Explain this to me like I'm a second-grader

No. I'm just taking issue with RickStain's contention that this is OK because the rules don't apply to Hillary.

 

It was her job to know.

 

You're in yellow-post-hole-digger territory, @da man, meaning that you're as likely to shit one as to maneuver a Herself apologist into admitting she's done anything wrong in this (or any other) instance.

 

When information is overclassified and there's no consistency to the classification, how is she supposed to know if something is classified or not?

 

Vince Foster had it coming.

 

The director of the FBI said a "reasonable person" should have known. Guess that lets Hillary off the hook!

 

Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Or, at least, it didn't used to be.

 

Just reading the Times' running coverage, I see that I missed this part:

In the hearings’ final moments, Mr. Comey and Mr. Chaffetz engaged in what may be the most contentious exchange yet.

Mr. Chaffetz pressed Mr. Comey on whether the former secretary of state had provided access to classified information to a number of people who did not hold security clearances, including her lawyers and the people who managed her email server.

“Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?” Mr. Chaffetz asked.

“Yes,” Mr. Comey responded.

Mr. Chaffetz repeatedly questioned Mr. Comey why there shouldn’t be consequences for Mrs. Clinton or her lawyers for that breach of security. But Mr. Comey insisted that it would be nearly impossible to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for giving her lawyers access to the emails for the purpose of evaluating them.

“I think it would be a very tall order,” Mr. Comey said, to determine that “she was acting with criminal intent.”

 

Representative Ron DeSantis, a Republican of Florida, asked whether it should have been obvious that the information was classified and thus not appropriate to discuss on an unclassified email system .

“Yes,” Mr. Comey said.

 

"Should have been" doesn't necessarily mean criminal. That's what this has been boiling down to. "Should have been." "Could have." "May have."

No prosecutor would tell a jury, "The defendant could have committed a crime. They may have committed this crime. They should have been at home, instead of at the crime scene when it happened. A reasonable person wouldn't be out at 3 a.m."

 

That depends entirely on the particular law.

 

I wipe my ass with reprimands.