3 ms·

It's not actually clear to me that she put national security at risk. During the recent U.S. State Department hack, an unclassified email system was compromised

It's not actually clear to me that she put national security at risk. During the recent U.S. State Department hack, an unclassified email system was compromised. Most of the emails Clinton sent (99.6%) were not classified at the time, and could have been sent on that email system. Even most of those that were classified were not marked as such, and still could have been sent on the unclassified system in error (which would not have been illegal either, assuming there was no intent). For me, a better argument has to do with minimizing exposure to freedom of information.

tn13 10y ago
> It's not actually clear to me that she put national security at risk What contained in those emails is irrelevant. The very fact that she deliberately to serve own personal purposes violated all security protocols. That itself shows that the lady is unfit to be trusted with national security. Just the way police would arrest any guy with DUI whether or not he threatened someone else's safety. In California you would be arrested immediately if you are carrying your legal firearm in a car and if the case + barrel is not under a proper lock. Your intent, ignorance or whether you really put someone at risk would not matter.