Former AG On Clinton Emails: ‘Gross Negligence Is Not A Defense’
Former Attorney General for the Bush Administration Michael Mukasey said that Hillary Clinton’s carelessness with her email is not a defense against criminal charges.
““Hillary Clinton put classified information on a server that was not secure. She caused it to be put there,” he said on Fox Business Network.
“Going further, if it’s information that relates to national defense, whether she acted with gross negligence is not a defense. In fact, that’s the standard under the law. That’s a felony.”
The Hill reports:
President Obama on Sunday said Clinton had not jeopardized national security with her technology habits at State.
“There’s a carelessness in terms of managing emails that she has owned and that she has recognized, but I also think it’s important to keep this in perspective,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” “This is somebody that has served her country for four years as secretary of State and has done an outstanding job.”
Mukasey on Monday said Obama’s analysis of Clinton’s email decisions had not strengthened her case.
“He didn’t really do her any favors by saying she was negligent,” he said on “Cavuto Coast to Coast.” “I think he was trying to appeal to what he thought is people’s misunderstanding of the law.
“I’d like for somebody to ask his press secretary whether he’s getting regular briefings on the investigation,” added Mukasey.
“I seriously doubt that he is. If he’s not, then he’s talking through his hat. He doesn’t know whether national security was compromised or not.”
FBI Director James Comey said last week his agency is in no rush to conclude its probe of Clinton’s email server before the Democratic National Convention in July.
The FBI began investigating 22 of Clinton’s emails in February, double-checking the classification status of the messages during her tenure at State.
At issue is whether the emails should have been classified the highest level of “top secret” before they were sent, or if that information was given that status after the fact instead.