New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

IMO Cruz is ineligible to run for president just like Hillary will be after she's held accountable for her gross irresponsibility and willful negligence when it comes to handling of classified information while she was Secretary of State.

I think in the end Trump will crash (I've gotta think that, people can't be THAT dumb) and it'll be Rubio vs either Sanders or some other Democrat that tries to swoop in as a white knight once Hillary is out.

 

I'd take Trump over Rubio any day of the week. Rubio is the worst of them all not named Bush.

 

Apparently the Obama administration disagrees and thinks it is relevant. They have said so themselves.

Also, apparently the Chinese and the Russians and who know who else has this now, thanks to Hillary Clinton.

 

Hell no. I'd take literally anyone else running for president in any party over Trump. I'd actively campaign for Clinton or Sanders over Trump. There is no wore than Trump.

The best candidate is Rand Paul, but he has no chance because his party is stupid. Since we can't have the best, we're just haggling over the crap that is left over.

 

Squirrel!

 

Obama and his regime are thoroughly corrupt. They will not indict Hillary, literally no matter what.

WH: Clinton Won't Be Indicted 'Based On What We Know'

'White House spokesman Josh Earnest said today that "based on what we know" it does not look like Hillary Clinton will be indicted. Earnest made the remarks the White House podium.

A reporter asked, "Can you say with certainty and confidence that Secretary Clinton will not be indicted because of this email scandal?"

"That will be a decision made by the Department of Justice and prosecutors over there," said Earnest. "What I know that some officials over there have said is that she is not a target of the investigation. So that does not seem to be the direction that it's trending. But I'm certainly not going to weigh in on a decision or in that process in any way. That is a decision to be made solely by independent prosecutors but again, based on what we know from the Department of Justice, it does not seem to be headed in that direction."'​

 

That part is quite true.

We mos def irrelevant in this particular issue and this general election.

 

I wouldn't say the emails are irrelevant as I think at the minimum it was irresponsible and a mistake as she herself as said. That does go to a question of judgement. That said I doubt there will be an indictment from this. So far nothing has come out that she knowingly had classified email or that the material was classified at the time.

Those raging here about this I'm pretty sure would find something to else to rage about Hillary Clinton if this email issue wasn't out there. Of course that is another reason why it was foolish of Clinton to do so in the first place knowing how many enemies she has who would want to make an issue out of this.

 

What a strongly partisan poster types...

versus the actual exchange today.

So: yes, there could be an indictment. It's up to DOJ. If Clinton is not charged, that means the DOJ is not charging her. Period.

You can speculate (and I know many will) that Obama picks up a phone and gives orders about what the DOJ will and won't do. And that is possible. But if he's that powerful, why didn't he control the CIA statements better? And if Obama's whitehouse is corrupt, that means every entire dept. is corrupt? Like the Dept. of the Interior and DOD? Can you just pick and choose what you like to see as corrupt? Very sloppy thinking.

But I like the "ironclad" right wing narrative -- it's pretty clever. They either get their indictment or trumpet that they only didn't get what they want b/c of pure corruption. Definitely a "I'll take my version of facts and go home!" approach so typical to our current politics. It sounds like some of them might be painting their retreat already. Seems premature to me.

There is an investigation. After lots of previous investigation and lengthy (too lengthy) hearings with Clinton, the DOJ allegedly does not cite her as a person of interest. Or maybe they do have her as a person of interest and the whitehouse is fibbing about that.

I know AM radio land has had her as the main person of interest in the world for the last year, but AM radio land isn't running the investigation. Let's see what happens.

 

It seems pretty obvious that no answer other than that Hillary Clinton is guilty will appease the critics here. They've already made up their minds.

 

That would be awesome if Obama was made a Justice.

Does this really matter to you? The legal technicality of the timing of confidential markings? It matters, of course, to any legal prosecution. They can't convict her of compromising state secrets if they weren't secret when they were compromised. But for you as a citizen, doesn't it matter that she compromised documents that are now obviously potentially damaging to US interests? I worry too many citizens put their partisan interests above their national interests and resort to legalities to resolve the dissonance.

