Liz Cheney’s sharp rebuke of the GOP highlights a big and terrible truth

[homersapien 11,393]

Opinion by Greg Sargent

Columnist

Today at 10:56 a.m. EDT

 

It’s time to forget about trying to shame Republicans into pursuing accountability for the elite perpetrators involved in Donald Trump’s effort to overthrow U.S. democracy. The ugly truth of the matter is that the great majority of them have made their decision on this matter already.

And they aren’t going back.

The House will soon vote to hold Stephen K. Bannon, a onetime top adviser to the former president, in criminal contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the select committee examining the Jan. 6 insurrection. The matter will be referred to the Justice Department for possible prosecution.

How many Republicans will decide that placing Trump and his allies beyond accountability entirely takes priority over Bannon’s obligation to honor a lawful congressional subpoena in an investigation into a violent attack on the U.S. government? Virtually all of them.

In a sharp rebuke late Tuesday, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) urged her GOP colleagues to change course. This is making news, but what’s truly notable here is what this reveals, in relief, about the backdrop against which it’s occurring: Everyone who is closely following this knows perfectly well her appeal is utterly hopeless.

“All of us as elected officials must do our duty to prevent the dismantling of the rule of law,” Cheney declared, “and to ensure that nothing like that dark day in January ever happens again.”

Cheney also noted that Trump and his allies are still lying relentlessly about the 2020 election being stolen from him.

“He has now urged Republicans not to vote in 2022 or 2024,” Cheney continued. “This is a prescription for national self-destruction. I ask my colleagues: Please consider the fundamental questions of right and wrong here. The American people must know what happened.”

So Cheney tried appealing to Republicans’ self-interest: Trump’s insistence on continuing to cast our elections as corrupt will inevitably lead to him getting GOP voters to stay home. But Republicans have already determined this doesn’t require a break from Trump’s lies: Instead, they have decided they must keep feeding them to keep his voters engaged.

Similarly, Cheney is urging Republicans to accept a full reckoning into Jan. 6 as a precondition for future democratic stability. But Republicans have rejected this very premise: They have already made it overwhelmingly obvious that they do not see the need for any serious national reckoning of any kind, let alone a national response.

Whether this reflects a genuine belief that we can maintain democratic stability without such an accounting — or whether it reflects deeper revanchism against the very ideals of multiracial, pluralistic democracy, as Thomas Zimmer argues — remains to be seen.

It’s probably a mix of both. But the new GOP craze for sham “audits,” for vowing to subvert future election losses, and for taking control of election machinery while remaining in thrall to Trump’s lies about our electoral outcomes doesn’t inspire confidence.

Or take the Bannon battle. Democrats believe he can shed light on Trumpworld’s potential understanding of their scheme as a concerted and deliberate plot to overturn an election they fully knew was legitimate, through intentionally corrupt procedural exploitation of holes in our system, or violence, or both.

As numerous legal experts argue — see Josh Chafetz and Rick Hasen — what’s at stake is whether our political system is capable of getting to the bottom of an effort to destroy it at its very foundations. This in turn would inform reforms designed to protect it from a future attack on it.

That’s fundamental to democratic self-preservation. Republicans don’t think it’s necessary at all.

Indeed, Republicans have worked against this, by scuttling a bipartisan investigation (which would have sent an important message to the country) and by wielding legislative threats to cow private companies into resisting subpoenas.

Forget about the idea that Republicans will ever be shamed into agreeing that a national accounting and response are needed at all. That’s not happening. All that’s left to learn is where these impulses will lead.

We need to foreground this obvious truism — and its deeper implications — in a new and forward-looking way.

Historian Sean Wilentz, for instance, proposes that we reconceive of these tendencies as “secessionist,” in that they aim to “withdraw any remaining loyalties they might have to the existing system of government.”

Similarly, political theorist Laura Field asks us to wrestle more deeply with this question: “How much radical thought — and radical or unlawful action — can or should be accommodated by civil society in a liberal democracy?” Bannon is plainly pressing this upon us.

A reorientation here might also include things like this: Rather than media figures asking Republicans if they “really believe” our elections render illegitimate outcomes, instead relentlessly hound GOP candidates to commit to accepting future popular vote results.

Or press GOP lawmakers on whether they will support reforms to the Electoral Count Act and safeguards against presidential manipulation of law enforcement. After all, Republicans who profess no interest in future election subversion should want such reforms, to insulate themselves from future pressure to carry out the worst. Let’s demand that they account for themselves on this.

