Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton

The Washington Post’s editorial board reacted to the widely reported State Department inspector general’s criticisms of Hillary Clinton’s private and home-based email server with some harsh comments of its own, saying the former secretary displayed “inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules” – but then adding she did not break any laws.

As WND reported, the State Department’s lead watchdog found in an audit Clinton should have, by federal regulations, “preserved any federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with [State] Department business before leaving government service.”

The ‘Stop Hillary’ campaign is on fire! Join the surging response to this theme: ‘Clinton for prosecution, not president’

And now the liberal-leaning Washington Post has weighed in on the matter, chiding the likely Democratic presidential nominee for breaking rules.

“While not illegal behavior, it was disturbingly unmindful of the rules,” board members wrote. “In the middle of the presidential campaign, we urge the FBI to finish its own investigation soon, so all information about this troubling episode will be before the voters.”

Editorial board members pointed to other State staffers using personal email, along with the former secretary, Colin Powell – though these individuals did not set up elaborate email server systems in their homes and refuse to turn over, or erase, messages requested by federal authorities.

Just in time for the 2016 election, hear Hillary Clinton say she would NOT run for president, in “Hillary Unhinged” by Thomas Kuiper

But the editorial board went on: “But there is no excuse for the way Ms. Clinton breezed through all the warnings and notifications,” they added.

The FBI has been investigating Clinton to see what security risks she created by using her home-based email system to conduct sensitive State Department business, and the extent and type of federal laws she may have broken.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.