Still don't understand why you'd think they would.

 

Smoking gun...

 

Yeah, I agree.

I honestly haven't made my mind up. I wish I could see through all the spin on both sides, but I don't have access to deep info, clearly.

Here's what I come up against, from a perspective of logic. Why would a very smart woman who wants to be president carelessly keep classified material on an "unsecured" (? according to AP, or CIA, or a real cyber-security expert? More or less secure than state dept. servers?) server or set of servers?

(1) She's not very smart.
(2) She got sloppy and trusted the wrong IT staffers for advice.
(3) She was involved in such inflammatory conniving deals that she knew she had to hide all these tens of thousands of emails!
(4) She thought this was the best way to circumvent her committed political enemies in congress, who would go through all her stuff. Seems short-sighted.

I can't imagine any other possibilities. I think the political right wants #3 to be true. LOL. I guess I would be on #4 or just maybe #2.

But (1) is maybe believable when you think about how much email she was using anyway. Most people I know in real positions of power send VERY little email. Too many potential headaches. "Picture each one on the front page of every American news site and then decide if you want to send that email." (Good advice I once got, ... though it doesn't keep me from posting exactly!)

 

Im not trying to be snarky here, however if you dont understand what constitutes a secure network/server, then you simply will not understand the rest.

You can get a very small glimpse of what all is taken into consideration for a secure network. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)

One does not simply "opps, LULZ, I accidentally CC'ed this highly sensitive email to suzie on gmail".

If it was a couple emails and some not so sensitive information, it wouldn't be that big of an issue and I could see how someone could hand type in classified information and somehow get lost in an email chain.

When there is TS/SAP information (that in order to view, you must be read onto the program...or in laymans terms, given official permission to have access), it goes beyond negligence. I would find it extremely unlikely that any SAP information would not have been classified before hand.

Which further illustrates why one should never run their own server in the first place.

 

Everything matters. I see things in this way for this particular area.

You think she using a private server is less secure than using a government server? Maybe it is. Maybe it is not. Even if it IS less secure, discovery of her server is harder to obtain than of government servers to high interest capable hackers (China state sponsors hackers for example). I'm not that convince that government server is that much more secure than properly secured private server. (And prior to Obama taking office, there was a real lack of effort to cover up all the vulnerabilities of government system. Obama put a team in his administration to work with security experts to strengthen their network and the private network. This was a real effort lead by high level official working directly with many experts in the industry. I happen to work for one of those expert for a period of time and so have some knowledge of this).

It's more than just legal definition. I don't see why you would punish someone for not knowingly do something, even if that lead to bad results. Intention is important. Even more important than lawfulness in my book.

However, if she knowingly put material marked as restricted to government network on her private server, than she need to be held responsible for it. Law is law.

 

What makes people believe that Mrs. Clinton's server was capable of forwarding such emails?

 

It doesn't matter if the information was "marked" or not, it is pretty clear that she had a policy of removing classification markings when transporting classified information through unclassified methods (which is VERY illegal all around).

If the information was classified previous to transmission, then she committed a felony. If she asked people to take classified data and send it to her through servers that were not secure, it's illegal.

There's really not much of a question IF she broke the law, really it's just how many times did she break the law, how many laws did she break, and is she going to have to pay for it like anyone else would.

This really shouldn't be a partisan issue but since she's the favorite candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, the partisan hacks will rush to defend the defenseless.

 

Exactly correct. Tomorrow she will be persecuted. If she is not, our government is really inept. And you just show that private citizen has much more knowledge than all of Congress put together.

 

She should be prosecuted at some point, if they think they need more time to cross t's and dot i's then fine. That said, given that we KNOW there was classified information on that private server, something that is outright illegal, it would have to be outright corruption to not end up with an indictment.

 

meanwhile people in Flint get lead poisoning and thousands of u.s. soldiers died for nothing fighting a war over fake yellowcake invented by Cheney who walks around like a hero.