And needless to say, all this should require Democrats to support reforming or ending the filibuster to pass such protections into law.

Instead of falling back on the usual shame theater, all our focus should now be on where this is going to lead — and on what we’re going to do about it.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

Talk to me when Holder appears and testifies on fast and furious.

[AU9377 4,979]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Talk to me when Holder appears and testifies on fast and furious.

Really?  You are comparing Steve Bannon, the guy that got pardoned so that he didn't have to answer for embezzling over a million bucks from a fraudulent fund raising campaign called "We Build The Wall" and was not even a part of the administration when the events occurred about which he will be questioned to a sitting U.S. Attorney General?

That has to be the biggest whataboutism I have seen in a while.  One literally has nothing to do with the other.  If he didn't have something to hide, he would do the right thing, the thing that any decent American would do, and he would testify as to the events of January 6th.

[DKW 86 7,431]

List of those held in Contempt of Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

I would say that it is fairly even that COC means just about nothing to anyone in DC. From Holder and Reno to Watt and Miers, there is a good list of bad actors in DC. 

Bannon, Mr Breitbart, certainly fits the bill and this is just 24-7 corruption in DC.

[DKW 86 7,431]

Hillary Clinton: You Can Run The Best Campaign And "Have The Election Stolen From You"

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an 'illegitimate president'

Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election 'Was Not On the Level'

'You can have the election stolen from you,' Hillary Clinton warns 2020 Democrats

Hillary Clinton tells voters: Don't let Trump steal the election https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/hillary-clinton-claims-presidential-election-220135269.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/hillary-clinton-dnc-speech-398893

Hillary Clinton calls Trump 'illegitimate president' - CNN Video

Remember when Hillary said her election was "stolen?" 

Computer scientists say they have strong evidence election was rigged against Clinton in three key states

The most dangerous conspiracy theory of 2016

 

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by DKW 86

[jj3jordan 2,056]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Really?  You are comparing Steve Bannon, the guy that got pardoned so that he didn't have to answer for embezzling over a million bucks from a fraudulent fund raising campaign called "We Build The Wall" and was not even a part of the administration when the events occurred about which he will be questioned to a sitting U.S. Attorney General?

That has to be the biggest whataboutism I have seen in a while.  One literally has nothing to do with the other.  If he didn't have something to hide, he would do the right thing, the thing that any decent American would do, and he would testify as to the events of January 6th.

No sir. I’m equating Eric Holder who ignored a legal legitimate congressional subpoena to Steve Bannon who ignored a legal legitimate congressional subpoena. If you can’t see that then park your comments until you can.  Holder selling assault weapons to drug cartels so he could “track” them and catch the bad guys with them seems little naive. Then they are used to kill a border patrol agent. Seems a little worse than raising money to build a wall. And your allegations against Kolfage are not proven and will not be.

[AU9377 4,979]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

No sir. I’m equating Eric Holder who ignored a legal legitimate congressional subpoena to Steve Bannon who ignored a legal legitimate congressional subpoena. If you can’t see that then park your comments until you can.  Holder selling assault weapons to drug cartels so he could “track” them and catch the bad guys with them seems little naive. Then they are used to kill a border patrol agent. Seems a little worse than raising money to build a wall. And your allegations against Kolfage are not proven and will not be.

Bannon raised money with the pretense being to build a wall.  That was the problem.  He used the money to build his portfolio and pay off the yacht.   Eric Holder, in my opinion, should have complied with the subpoena.  However, he actually had a valid claim of privilege that made the subpoena unenforceable.  Bannon has no valid claim of privilege due to two important facts.  First, he was not part of the Executive branch of government when the actions he is called to testify about took place and secondly, any claim of executive privilege can only be sustained or waived by the current administration.

Still, nothing concerning Eric Holder is relevant to this congressional inquiry.  Your argument is an example of the cancer that is eating away at the core of this country.  When it comes to Trump, he is more important than right or wrong.  Your allegiance is to Donald Trump first, even though he makes a mockery of your cause and bleeds you for all you are worth.  There is no example of the "other side" doing what you are doing.  The Democrats would have thrown Obama or Clinton out with the Thursday trash had either of them done anything remotely close to what Trump has done.  There was once a Republican party that would have thrown either Bush out in the same way.  If you cannot see that, you should consider the fact that Bush 41 and George W. both let it be known that they detest the actions of the man and the way he has disrespected the office.  When one side would rather destroy the system than to lose, there is a problem.

