"When a sentence against a crime isn’t carried out quickly, people are encouraged to commit crimes." Ecclesiastes 8:11 (GW)
After coming out of her respite in the woods, instead of being grateful for not being prosecuted Hillary Clinton is going on the attack. And it is amazing how many people still do not understand the law related to the email scandal and why she should have been prosecuted, and that a standard grand jury should have decided the outcome, not an FBI director. Well, considering all of the fake MSM news sites that are covering for her, it may not be all that amazing. The documented election fraud of the Hillary Clinton election campaign adds to the list of Clinton crimes and reasons why she should probably have been investigated and prosecuted by now.
On April 8, 2017, Wilkileaks dropped a bombshell implying that Seth Rich was the one that leaked information about the DNC corruption that led to Clinton's presidential primary victory. And it's uncanny how Hillary Clinton has escaped accountability for so many apparent crimes. Here's a quote regarding the applicable law related to the email scandal.
Following is the U.S. national security-related law that Hillary Clinton clearly violated:
"(18 U.S.C Section 793-F)
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—"
The key phrase is "gross negligence." If intent is considered important, as Comey claimed as an excuse for letting her off the hook, then the word "negligence" is meaningless. How many ways does it need to be said that negligence does not require any aspect of intent or motive whatsoever? Why is Hillary's intent an issue, when it does not matter according to this law? "Comey’s evoking the “intent” defense actually shows a calculated, premeditated effort to protect Clinton."
Obviously, removing sensitive information from its "proper place of custody" and delivering it to home-brewed servers, unsecured cell phones, and I-Pads, is grossly negligent, regardless of the motive or intent. And many U.S. officials have been prosecuted for negligence with sensitive information. But the Clintons appear to be a special protected class wherein criminal behavior is overlooked. According to Ecclesiastes 8:11, this type of elitist justice system will only encourage more crimes, and it has obviously emboldened Hillary Clinton to flaunt her inexplicable freedom from incarceration.
The key phrase is "gross negligence." If intent is considered important, as Comey claimed as an excuse for letting her off the hook, then the word "negligence" is meaningless. How many ways does it need to be said that negligence does not require any aspect of intent or motive whatsoever? Why is Hillary's intent an issue, when it does not matter according to this law? "Comey’s evoking the “intent” defense actually shows a calculated, premeditated effort to protect Clinton."
Obviously, removing sensitive information from its "proper place of custody" and delivering it to home-brewed servers, unsecured cell phones, and I-Pads, is grossly negligent, regardless of the motive or intent. And many U.S. officials have been prosecuted for negligence with sensitive information. But the Clintons appear to be a special protected class wherein criminal behavior is overlooked. According to Ecclesiastes 8:11, this type of elitist justice system will only encourage more crimes, and it has obviously emboldened Hillary Clinton to flaunt her inexplicable freedom from incarceration.
These are the types of bogus excuses people still try to make to argue that Hillary Clinton is innocent in the email scandal:
1) Hillary's home was not unsecured. The place where the private server was located was under 24 hour Secret Service Protection."
The main threat was not some hacker physically climbing in through a balcony window, but hackers breaking into her home-brew servers, private cell phones, and I-pads over the Internet: “Knocking over a home-brew email server doesn’t seem so far-fetched, given the break-ins we’ve seen at RSA, Sony, and the US government itself.”
HRC lost one of her personal laptops, with archives of all her sensitive info, in the mail: "Neither Hanley nor [the Platte River employee] could identify the current whereabouts of the Archive Laptop or the thumb drive containing the archive, and the FBI does not have either item in its possession,” the FBI report stated.
"On top of a missing laptop containing Clinton's personal email archive, we also know she used 13 devices for email, not one as she claimed for "convenience." Out of the 13 devices used, five of them were iPads. Two of those iPads are still missing along with a number of Blackberries used by Clinton. Blackberries that weren't lost were destroyed by a staffer with a hammer."
