It’s no secret that the former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for alleged crimes, rule-breaking, and bad behavior for actions committed and negligence put forth under her tenure as the properly appointed head of the State Department during the first Obama administration.  How Secretary Clinton handled those secrets was the matter under investigation.   Eventually the FBI revealed that what she did was wrong but the agency director, Comey, implied that she should be free from consequences.  That position is controversial for a number of reasons.

Author Brad Torgersen explains:

See, here is the thing. If *I* had been “extremely careless” with my SIPR mail and documents (while overseas) do you believe *I* would have gotten off; with merely a finger wagged at me? Also, if you think the Secretary of State should get away with being “extremely careless” with her classified material, you’re basically admitting that our governmental higher-ups don’t have to abide the same rules us peons live in fear of; down in the trenches.

There are many particular angles to explore this decision, one is the politics of why a director of a federal agency would refuse to pursue punishment for the wife of a highly-connected former President of the United States while another includes the cultural and practical implications of how one woman is immune to the consequences that would befall others for similar acts.

The response to her irresponsibility is an extreme underreaction by all people, parties, and agencies with a capability to act accordingly. Mr Torgersen explains further.

Look, at this point, Hillary Clinton should not even be an option. She grossly violated S/TS rules, as one of the nation’s top officers.

Remember, they forced Nixon to resign over his involvement in a two-bit hotel break-in. He was an accessory to a petty crime and asinine political screw-up.

What Hillary Clinton did was MUCH MORE SERIOUS. S/TS is not a matter of subjective evaluation. You don’t get to claim ignorance. Or thoughtlessness. Or forgetfulness. Any U.S. officer or NCO with an S or TS knows the rules, and what will happen; if we violate those rules. Especially cyber-security, on which we must PROVE KNOWLEDGE AND PROFICIENCY ON A YEARLY BASIS.

Failure to prove knowledge and proficiency, can result in a revocation of access.

Direct violations? Losing your access is just the BEGINNING of the repercussions. Which can include potential discharge, or even prison time.

So, I will repeat myself: Hillary Clinton did something much more serious than what Nixon did, and the FBI has documented Clinton’s direct involvement, and even if Hillary is too politically scary for the FBI to tackle, this country has to simply say “No” in November.

Johnson-Weld is (to my mind) the sole, realistic choice at this stage.

Hillary Clinton has self-eliminated.

Mr Torgersen has genuine expertise to back up his perspective. The fact is that HRC is promoted and protected as much by blind, naked partisanship as she is by her entrenched political connections. Democrats reflexively consider her to be a qualified choice because she is the presumed nominee of her political party.