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

 Seems a little worse than raising money to build a wall. And your allegations against Kolfage are not proven and will not be.

All the state and federal prosecutors who are charging Kolfage for various types of fraud and tax evasion would disagree that the allegations can't be proven. We'll see what happens, but good money is that Kolfage will be spending some time in prison soon because he doesn't have Trump to give him a "get out of jail free card" like Bannon did. Poor Kolfage thought he could make bank getting in with the Right wing grift, but will soon learn he's not high enough in the ranks of conservative Inc. to escape the consequences. 

 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Bannon raised money with the pretense being to build a wall.  That was the problem.  He used the money to build his portfolio and pay off the yacht.   Eric Holder, in my opinion, should have complied with the subpoena.  However, he actually had a valid claim of privilege that made the subpoena unenforceable.  Bannon has no valid claim of privilege due to two important facts.  First, he was not part of the Executive branch of government when the actions he is called to testify about took place and secondly, any claim of executive privilege can only be sustained or waived by the current administration.

Still, nothing concerning Eric Holder is relevant to this congressional inquiry.  Your argument is an example of the cancer that is eating away at the core of this country.  When it comes to Trump, he is more important than right or wrong.  Your allegiance is to Donald Trump first, even though he makes a mockery of your cause and bleeds you for all you are worth.  There is no example of the "other side" doing what you are doing.  The Democrats would have thrown Obama or Clinton out with the Thursday trash had either of them done anything remotely close to what Trump has done.  There was once a Republican party that would have thrown either Bush out in the same way.  If you cannot see that, you should consider the fact that Bush 41 and George W. both let it be known that they detest the actions of the man and the way he has disrespected the office.  When one side would rather destroy the system than to lose, there is a problem.

As you say regarding Holder, Trump also has nothing to do with this discussion. The democrats would never throw anyone out with the trash. What history are you living.  The Bush clan are establishment republicans all of whom were angered by the success of Trump. Your TDS is too much to even explain.  

[jj3jordan 2,056]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

All the state and federal prosecutors who are charging Kolfage for various types of fraud and tax evasion would disagree that the allegations can't be proven. We'll see what happens, but good money is that Kolfage will be spending some time in prison soon because he doesn't have Trump to give him a "get out of jail free card" like Bannon did. Poor Kolfage thought he could make bank getting in with the Right wing grift, but will soon learn he's not high enough in the ranks of conservative Inc. to escape the consequences. 

 

Why was Kolfage even raising money for the border wall? Oh yeah because democrats went to federal judges to stop the funding entirely to win political points. And now democrats are saying oh yeah maybe we should build some more wall. I understand it is all politics and all power hunger. We shall see how it all works out. Maybe the country suffers greatly but at least Trump will be destroyed. That’s what matters.

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

1 minute ago, jj3jordan said:

Why was Kolfage even raising money for the border wall? 

publicity and to pad his own personal Bank account. Hoping that this could either make him rich or put him in the good graces of Trump/Republican circles to give him political and job connections down the road.  

[aubiefifty 16,823]

8 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

No sir. I’m equating Eric Holder who ignored a legal legitimate congressional subpoena to Steve Bannon who ignored a legal legitimate congressional subpoena. If you can’t see that then park your comments until you can.  Holder selling assault weapons to drug cartels so he could “track” them and catch the bad guys with them seems little naive. Then they are used to kill a border patrol agent. Seems a little worse than raising money to build a wall. And your allegations against Kolfage are not proven and will not be.

you know the cia hooked up with the cartels to flood america with drugs right? this is fact. remember ol ollie north? he was in on it. all this is fact. i might repeat this again since you do not listen. it was called crack and it killed a whole bunch of people. and you are worried one agent died? now i hate that agent died because it was a horrible death. they actually gave the agent drugs so he could not pass out or even die. and they skinned him alive among other things. it is a tragedy but what the repukes did to blacks and poor americans in this country is a travesty of justice. now granted not all repukes knew about it but it happened uner the repubs watch. and it has killed thousands and broke up homes as well as breaking the hearts of those left behind. and for the record that gun thing that holder did was brought before a ton of people as well as the white house and he got approval do so. do you understand my last sentence? you act like holder went rouge or some crap. not true so you throwing up holder is completely different than what bannon did.