Another point is that government servers automatically backup and archive emails for years, and avoiding the required protocol implies that there is another reason why Clinton did this, to avoid accountability. Considering what transpired with the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play pattern, this was altogether inexcusable.
Another point is that government servers automatically backup and archive emails for years, and avoiding the required protocol implies that there is another reason why Clinton did this, to avoid accountability. Considering what transpired with the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play pattern, this was altogether inexcusable.
2) “There were only 211 classified emails...”
“The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document ... or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case.”
A grand jury should have decided this case and would have most likely had the reading comprehension to read the plain laws HRC was supposed to follow and would have probably convicted her.
3) "Previous Sec. of States had used their own e mail domain to receive classified information. Although they did not use their own private server."
Plainly, HRC pushed the envelope beyond bending the rules a little. She used no government server and only her home-brew server, private cell phones, and I-Pads for sensitive information when she had a serious obligation not to. This is worse than using a private email account occasionally on a secured server in a government office. But two wrong's don't make a right anyway. It's not a valid excuse. And many people have been prosecuted for not adequately protecting sensitive information with far viewer unsecured devices. And none of the others were making millions of dollars off of their inside knowledge and inside political influence, as was likely the case of the Clinton Foundation, which not-unsurprisingly stopped receiving donations after they lost their political clout and power.
4) "There's no evidence that classified information was leaked."
This defense avoids the content of the law. If it is valid for a driver caught speeding down a freeway to tell a police officer, "I'm sorry that I was going 20 miles over the speed limit, but I did not crash or kill anyone, so I am innocent." - then this is a valid defense. Obviously, it is irrelevant whether damage was proven because that aspect was not in the law. This argument is just another biased and unsupported pleading on behalf of an elite politician. And besides this, since the presidential election, Andrew Napolitano showed that important sensitive data was in fact leaked, so the claim is both false and invalid:
"...the FBI has released proof that her failure to safeguard state secrets caused the secrets to fall into the hands of foreign governments, some of which wish the United States ill." and "[T]he FBI posted on its website more than 300 emails that Clinton had sent to an unnamed colleague not in the government — no doubt her adviser Sid Blumenthal — that had fallen into the hands of foreign powers. It turns out — and the Sunday night release proves this — that Blumenthal was hacked by intelligence agents from at least three foreign governments and that they obtained the emails Clinton had sent to him that contained state secrets. Sources believe that the hostile hackers were the Russians and the Chinese and the friendly hackers were the Israelis."
5) "The classified information wasn't marked as such."
An article by Andrew McCarthy at the National Review rips this excuse to shreds. "Government officials with security clearances are trained in categories of information that are classified pursuant to executive order, and documents that incorporate national defense secrets are “born classified” regardless of whether they are marked classified."
The fact is, many of the "unmarked" classified documents with sensitive information were written by Hillary Clinton herself. And the fact that she was regularly trafficking many documents that should have been marked classified and protected and were not shows a greater degree of liability, not less. It implies that the obfuscation of classified information was intentional:
"In fact, the lack of markings not only fails as a defense. It is more likely to be evidence of guilt. The government maintains separate networks for classified and unclassified documents. The documents on the classified system are the ones marked classified. It is not physically possible to email documents from the classified to the unclassified system. Therefore, if information marked classified somehow ends up outside the classified system in an unmarked form, it can only be because someone willfully and at considerable effort put it in the unmarked form."
6) "Hillary Clinton didn't lie to the FBI."
This statement is a fable that has been perpetrated by the MSM establishment media despite the fact that James Comey's testimony shows Clinton was repeatedly lying. The Chicago Tribune outlines this in no uncertain terms:
"She lied repeatedly about her emails. She lied when she said she had "turned over everything I was obligated to turn over" (FBI Director James Comey said the FBI "discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not among the group of 30,000 e-mails returned by Secretary Clinton to state in 2014"). She lied when she said there was "no classified material" in her private emails ... that there was nothing "classified at the time" ... and that there was nothing "marked classified" in her private emails — all of which the FBI director said were untrue."
