I can't believe there's even discussion about this. The facts are clear. Hillary Clinton didn't like the onerous security rules she had to follow so she ignored

I can't believe there's even discussion about this. The facts are clear. Hillary Clinton didn't like the onerous security rules she had to follow so she ignored them. details: http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/ http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/ If any of you have security clearance consider for a moment what would happen if you did the same. Your access would be suspended and you'd be called to account for every piece of information you mishandled. At the end you'd be prosecuted for any beech of secrecy that was discovered and your clearance would almost certainly be revoked. If we treat her differently because of her name and her connections we call into question the very rule of law in this country. Maybe Anarchists would rejoice in such an outcome as proof of the utter corruption and uselessness of our justice system, but people who care about law and justice certainly shouldn't applaud it. In her defense I agree that the security policies were silly and didn't actually increase security enough to warrant the disruption. I can totally understand that someone wouldn't want to comply. On the other hand she was the goddamned Secretary of State, the person who should be most concerned about protecting information security in the State Department. Rather than thinking like a leader and working to set a policy that is both secure and usable she simply ignored the rules she didn't like. Aside from questions of prosecution this behavior causes me to seriously question her ability to lead. If you had to classify her behavior in this case would you put in the category of things a leader does or things a petulant child does?