[aubiefifty 16,823]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Why was Kolfage even raising money for the border wall? Oh yeah because democrats went to federal judges to stop the funding entirely to win political points. And now democrats are saying oh yeah maybe we should build some more wall. I understand it is all politics and all power hunger. We shall see how it all works out. Maybe the country suffers greatly but at least Trump will be destroyed. That’s what matters.

again. lets be clear here. it is a proven fact the wall is a waste and most of your drugs and illegals come across the border at the border stations. they can only stop so many vehicles at the crossing because it would cause a log jam so most traffic gets waved through without being checked. then we have the tunnels which are second in line. and they have new ones popping up all the time. the repubs used the wall to scare americans to get elected and still remains a joke. go read the power of the dog,the cartel, and the border. all were researched and based on fact.

also the books tell or tie in the cia flooding america with drugs. this was back when we were killing innocent women and children with the sandinista's. and it was a war that was shot down in congress and the repubs said the hell with it we are doing it anyway.

Edited October 21, 2021 by aubiefifty

[jj3jordan 2,056]

33 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

you know the cia hooked up with the cartels to flood america with drugs right? this is fact. remember ol ollie north? he was in on it. all this is fact. i might repeat this again since you do not listen. it was called crack and it killed a whole bunch of people. and you are worried one agent died? now i hate that agent died because it was a horrible death. they actually gave the agent drugs so he could not pass out or even die. and they skinned him alive among other things. it is a tragedy but what the repukes did to blacks and poor americans in this country is a travesty of justice. now granted not all repukes knew about it but it happened uner the repubs watch. and it has killed thousands and broke up homes as well as breaking the hearts of those left behind. and for the record that gun thing that holder did was brought before a ton of people as well as the white house and he got approval do so. do you understand my last sentence? you act like holder went rouge or some crap. not true so you throwing up holder is completely different than what bannon did.

No fiddy I used Holder because he ignored a subpoena. But I’m glad you said Obama approved it all because that makes him a criminal too. If I had said that I would be labeled a racist so thank you. As usual you are full of hooey regarding Ollie north. Not what he did. You make more outrageous claims than anybody I have ever seen against republicans without proof by just declaring that’s a fact!  Sorry not facts because you say so. All this 50 year old stuff you are bringing up is irrelevant. And the republicans did not do anything outrageous or violent to blacks!!! That was the democrats. Own it and stop trying to blame republicans for everything you hate.

[aubiefifty 16,823]

51 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

No fiddy I used Holder because he ignored a subpoena. But I’m glad you said Obama approved it all because that makes him a criminal too. If I had said that I would be labeled a racist so thank you. As usual you are full of hooey regarding Ollie north. Not what he did. You make more outrageous claims than anybody I have ever seen against republicans without proof by just declaring that’s a fact!  Sorry not facts because you say so. All this 50 year old stuff you are bringing up is irrelevant. And the republicans did not do anything outrageous or violent to blacks!!! That was the democrats. Own it and stop trying to blame republicans for everything you hate.

there are books on it as i pointed out and i believe rolling stone covered it as well. you are just deflecting. this stuff is so commonly known now tom cruise did a movie of one of the main pilots who brought a lot of the stuff in and they killed him in new orleans. and what about bush invading the wrong country? the only dem that hurt people was johnson and his escalations.

here are a few for you to go look up..

 

 

Did you mean: did the cia under ronald reagan flood america with drugs

 

 

 

 

 

CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine Controversy - Department of Justice

https://oig.justice.gov › default › files › archive › special

 

 

For the better part of a decade, a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles and funneled ...

 

Cocaine, Conspiracy Theories And The Cia In Central America

https://www.pbs.org › frontline › shows › drugs › special

 

 

In 1996 the agency was accused of being a crack dealer. A series of expose articles in the San Jose Mercury-News by reporter Gary Webb told tales of a drug ...

 

Allegations of a CIA connection to crack cocaine epidemic

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov › files › hearings

 

PDF

The hearing of the Senate Intelligence will proceed. The subject of today's hearings involves the allegations of CIA in- volvement in the U.S. drug sales to ...

 

Watch: Ronald Reagan and his 'War on Drugs' | by Timeline

https://timeline.com › ronald-nancy-reagan-war-on-dru...

 

 

Jun 26, 2017 — On October 14, 1982, President Ronald Reagan declared a “war on drugs,” doubling-down on an initiative that was started by Richard Nixon.

 

The CIA, Contras, Gangs, and Crack - Institute for Policy Studies

https://ips-dc.org › the_cia_contras_gangs_and_crack

 

 

The CIA's drug network, wrote Webb, “opened the first pipeline between Colombia's cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles, a city now known ...

 

The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations - The National ...

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu › NSAEBB › NSAEBB2

 

 

Documentation of Official U.S. Knowledge of Drug Trafficking and the Contras — Documentation of Official U.S. Knowledge of Drug Trafficking ...

 

CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › CIA_involvement_in_...

 

 

A number of writers have alleged that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in the Nicaraguan Contras' cocaine trafficking ...

 

That racist Reagan recording just confirmed what my ...

https://www.salon.com › ... › D. Watkins's Articles

 

 

Aug 1, 2019 — I grew up in one of Reagan's so-called Drug Free Zones, where bricks of cocaine featuring his face were sold.

 

Five Myths About Ronald Reagan - Teaching for Change

https://www.teachingforchange.org › five-myths-about-...

 

 

Mar 12, 2016 — Military spending has not decreased since Reagan's presidency as his successors have feared the political consequences of looking weak on ...

 

Oliver North Worked With Cocaine Traffickers to Arm Terrorists

https://theintercept.com › oliver-north-nra-iran-contra

 

 

May 12, 2018 — The NRA constantly tells us that we need guns to protect ourselves against drug gangs — which makes their choice of Oliver North both ...

[AU9377 4,979]

6 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

As you say regarding Holder, Trump also has nothing to do with this discussion. The democrats would never throw anyone out with the trash. What history are you living.  The Bush clan are establishment republicans all of whom were angered by the success of Trump. Your TDS is too much to even explain.  

He has everything to do with this.  Bannon is trying to claim executive privilege based on Trump.  If this was about something as irrelevant as Hillary's emails, the entire Republican congressional caucus would be demanding a referral to the DOJ for not complying with the subpoena. Oh but wait, she did comply after she had left office as the SOS.  Imagine that.

[aubaseball 2,631]

22 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Really?  You are comparing Steve Bannon, the guy that got pardoned so that he didn't have to answer for embezzling over a million bucks from a fraudulent fund raising campaign called "We Build The Wall" and was not even a part of the administration when the events occurred about which he will be questioned to a sitting U.S. Attorney General?

That has to be the biggest whataboutism I have seen in a while.  One literally has nothing to do with the other.  If he didn't have something to hide, he would do the right thing, the thing that any decent American would do, and he would testify as to the events of January 6th.

Is that any different than the BLM top official with what (3 multi million dollar homes)?  Asking for a friend?

[jj3jordan 2,056]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

He has everything to do with this.  Bannon is trying to claim executive privilege based on Trump.  If this was about something as irrelevant as Hillary's emails, the entire Republican congressional caucus would be demanding a referral to the DOJ for not complying with the subpoena. Oh but wait, she did comply after she had left office as the SOS.  Imagine that.

She allowed unfettered access to hundreds of classified documents on an unsecure unprotected server and deleted 30,000 emails after Congress instructed her to preserve them, then bleach bitted the server and destroyed multiple mobile devices with hammers.  So yeah that was legit.

[AU9377 4,979]

51 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

Is that any different than the BLM top official with what (3 multi million dollar homes)?  Asking for a friend?

What BLM pays their chairman or whatever they call them is their business.  If someone donates money to them, they are giving to that organization and there are no conditions on how the money is to be used. When that organization pays it's employees, that pay is taxed.

That is very different than someone forming a charitable fund for a stated purpose, avoiding taxes based on the charitable nature of the fund, eliciting donations for that charitable fund and then pocketing the money themselves.

[AU9377 4,979]

26 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

She allowed unfettered access to hundreds of classified documents on an unsecure unprotected server and deleted 30,000 emails after Congress instructed her to preserve them, then bleach bitted the server and destroyed multiple mobile devices with hammers.  So yeah that was legit.

That is simply not true.  If it was true, she would have been prosecuted. Multiple Republican AGs looked over the facts of the case and determined that there was no prosecution warranted.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

9 hours ago, AU9377 said:

That is simply not true.  If it was true, she would have been prosecuted. Multiple Republican AGs looked over the facts of the case and determined that there was no prosecution warranted.

Every bit of that is true. What planet are you on?

[AU9377 4,979]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Every bit of that is true. What planet are you on?

