Hilary email

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

If it was revealed that her use of the private server led to some calamity there would likely be some fallout, but to date there isn't any evidence of this.
...

Spence....Petraeus sent 2 emails to the lady friend, they did not cause any damage, or any disaster....so Y is he punished and not her....I know Y, she is the Affluenza lady....

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Kinda like making it home driving Chit-faced....No harm, No Foul.

Pretty sure it's still illegal.....or at the very least irresponsible.

And at the very least I shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of the van pool...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good analogy.

Well, except we are fairly certain that other foreign governments were reading the emails of the SECRETARY OF STATE.

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Yep
Typical Democrat
Just like blaming things on someone or something else taking no responsibility

This attitude and moral weakness is killing this country among other things
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is not a "democrat" thing, yes some democrats do it, and the Rs do it to a lesser extent too. All political persuasions do so at some point and level.

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence....Petraeus sent 2 emails to the lady friend, they did not cause any damage, or any disaster....so Y is he punished and not her....I know Y, she is the Affluenza lady....

Petraeus shared his password with Broadwell (and she had a general security clearance)

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Well, except we are fairly certain that other foreign governments were reading the emails of the SECRETARY OF STATE.

We do know Russian hackers compromised state.gov.

What data makes you "fairly certain" that other foreign governments were in her server? Sounds like speculation.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

We do know Russian hackers compromised state.gov.

What data makes you "fairly certain" that other foreign governments were in her server? Sounds like speculation.

Did " the investigations " ever really get her server and all the purged emails ? There has to be plenty of emails between foreign governments and Hillary discussing donations to the foundation . Does that assumption make sense ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Did " the investigations " ever really get her server and all the purged emails ? There has to be plenty of emails between foreign governments and Hillary discussing donations to the foundation . Does that assumption make sense ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty sure the FBI has access to everything, but that's not the focus of this investigation either. For that to happen you'd have to provide some evidence she did anything wrong, which I don't think you have.

But why don't we just follow the model for most other investigations. Assume Clinton is guilty of mass deception and fraud and just dig and dig because you're going to find it eventually.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence....Petraeus sent 2 emails to the lady friend, they did not cause any damage, or any disaster....so Y is he punished and not her....I know Y, she is the Affluenza lady....

Petraeus knowingly disclosed classified information, it's completely different. Had the info become public he'd have done time.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Petraeus knowingly disclosed classified information, it's completely different. Had the info become public he'd have done time.

True, he knowingly shared classified stuff with someone he knew wasn't cleared.

But if she created a situation, where her staff knew that if they wanted her to review stuff she needed to see, that it would have to go to her personal server...and if she knew that some of the stuff sent to her personal server was going to be stuff that doesn't belong there...one might be able to make a compelling case of a crime.

She said she didn't want to be inconvenienced with carrying two devices, right? So how can she handle all that being President entails?

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

True, he knowingly shared classified stuff with someone he knew wasn't cleared.

But if she created a situation, where her staff knew that if they wanted her to review stuff she needed to see, that it would have to go to her personal server...and if she knew that some of the stuff sent to her personal server was going to be stuff that doesn't belong there...one might be able to make a compelling case of a crime.

She said she didn't want to be inconvenienced with carrying two devices, right? So how can she handle all that being President entails?

How many times did you type " if " ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

How many times did you type " if " ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's why we need investigations Nebe, not all criminals confess, particularly if your name is Clinton or Kennedy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But if she created a situation, where her staff knew that if they wanted her to review stuff she needed to see, that it would have to go to her personal server...and if she knew that some of the stuff sent to her personal server was going to be stuff that doesn't belong there...one might be able to make a compelling case of a crime.

Jim, the rules regarding the handling of sensitive information were really no different between her personal server and a state.gov address which also is an unclassified system. You wouldn't knowingly put classified information on either...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, the rules regarding the handling of sensitive information were really no different between her personal server and a state.gov address which also is an unclassified system. You wouldn't knowingly put classified information on either...

Spence, I don't understand all the rules or the IT mumbo jumbo, nor do I care to.

I know that I posted a link last week, where the IG claimed that one of the emails was flagged as top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server. You claimed I was confusing one email with another, or one link with another, or that I was confusing Hilary with Aldrich Ames or the WikiLeaks guy. All I did was quote the IG.

i don't think we know for sure, that material known to be classified, wasn't intentionally put on her server. If it was, she lied (once again).

You have to admit, you approach these things with a slight...shall we say...point of view.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I know that I posted a link last week, where the IG claimed that one of the emails was flagged as top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server. You claimed I was confusing one email with another, or one link with another, or that I was confusing Hilary with Aldrich Ames or the WikiLeaks guy. All I did was quote the IG.

No, you didn't quote the IG. Did you even read the letter? It doesn't mention when the information was classified, only that that a few emails did contain classified information...when it was classified and for what reasons makes a big difference.

What's worse is that the info about drone strikes that led to all this "beyond top secret" hype was actually disclosed and reported on back in August. This IG letter was a trick played by Republicans to recycle already spent news. The conflict of interest here is big...it's a terrible abuse of authority.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This IG letter was a trick played by Republicans .

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, you didn't quote the IG. Did you even read the letter? It doesn't mention when the information was classified, only that that a few emails did contain classified information...when it was classified and for what reasons makes a big difference.

What's worse is that the info about drone strikes that led to all this "beyond top secret" hype was actually disclosed and reported on back in August. This IG letter was a trick played by Republicans to recycle already spent news. The conflict of interest here is big...it's a terrible abuse of authority.

"No, you didn't quote the IG. Did you even read the letter?"

See, maybe you are confused. I was not quoting the letter, I was quoting another comment from the IG, which was not part of the letter (I believe what I quoted was prior to the letter). Maybe you are ignoring the evidence that doesn't make her out to be a saint. Maybe there is more to the IG than just that one letter.