Replies

Or..........this could be an already-dissipated gust of hot air being brought out as a misdirection, a diversion.

We may or may not find out what HRCs’ motivations were in acting how she did: Both before, during, and after Benghazi.

But her crime lies in the treatment of the emails; whether she was running guns over there, whether she was funding and or arming some delightful little scourge of a terror group; on her bosses orders, or on her own, or whether her motives were pure as the driven snow and her temperament like Julie Andrews in “The Sound of Music” the discussion of what her motives were and how crap went really, really wrong, is entirely a distraction from the issue of her treatment of the emails. Period, the facts in Libya, anyone can have half a dozen impressions of what transpired. But all that will complicate and bifurcate into the standard “cloud” of consipracy theory versus national security versus helping our allies, versus working with the opposition and blah blah blah.

The flat out fact of the matter is, she violated the Espionage Act multiple times. And it does not matter if she was selling bananas: If she allowed these multiple egregious security breaches on what she absolutely knew had to be and to include classified communications. If she waylaid that information and passed it on, she guilty of black-letter-law
violation of the espionage act. The details of what happened to when and who died and where it happened and when she got the phone call are completely irrelevant. But they will be recited endlessly and used to make Hillary look extremely important.