accidents. While there were no apparent damaging security “breaches” involved despite that, the fact that a private server was set up, and official stuff communicated through it, hints at, if not suggests that there was “intent” to have a channel of communications not subject to normal official oversight or scrutiny.


The most bothersome thing about this entire affair, however, is the apparently indifferent way the State Department has reacted to the situation. So we can’t help but wonder now… how many other high officials are engaging in similar “reckless negligence” while conducting their official duties. Shades of Watergate anyone?

It boggles the mind!