(08-31-2022 09:59 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 08:35 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  So is there anything damning in this at all? Everything so far points to negligence and not intent.

As someone who has had a security clearance, that doesn't matter. Negligence and intent are considered the same. If you or I did this, we'd be in jail. Same thing with Hilary. I doubt there is any jail time because of it, but it is still absolutely wrong and he shouldn't be able to hold public office ever again.

There are different parts of the statutes afforded to negligent and intentional.

The intentional portions typically carry a worse charging level.

So it does make somewhat of a difference. Kind of like arguing whether the iceberg gash in the Titanic breached 4 independent watertight compartments or only 3.

Anyone that acts in this manner, whether negligent or intentional, should at a minimum be considered unfit for office.

Hillary, Trump, and Petraeus are all included in this comment. They all acted in a a manner that I could not characterize as merely 'negligent'. Each of their actions in this respect related to the pilfering of items that are not theirs and handling of sensitive information are so far out of the norm to be considered reckless or grossly negligent -- at a minimum.

And, honestly, each of the three mentioned acted in a manner during the investigation stages that I would not be or have been unhappy to see obstruction charges filed in addition.