The fact is, Comey basically admitted based on his statements that Hillary Clinton lied and also claimed that Clinton did not lie. Comey, himself, was dishonest. Many sources have documented this, including video evidence on YouTube.
Video of Public Hearing with Trey Gowdy and James Comey:
Gowdy: "Hillary Clinton said she never sent any classified information over her private email. Is that true?"
Comey: "Our investigation found that there was classified information."
Due to obvious negligence, classified material on private servers, Hillary Clinton committed a felony.
Again, the relevant law, 18 U.S.C Section 793-F, does not require intent, just negligence. Therefore, according to Comey's own words, Hillary Clinton committed a crime that should have been punished as a felony.
7) "Hillary did not intentionally mishandle classified info."
Though the relevant law does not require intent in order to be guilty of a felony, later revelations have shown that she was, in fact, very much aware of her negligence and continued to compromise security.
"Three other emails the State Department released this week demonstrate she was kept apprised of a wide variety of issues involving her use of a personal server.
A Sept. 29, 2009 email exchange between Cooper and Clinton discussed the backup of emails.
An Aug. 31, 2011 email between Cooper and Hillary Clinton discussed setting up Clinton's iPad and email interfaces with it.
A March 8, 2012 email exchange between Cooper, Pagliano, and Clinton with the subject line "Help!" discusses the "security landscape" differences between iPad, iPhone and blackberries. Clinton initiated the email expressing frustration that she is having blackberry "trouble" with her emails and receiving replies to emails she sends on blackberry only on her iPad."
The Motive Appears to Have Been A Cover-Up of Pay-To-Play Abuses
What motive could Hillary Clinton possibly have for obfuscating classified communications as secretary of state? Well, there happens to be a very long list of correlation between donations to Clinton's NGO fund and political actions favoring those that donated. This is called "pay to play" and Clinton's favorable dealings with Russia are one such example:
“One year after inviting Putin to the Clinton Foundation event, she approved the sale of 20% of America’s uranium capacity to Russia,” Conservative Review noted.“Shortly thereafter, donors connected to the company that was sold to Russia contributed $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.”
There's still no valid excuse for criminally destroying computers, cell phones, and other devices.
It is a felony, punishable by fine and imprisonment up to 20 years, according to 18 U.S. Code 1519, to destroy, conceal, cover up or falsify any record or document whether on paper or on any digital device with the intent to impede or obstruct the investigation of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.
According to FBI documents, a total of thirteen devices were associated with Clinton’s two phone numbers and personal email domain, eight of which she used during her tenure as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. The FBI requested that all thirteen devices be handed over, but Clinton’s attorneys informed the FBI that they were “unable to locate any of these devices,”. The fact that Hillary Clinton’s aides destroyed all of her 13 devices and phones with a hammer implies criminal intent because she was using more than one device at a time. This summary is so incriminating that CNN's Brooke Baldwin demanded a fact-check on this account when she heard it on live TV.
This is not all, though. Clinton's leaks of top-security information likely caused the death of Shahram Amiri, who was hanged by the Iran government in Tehran. The Iranian judiciary spokesman Mholamhosein Mohseni Ejehi explained, “This person who had access to our country’s secret and classified information had been linked to our hostile and No. 1 enemy, America, the Great Satan.”
Conclusion
None of the excuses for Hillary Clinton's criminal behavior stand up to reasonable scrutiny and the evidence is overwhelming against her. Andrew Napolitano outlined that the FBI was created to gather information, not to judge a case, and a grand jury would normally decide such a situation. It is painfully obvious that Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted, but instead of being grateful for being let off, amazingly, she is continuing to blame everyone but herself for her political loss and is going on the attack against political opponents. Clinton is confirming scripture, Ecclesiastes 8:11, that delayed justice, or justice that simply is never applied, tends to embolden those that break the law even more. According to her Twitter quote from January 17, 2016, "There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail." I completely agree with her, as do a lot of people seeking a semblance of justice in the US among politicians.
