Hillary's disqualifying defense

As a thought experiment, let us take Hillary Clinton at her word.  The dismissive excuse that she has consistently offered is that, to paraphrase, the documents were not “marked” correctly such as to put her on proper legal notice that the specific information revealed therein was, in fact, “classified” at any secrecy level.  By this argument, Hillary claims it was “A-OK” for her to have “inadvertently” sent them over her unsecured home computer server because, after all, “how was one to know?”  She cannot be faulted in any of this because she had no way of realizing at the time that she might be handling secret information – which, “after all,” was classified as such “retroactively.”

But isn’t this admission disqualifying for a presidential candidate?  It raises automatic doubts about her level of mental acuity in reading, assessing, and (most emphatically) appreciating sensitive, high-level information, especially national security info.  Whenever she and/or her aides viewed a satellite image, did they assume it was from Google Maps?

In effect, Hillary is saying that although she had reviewed dozens if not hundreds of emails bearing national security secrets – never once did she recognize on her own that the transmissions contained state secrets.  We know this because Hillary cannot admit otherwise.  For if Hillary had recognized that the emails carried unsecured state secrets, this recognition would consequently have immediately burdened her with the duty and obligation to report the insecurity in her communications for correction.  In all her emails released, never once has it been reported that Hillary ever questioned the propriety or security risk of her home-brew email arrangement.  This despite breezily handling the most sensitive of government secrets – which included, of course, her very own messages, travel itineraries, appointment schedules, details of security arrangements for high-level meetings, etc., etc.

In effect, Hillary is saying with this admission, “As secretary of state, I was too dull-witted to recognize state secrets when I saw them – unless they bore the correct markings to alert me.”  How can she expect to supervise the security and administration of America’s political and military intelligence when she admits she doesn’t understand the content or context, nor, especially, the delicate sources and methods?

Americans are beginning to realize that Hillary’s admissions in her defense are admissions of ill-witted recklessness (at best) during her tryout years as secretary of state that invariably render her disqualified to be commander in chief.

As a thought experiment, let us take Hillary Clinton at her word.  The dismissive excuse that she has consistently offered is that, to paraphrase, the documents were not “marked” correctly such as to put her on proper legal notice that the specific information revealed therein was, in fact, “classified” at any secrecy level.  By this argument, Hillary claims it was “A-OK” for her to have “inadvertently” sent them over her unsecured home computer server because, after all, “how was one to know?”  She cannot be faulted in any of this because she had no way of realizing at the time that she might be handling secret information – which, “after all,” was classified as such “retroactively.”

But isn’t this admission disqualifying for a presidential candidate?  It raises automatic doubts about her level of mental acuity in reading, assessing, and (most emphatically) appreciating sensitive, high-level information, especially national security info.  Whenever she and/or her aides viewed a satellite image, did they assume it was from Google Maps?

In effect, Hillary is saying that although she had reviewed dozens if not hundreds of emails bearing national security secrets – never once did she recognize on her own that the transmissions contained state secrets.  We know this because Hillary cannot admit otherwise.  For if Hillary had recognized that the emails carried unsecured state secrets, this recognition would consequently have immediately burdened her with the duty and obligation to report the insecurity in her communications for correction.  In all her emails released, never once has it been reported that Hillary ever questioned the propriety or security risk of her home-brew email arrangement.  This despite breezily handling the most sensitive of government secrets – which included, of course, her very own messages, travel itineraries, appointment schedules, details of security arrangements for high-level meetings, etc., etc.

In effect, Hillary is saying with this admission, “As secretary of state, I was too dull-witted to recognize state secrets when I saw them – unless they bore the correct markings to alert me.”  How can she expect to supervise the security and administration of America’s political and military intelligence when she admits she doesn’t understand the content or context, nor, especially, the delicate sources and methods?

Americans are beginning to realize that Hillary’s admissions in her defense are admissions of ill-witted recklessness (at best) during her tryout years as secretary of state that invariably render her disqualified to be commander in chief.