No, Bernie: The State Department emails are not 'personal'; they are 'national'

Sometimes I just don’t understand how the liberal mind works.  What side of the brain are they using?  Either?

Bernie Sanders, in a effort to be above the fray, to be the shining knight in a mud-slinging contest, has gone so far in an attempt to be “correct” that he completely misses the issue.  We see this often from liberals.  It is their trademark.

In a video (1:35 mark) and in numerous subsequent instances, Bernie has referred to the State Department emails, and even the Benghazi issues, as being “personal” in nature and thus off limits to his “high road” approach.

Bernie, if you want to attack Hillary for her pantsuits or her husband’s behavior, that might be “personal.”  But when email security involving the nation’s State Department, emails that contain classified and top-secret information is slovenly channeled through an unsecured server for that person’s convenience, it becomes a “national” issue.  The personal portion is removed.

There is a reason for classifications such as “top secret.”  Why can’t the importance of that be recognized by the left?

Wake up, Bernie.  Decisions like this disqualify you from any further decision-making involving national security.  You just don’t get it.  But that seems symptomatic of your ilk.  Emotion governs; pragmatism and reality take a seat.

The then secretary of state, for her convenience, established official communication not by the normal channels, but through her personal server.  The bad guys – and yes, there are bad guys – could read classified and top-secret communications as easily as a man picking up a magazine in a barbershop.

Bernie, you attempt to distinguish yourself by running a campaign that stays away from personal attacks.  But in so doing, you have distinguished yourself as one who can’t tell the difference between a personal issue and one of national security.  By attempting to be correct, you have become glaringly incorrect and displayed your low regard for national security.  But when you don’t like the nation, why bother with its security?  Right.

Sometimes I just don’t understand how the liberal mind works.  What side of the brain are they using?  Either?

Bernie Sanders, in a effort to be above the fray, to be the shining knight in a mud-slinging contest, has gone so far in an attempt to be “correct” that he completely misses the issue.  We see this often from liberals.  It is their trademark.

In a video (1:35 mark) and in numerous subsequent instances, Bernie has referred to the State Department emails, and even the Benghazi issues, as being “personal” in nature and thus off limits to his “high road” approach.

Bernie, if you want to attack Hillary for her pantsuits or her husband’s behavior, that might be “personal.”  But when email security involving the nation’s State Department, emails that contain classified and top-secret information is slovenly channeled through an unsecured server for that person’s convenience, it becomes a “national” issue.  The personal portion is removed.

There is a reason for classifications such as “top secret.”  Why can’t the importance of that be recognized by the left?

Wake up, Bernie.  Decisions like this disqualify you from any further decision-making involving national security.  You just don’t get it.  But that seems symptomatic of your ilk.  Emotion governs; pragmatism and reality take a seat.

The then secretary of state, for her convenience, established official communication not by the normal channels, but through her personal server.  The bad guys – and yes, there are bad guys – could read classified and top-secret communications as easily as a man picking up a magazine in a barbershop.

Bernie, you attempt to distinguish yourself by running a campaign that stays away from personal attacks.  But in so doing, you have distinguished yourself as one who can’t tell the difference between a personal issue and one of national security.  By attempting to be correct, you have become glaringly incorrect and displayed your low regard for national security.  But when you don’t like the nation, why bother with its security?  Right.