If 500 eyes looked thru 30k of my emails they'd find POTENTIAL inconsistencies in my statements also that could be compiled together to make me look bad. I've had shit like that happen before when somebody was hellbent to get me fired because they wanted my position.
she changed her story several more times [on device quantity issue]
Do you have evidence of this to present?
It's now clear that that explanation was pure, deliberate fiction.
Sorry, but it's not clear to me. The scenarios I laid out are plausible. You have not logically proved them impossible. Take some logic courses.
The FBI director says that her assertions about having asked for and received such approvals were "untrue" - they never happened. It goes on and on.
It has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt she was not given verbal approval. Verbal approval is not recorded. A criminal prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she never had received verbal approval. That's a really tall order if you stop to think about it.
Anyhow, those are issues about State Dept. policies. State Dept. policies are NOT law.
You've presented zero evidence of your assertion that the current administration is not prosecuting due to bias. The past case history challenge the Director gave and I reminded you of still stands.
Nobody has been successfully prosecuted for 50 odd years for merely being sloppy with classified info (except perhaps a no-name dude who can't afford decent lawyers.)
O has not been in the Whitehouse for 50 years so you cannot blame the 42 year gap on him.
Is someone so spectacularly incompetent, careless, forgetful, and unable to judge the hiring of underlings to the point...
Like I said above, if an army combed thru 30k of my emails, they'd find a handful of typos and mistakes also. The problems directly attributed to H by the Director were small in number. That's within the normal purview of human error.
Perhaps she should have asked for assistance in reviewing messages.
I'm not saying she's great, but The Donald has shown no propensity for details either. At least H knows how to be mostly careful with speech. The Donald not shown he's careful with ANYTHING.
It's a choice between C- and F.
GOP should have ran Kasinich, but they flubbed it for the Carnival Barker.