Unfortunately, it's obvious that a two-tier justice system has developed in the US, wherein elite politicians that recklessly break laws are let off the hook, while regular citizens are often given no fair trial or extreme punishment. Human governance and human justice will always be flawed, only pointing towards the perfect governance and perfect justice that will one day be established by the Messiah, who is the ultimate true and rightful king and lord of all creation. But in the meantime, increased injustice will only make life more miserable for society. Email-gate is just one of the many serious ethical and criminal subjects related to the Clintons. It is astounding how many former associates and potential whistle-blowers related to the Clintons have ended up dead. And just this April 8, 2017, WikiLeaks confirmed that murdered Seth Rich, not a computer hacker, was, most likely, the DNC information leak that revealed a DNC takedown of Bernie Sanders and corruption related to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
4) "There's no evidence that classified information was leaked."
This defense avoids the content of the law. If it is valid for a driver caught speeding down a freeway to tell a police officer, "I'm sorry that I was going 20 miles over the speed limit, but I did not crash or kill anyone, so I am innocent." - then this is a valid defense. Obviously, it is irrelevant whether damage was proven because that aspect was not in the law. This argument is just another biased and unsupported pleading on behalf of an elite politician. And besides this, since the presidential election, Andrew Napolitano showed that important sensitive data was in fact leaked, so the claim is both false and invalid:
"...the FBI has released proof that her failure to safeguard state secrets caused the secrets to fall into the hands of foreign governments, some of which wish the United States ill." and "[T]he FBI posted on its website more than 300 emails that Clinton had sent to an unnamed colleague not in the government — no doubt her adviser Sid Blumenthal — that had fallen into the hands of foreign powers. It turns out — and the Sunday night release proves this — that Blumenthal was hacked by intelligence agents from at least three foreign governments and that they obtained the emails Clinton had sent to him that contained state secrets. Sources believe that the hostile hackers were the Russians and the Chinese and the friendly hackers were the Israelis."
5) "The classified information wasn't marked as such."
An article by Andrew McCarthy at the National Review rips this excuse to shreds. "Government officials with security clearances are trained in categories of information that are classified pursuant to executive order, and documents that incorporate national defense secrets are “born classified” regardless of whether they are marked classified."
The fact is, many of the "unmarked" classified documents with sensitive information were written by Hillary Clinton herself. And the fact that she was regularly trafficking many documents that should have been marked classified and protected and were not shows a greater degree of liability, not less. It implies that the obfuscation of classified information was intentional:
"In fact, the lack of markings not only fails as a defense. It is more likely to be evidence of guilt. The government maintains separate networks for classified and unclassified documents. The documents on the classified system are the ones marked classified. It is not physically possible to email documents from the classified to the unclassified system. Therefore, if information marked classified somehow ends up outside the classified system in an unmarked form, it can only be because someone willfully and at considerable effort put it in the unmarked form."
6) "Hillary Clinton didn't lie to the FBI."
This statement is a fable that has been perpetrated by the MSM establishment media despite the fact that James Comey's testimony shows Clinton was repeatedly lying. The Chicago Tribune outlines this in no uncertain terms:
"She lied repeatedly about her emails. She lied when she said she had "turned over everything I was obligated to turn over" (FBI Director James Comey said the FBI "discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not among the group of 30,000 e-mails returned by Secretary Clinton to state in 2014"). She lied when she said there was "no classified material" in her private emails ... that there was nothing "classified at the time" ... and that there was nothing "marked classified" in her private emails — all of which the FBI director said were untrue."
The fact is, Comey basically admitted based on his statements that Hillary Clinton lied and also claimed that Clinton did not lie. Comey, himself, was dishonest. Many sources have documented this, including video evidence on YouTube.
Video of Public Hearing with Trey Gowdy and James Comey:
Gowdy: "Hillary Clinton said she never sent any classified information over her private email. Is that true?"
Comey: "Our investigation found that there was classified information."
Due to obvious negligence, classified material on private servers, Hillary Clinton committed a felony.
