Hold on, Tex, she said in an interview that's simply short-hand for cleaning it up for non-classified release
Maybe. Or maybe she's lying about that, the same way she lied in her claim that there was no classified material on her server. She deserves the benefit of the doubt in terms of a fair law enforcement investigation, but news flash -- she really doesn't deserve the benefit of the public's doubt.
Information that is "Top Secret" is born classified.
Only in the land of fairies and unicorns. Information is born and everyone with a classification is supposed to submit it to a original certification authority that'll determine what, if any, classification status it'll get. Primarily it's the one who creates this information but secondarily everyone who receives it also has an independent duty to get any information they think is classified reviewed. From what I gather a lot of people sent information to Clinton's server that has been retroactively classified, meaning those who sent it didn't do their job. The accusations are so far as I can tell that Clinton should have recognized some of this information as obviously classified, so she didn't do her job either.
I'd be much more interested to hear if there's any accusations of mishandling actual, pre-classified information. It's one thing to say that you could have, should have, maybe seen this was classified it's quite another to be reckless about content that's clearly marked secret/top secret. If they can prove that, they might have an actual case against her. If it's only a case of omission as a recipient of information that ought to be classified, that doesn't seem like that big a deal.
And the Special Access Program (SAP) information? The emails that everybody involved, including the recipient Clinton, certainly knew was always and permanently classified? Clinton committed a crime in multiple ways in the handling of that info. Here's an example -- simply leaving the received email on her server in any format that could be read by her own IT staff was a crime. Deleting it and knowing that the bytes might still be on the HDD would also be a crime. Ignoring the situation was a crime.
Of course, somebody went to great lengths to somehow hop the airgap between the SAP network and the public internet. But even as the recipient, Clinton committed a crime in allowing that email to continue to exist on her server.
Stop trying to paint her as anything other than a willing lawbreaker on this. Lesser analysts of the State Dept or the TLA intelligence agencies would go to jail right away. It's only the Democratic party's M.O. of corruption while they hold the reins of power that keeps Obama's DOJ from arresting her.
So, the little fish, who certainly did nothing wrong in setting up a mail server
On the contrary, per the US Federal Code, if the IT worker knowingly provided access to classified info on this server, then he could be charged with a crime, even if he was "just following orders". (The proper response to an illegal order is to refuse to carry it out.) However basic fairness says that the head honchos who gave the IT person instructions to enable illegal handling of classified info bear greater responsibility. So it's logical to grant immunity to a lesser wrongdoer in order to get critical testimony to indict the greater wrongdoers.
A much more likely explanation: professionals and graduates are simply exposed to less risk (e.g. they spend more time studying, away from parties and bars).
That was my first thought too, and I agree with the point you're making. However, if the question being asked is "have you ever in your life..." then we're also asking about those people's undergraduate experiences. I'm not sure that you could successfully argue that the vast majority of sorority/fraternity crowd doesn't go on to graduate.
Oddly enough, graduates and professionals report WAY lower rates. So, that means the increase in rape/non-consentual penetration/sexual touching by force is a recent event.
Or else there is a lot of wrong self reporting in these studies. It could be that students of previous years took responsibility for their own boozing and sleeping around without hyperanalyzing and reevaluating it later in light of 2015 feminist attitudes. Not to say that date rape isn't real, just that drunken sleeping around is sometimes something that both people walk into intentionally, and there is a lot of immaturity and unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own behavior out there, particularly when "blame the male" is a convenient cop out.
OK, I'm done ranting now. Disclosure: I didn't drink in college, and I hope my own kids stay far from that whole crowd.
So here's a different viewpoint. Speaking as an atheist, I am so far removed from all the religious groups that they are indistinguishably worshiping the same absurd stone-age fantasy.
I hate to interrupt your enjoyable session of patting yourself on the back, but have to point out that your attitude is not scientific. If you take a measurement and round it unnecessarily, you are throwing away part of your data. Just enjoying the look of the nice round numbers may be good for your personal psychological well being, I suppose.
So the real question is, who are these people making decisions, and why did they make those decisions? It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
"There is no god." "Mohammed was a false prophet." Either of those statements is sufficient for militant Islam to want to chop off my head, as I said either sooner or later as they see their way clear. It is the job of civilized governments to constrain and box in militant Islam so it can't expand and chop off heads and blow people up in any wider of a sphere than necessary. It is distinctly NOT the job of civilized governments to censor our lovable albeit loud mouthed atheists to make the Muslims happy.
Consequently, the question of why a particular militant Islamic group goes murder-crazy at a particular moment may in some cases be purely academic and moot for policy purposes.
Except, of course that there has been surveys done of French Moslems (by the Pew Research Institute if memory serves well), that tend to prove they are the least radicalized and best integrated of all European Moslem communities. You really have no idea what you are talking about, so please just STFU.
After rampant reports of burned cars and attacks on Jews in Paris, I'd really hate to see what poorly integrated Muslim populations looked like.
If you can't learn to do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly.