The Anti-Informational bias of the Washington Times is generally legendary, but WT is cited in the Freewill post above. This below is changed to mean that Secretary Clinton became nervous about using the emails, and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, the Chief of Staff, and the Deputy Chief of Staffing for Planning were not following some nature of protocol. It is only noted that the IT environment was better in the Obama Administration. That is corroborated, since apparently the private server is actually shown to be major secure.
So the hacking attempt being detected, and expressed to the parties involved, is not somehow to be construed better than what had happened in years gone by? Rules and Regulations generally have an intended outcome. This outcome below actually looks to be following the spirit of the rules and the regulations more deliberately, more lawfully than apparently they were intended. You could conclude that, even if Washington Times is to be believed(?)!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Pilgrim First Thanksgiving now a holiday, since some dumb warrior forgot to bring the arsenic--doing so many great disservice!)
So the hacking attempt being detected, and expressed to the parties involved, is not somehow to be construed better than what had happened in years gone by? Rules and Regulations generally have an intended outcome. This outcome below actually looks to be following the spirit of the rules and the regulations more deliberately, more lawfully than apparently they were intended. You could conclude that, even if Washington Times is to be believed(?)!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Pilgrim First Thanksgiving now a holiday, since some dumb warrior forgot to bring the arsenic--doing so many great disservice!)