Far from unfettered access and to be honest the entire matter was trivial and had one only one purpose, to throw dirt at HRC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31806907

[jj3jordan 2,056]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Far from unfettered access and to be honest the entire matter was trivial and had one only one purpose, to throw dirt at HRC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31806907

This article by the BBC doesn’t really support your statement. It actually confirms every aspect of what my post said. And the emphasis of this article is primarily about personal vs government accounts. Her crime, and it is a crime not a potential crime as Comey stated attempting to not commit perjury to the public, was not safeguarding classified material. She had secret and top secret material on her computer. This is illegal and does not require intent (although intent to deceive regulators and inspectors is clear). Comey actually said it. But he thought she would win the election and wanted to keep his job. He compromised his integrity for her and it cost him. She also likely compromised two operations that were unexplained failures until you factor in that pretty much any average hacker could read her email without her knowledge.  It amazes me that you and others refuse to acknowledge her crimes regarding classified material when if it was you doing the same thing you would be in prison.  I worked with the State Dept daily for a year and a half when I was on active duty at Ramstein GE.  State does not conduct ANY business that is not classified at least secret level.  It’s laughable for her to imply she conducted state business on an unclassified lever as the secretary. 

[AU9377 4,979]

5 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

This article by the BBC doesn’t really support your statement. It actually confirms every aspect of what my post said. And the emphasis of this article is primarily about personal vs government accounts. Her crime, and it is a crime not a potential crime as Comey stated attempting to not commit perjury to the public, was not safeguarding classified material. She had secret and top secret material on her computer. This is illegal and does not require intent (although intent to deceive regulators and inspectors is clear). Comey actually said it. But he thought she would win the election and wanted to keep his job. He compromised his integrity for her and it cost him. She also likely compromised two operations that were unexplained failures until you factor in that pretty much any average hacker could read her email without her knowledge.  It amazes me that you and others refuse to acknowledge her crimes regarding classified material when if it was you doing the same thing you would be in prison.  I worked with the State Dept daily for a year and a half when I was on active duty at Ramstein GE.  State does not conduct ANY business that is not classified at least secret level.  It’s laughable for her to imply she conducted state business on an unclassified lever as the secretary. 

You are reading what you want into the report instead of what it says. 

The laws you are speaking of are incredibly broad.  Prosecutors have always sought to find intent before prosecuting due to the risk that without intent, the courts may invalidate the entire law for vagueness.  Do you realize that some of the "top secret" content you speak of was on the server due to it being in a newspaper article that had been forwarded to Clinton?  How nonsensical is that?  Do you think that would hold up in court?  It would not.  Below is what Comey actually concluded...

“In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts,”

That is the entire ordeal in a nutshell.  It is petty nonsense.  Like or or not, the woman is a former First Lady of the United States, U.S. Senator and U.S. Secretary of State.  She has forgotten more classified information than 99% of the people in Washington D.C. will ever see.   If she wanted to do something underhanded, she doesn't have to play games with computers and networking.  The far right has never made something stick because at the end of the day there has never been evidence that she did anything that warranted the over hyped narratives that they have pushed.  The tried with Benghazzi.  She made the congressmen look like playground bullies with nothing empty talking points after two full days of hearings.

 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

You are reading what you want into the report instead of what it says. 

The laws you are speaking of are incredibly broad.  Prosecutors have always sought to find intent before prosecuting due to the risk that without intent, the courts may invalidate the entire law for vagueness.  Do you realize that some of the "top secret" content you speak of was on the server due to it being in a newspaper article that had been forwarded to Clinton?  How nonsensical is that?  Do you think that would hold up in court?  It would not.  Below is what Comey actually concluded...

“In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts,”

That is the entire ordeal in a nutshell.  It is petty nonsense.  Like or or not, the woman is a former First Lady of the United States, U.S. Senator and U.S. Secretary of State.  She has forgotten more classified information than 99% of the people in Washington D.C. will ever see.   If she wanted to do something underhanded, she doesn't have to play games with computers and networking.  The far right has never made something stick because at the end of the day there has never been evidence that she did anything that warranted the over hyped narratives that they have pushed.  The tried with Benghazzi.  She made the congressmen look like playground bullies with nothing empty talking points after two full days of hearings.

 

Comey concluded that he wanted to keep his job after the election. In classified material intent is not a consideration. I have seen servicemen go to prison for having one piece of secret material on their desk while they went to lunch.  Their office was behind two cypher locked doors and everyone inside had clearance to see it. Tell me the truth, would you be saying the same thing if this were Trump?