j reacts to the administrative review, and why it will define clinton's presidency

ok. so, it seems like i was right that the locus of opposition was in the "security establishment", but it seems like they've concluded that hillary clinton had no meaningful oversight over her staff. that is, it seems like they've concluded that she's not any real threat to national security, because she had no idea what they were doing. it's up to the political process to establish that oversight, i guess. which is what was "happening".

instead, they're focusing on a systemic review to make concrete changes to prevent the situation from occurring again.

startlingly rational, given the discourse.

i remain convinced that they were willing to press charges until the last minute. did the clintons propose the terms of the deal in the end? they're all lawyers, right?

here's the thing: even if the clintons proposed this course of action, it's not a particularly poor one. it happens to have the happy coincidence of a dropped investigation. but, it's the proper systemic reaction. the only questionable part of it is whether clinton was really that unaware.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36742095