Again, the relevant law, 18 U.S.C Section 793-F, does not require intent, just negligence. Therefore, according to Comey's own words, Hillary Clinton committed a crime that should have been punished as a felony.
7) "Hillary did not intentionally mishandle classified info."
Though the relevant law does not require intent in order to be guilty of a felony, later revelations have shown that she was, in fact, very much aware of her negligence and continued to compromise security.
"Three other emails the State Department released this week demonstrate she was kept apprised of a wide variety of issues involving her use of a personal server.
A Sept. 29, 2009 email exchange between Cooper and Clinton discussed the backup of emails.
An Aug. 31, 2011 email between Cooper and Hillary Clinton discussed setting up Clinton's iPad and email interfaces with it.
A March 8, 2012 email exchange between Cooper, Pagliano, and Clinton with the subject line "Help!" discusses the "security landscape" differences between iPad, iPhone and blackberries. Clinton initiated the email expressing frustration that she is having blackberry "trouble" with her emails and receiving replies to emails she sends on blackberry only on her iPad."
The Motive Appears to Have Been A Cover-Up of Pay-To-Play Abuses
What motive could Hillary Clinton possibly have for obfuscating classified communications as secretary of state? Well, there happens to be a very long list of correlation between donations to Clinton's NGO fund and political actions favoring those that donated. This is called "pay to play" and Clinton's favorable dealings with Russia are one such example:
“One year after inviting Putin to the Clinton Foundation event, she approved the sale of 20% of America’s uranium capacity to Russia,” Conservative Review noted.“Shortly thereafter, donors connected to the company that was sold to Russia contributed $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.”
There's still no valid excuse for criminally destroying computers, cell phones, and other devices.
It is a felony, punishable by fine and imprisonment up to 20 years, according to 18 U.S. Code 1519, to destroy, conceal, cover up or falsify any record or document whether on paper or on any digital device with the intent to impede or obstruct the investigation of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.
According to FBI documents, a total of thirteen devices were associated with Clinton’s two phone numbers and personal email domain, eight of which she used during her tenure as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. The FBI requested that all thirteen devices be handed over, but Clinton’s attorneys informed the FBI that they were “unable to locate any of these devices,”. The fact that Hillary Clinton’s aides destroyed all of her 13 devices and phones with a hammer implies criminal intent because she was using more than one device at a time. This summary is so incriminating that CNN's Brooke Baldwin demanded a fact-check on this account when she heard it on live TV.
This is not all, though. Clinton's leaks of top-security information likely caused the death of Shahram Amiri, who was hanged by the Iran government in Tehran. The Iranian judiciary spokesman Mholamhosein Mohseni Ejehi explained, “This person who had access to our country’s secret and classified information had been linked to our hostile and No. 1 enemy, America, the Great Satan.”
Conclusion
None of the excuses for Hillary Clinton's criminal behavior stand up to reasonable scrutiny and the evidence is overwhelming against her. Andrew Napolitano outlined that the FBI was created to gather information, not to judge a case, and a grand jury would normally decide such a situation. It is painfully obvious that Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted, but instead of being grateful for being let off, amazingly, she is continuing to blame everyone but herself for her political loss and is going on the attack against political opponents. Clinton is confirming scripture, Ecclesiastes 8:11, that delayed justice, or justice that simply is never applied, tends to embolden those that break the law even more. According to her Twitter quote from January 17, 2016, "There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail." I completely agree with her, as do a lot of people seeking a semblance of justice in the US among politicians.
