@blatham,
Benghazi wasn't the subject of the discussion. That 2/3rds of your post was merely a distraction perhaps to evade the impression that you had nothing relevent to offer on the topic at hand.
The issues relevant to the violation of Government policy (in the case of the State Department, issued over Hillary's signature) relative to official e mails and the handling of classified information (marked or unmarked) are real and serious. The many denials thrown out by the Clinton machine, ranging from "others have done it", to nothing marked as classified... ", and no violation of Department policy occurred" have all been controverted by facts regarding what was actually done and thew rules that obtained at the time. Each is an interestingly contrived, only partly related half truth designed to distract and evade both the question and the real truth, all done in true Clinonian fashion ( depending, of corse on the meaning you assign to "done").
The stakes here are very high for Hillary, the Party and the current Administration, so the temptations are great. Equivalent cases in the past have involved an independent prosecutor.for precisely that reason. The record of the Justice Department in the past seven years is one of a highly politicized body, so the possibility is real. Do I believe that the current AG will like AG Richardson in the Nixon years resign rather than compromise - hard to say. It seems clear that her immediate predecessor would not consider doing so.
Perhaps the most encouraging evidence here is that Bill Clinton saw the need for an obviously prearranged meeting, perhaps to verify the status. The rather weak explanations so far put forward by the AG get a very high score on my phoneyometer. Do you believe her story?
Do you believe it was both spontaneous and just to discuss the grandkids?
