desertmuscl saidThe list is long and well documented. She is untrustworthy.
"Documented" by the Radical Right. In other words, largely invention, distortion, and exaggeration.
Included are emails and a letter from an intel community IG. If you are a former military officer who was cleared to handle classified material, even if only non-compartmentalized and not all the additional accesses, you would still understand what has been presented constitutes multiple felonies. The fact that you don't understand suggests you were either never in the military or suffering some malady.
My rank automatically allowed me a Secret clearance. Different specific duties allowed me Top Secret. And, as you say, with restricted "need to know" confined access. A person with a Top Secret clearance does not get to know EVERY top secret the US has.
Now what exactly are your OWN qualifications to be lecturing to ME about security access? Or to question my military credentials? I know more about the military than you ever will. As I demonstrate here nearly daily.
It's an insult to all our career military veterans here to have a clown like you telling us what you think you know about us. I don't care if you even once did wear a uniform (if you actually have) in some menial position. That would have given you no meaningful knowledge of the subject being discussed here. These are matters far above anything you would have known about, or evidently know today.
I am a former military officer who worked on projects in the military and as a civilian with clearances including TS and well beyond. The projects included some whose names were classified and whose existence was classified.
Can't say how impressed about you knowing "need to know". Geez, I thought someone with a clearance got to see everything in the whole US of A. (That was sarcasm in case you missed it.)
I keep in regular touch with other vets, some political, some not. I can tell you this: You would be held to scorn by the great majority of them and ignored by the rest.
I know that you, even as an ordinary officer with a Secret clearance, would be expected to understand the seriousness in the mishandling of classified material. But you deny.
Are you so foolish that you believe some of the so-called "legal" analyses proclaiming Hillary's innocence? That includes not addressing US Code 793 at all or Subsection (f) in particular, which does not require intent but addresses gross negligence. Or using a low level Confidential material to suggest someone might know something is classified if unmarked, when, in fact, the material was so sensitive that members of Congress with clearances could not see them. That also includes ignoring the IG letters and emails heavily redacted.
That you don't see the felonious acts shows you are totally fucked-up. And that's coming from a vet.