Unfortunately, it's obvious that a two-tier justice system has developed in the US, wherein elite politicians that recklessly break laws are let off the hook, while regular citizens are often given no fair trial or extreme punishment. Human governance and human justice will always be flawed, only pointing towards the perfect governance and perfect justice that will one day be established by the Messiah, who is the ultimate true and rightful king and lord of all creation. But in the meantime, increased injustice will only make life more miserable for society. Email-gate is just one of the many serious ethical and criminal subjects related to the Clintons. It is astounding how many former associates and potential whistle-blowers related to the Clintons have ended up dead. And just this April 8, 2017, WikiLeaks confirmed that murdered Seth Rich, not a computer hacker, was, most likely, the DNC information leak that revealed a DNC takedown of Bernie Sanders and corruption related to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Do you agree that Hillary Clinton still should probably be prosecuted for breaking laws? Do you believe that Clinton still should be investigated regarding the murder of Seth Rich, who was just named by Wikileaks as the informant that leaked DNC corruption? Share this article and help to educate people about the facts that the biased MSM news outlets refuse to publish.
NOTE: The criticism of Clinton continues to mount, with the usual leftist Politifact even assigning the word "Clintonian" to the dictionary as a means of describing dishonest behavior:
Hillary’s New — Ever Lengthening — List of Lies
As a side note: James Comey didn't recuse investigation of Hillary Clinton when connected by The Clinton Foundation to HSBC Holdings, Lockheed Martin, and the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt. Comey received millions in payments.
Tags: Hillary Clinton negligence, why Clinton cleared, Comey said intent was important, Clinton's unsecured server was illegal, Clinton lost laptop in the mail, Clinton lied to the FBI, what is Clinton Emailgate? Clinton death of spy Amiri,
Apparently there was no case to be found. As Comey stated:
ReplyDelete“all the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an interference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.”
The classified information wasn't marked as such, so there can be no intentional mishandling of classified material. There was no vast quantity of material used for interference or misconduct, and there were no indications of disloyalty to the USA, nor efforts to obstruct justice.
Regardless of what your personal views are on what the law says, and whether HRC should be charged or not, actual experts in this area agree that there's no case to be had.
This excuse is so poor that it actually implies greater liability and not less. I've added it to the list. Thank you for bringing it up:
Delete5) "The classified information wasn't marked as such."
An article by Andrew McCarthy at the National Review rips this excuse to shreds. "Government officials with security clearances are trained in categories of information that are classified pursuant to executive order, and documents that incorporate national defense secrets are “born classified” regardless of whether they are marked classified."
The fact is, many of the "unmarked" classified documents with sensitive information were written by Hillary Clinton herself. And the fact that she was regularly trafficking many documents that should have been marked classified and protected and were not shows a greater degree of liability, not less. It implies that the obfuscation of classified information was intentional:
"In fact, the lack of markings not only fails as a defense. It is more likely to be evidence of guilt. The government maintains separate networks for classified and unclassified documents. The documents on the classified system are the ones marked classified. It is not physically possible to email documents from the classified to the unclassified system. Therefore, if information marked classified somehow ends up outside the classified system in an unmarked form, it can only be because someone willfully and at considerable effort put it in the unmarked form."
What motive could Hillary Clinton possibly have for obfuscating classified communications as secretary of state? Well, there happens to be a very long list of correlation between donations to Clinton's NGO fund and political actions favoring those that donated. This is called "pay to play" and Clinton's favorable dealings with Russia are one such example:
Delete“One year after inviting Putin to the Clinton Foundation event, she approved the sale of 20% of America’s uranium capacity to Russia,” Conservative Review noted.“Shortly thereafter, donors connected to the company that was sold to Russia contributed $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-19/russian-collusion-new-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-invited-putin-pay-play-event
Oh, just another thing. The term "gross negligence" in the law has a specific meaning -
ReplyDelete“a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety.”
And "national defense" is interpreted as -
ReplyDelete“’intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.’ This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”
I guess that's why HRC' intent is important, and why we have experts deice these things rather than lay persons such as you and I.
"Oh, just another thing. The term "gross negligence" in the law has a specific meaning -
ReplyDelete“a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others"
- Oh, I suppose in your mind that facilitating the supply of tons of uranium to Russia while corresponding money flowed lavishly from Russia to the Clinton foundation was completely prudent and shows a high regard for the safety of US citizens.
We'd better cite a source that the left finds credible. How about the NY Times:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html