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

I have not seen any legitimate source for Hillary having done what you are accusing her of here.

Clinton's IT company has stated her server was not wiped and no effort was ever made to wipe it. So how do you make this accusation again?

 

That's one theory, however since I'm not a Republican suggesting that my stubborn insistence that the law be followed is somehow "partisan" is laughable.

I guess you see what you want to see. I mean, some people realize that the information was classified and that it was deleted and the FBI had to recover it, some stand by their woman and insist there was no wrongdoing. Whatever gets you off man.

 

You claimed she "wiped" her server or attempted to. That did not happen. That is factually backed-up by the IT company.

You are the one making stuff up here, and seeing what there is no evidence around. It shows your bias bobby!

 

SMH, I guess it just depends on your definition of "wiped", if it means that you delete everything off of a server, then yes, she did exactly that. If it means specifically to have it professionally done, then no I guess she didn't.

Most people would consider deleting all information off of a server to be "wiping" it.

 

Like, with a cloth?

 

Its all fine and dandy to post bullet points, but what are the sources? Journalism has been reduced to tabloid gossip.

As for bullet point 4, which is the only relevant point, did the FBI investigators state this or someone else like the State Dept or Hillary? If the FBI stated this, then it is time to move on.

If the lawyer of an alleged murderer publicly stated his party did not commit the crime, does it make him innocent?

 

I agree with you 100% in that post. What I posted, as I said, was an op-ed, so it's not journalism (not that there's any journalism left anyway). I don't know the answer to your question (FBI or State Dept) but I agree it's important.

 

Colin Powell has said he used a private email to get official business and also some of those emails were classified after the fact.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/secr...al-private-email-state-dept/story?id=37404084

She hasn't even been charged yet so these aren't felonies. If there is an indictment and conviction then yes she did commit felonies. At the moment neither have come true. She's apologized for poor judgement which I agree it was very poor.

I will agree with that in principle and even though I'm supporting Clinton I do think this is an issue that goes to judgement. In practice though I haven't seen anything that has greatly compromised national security. Also since we know that the PRC has hacked official servers not sure if even if she had only used though if the info would've been safer.

So far what has come out is that things were classified after the fact. Also Colin Powell did similar things and like Clinton has contested that the info that was in his emails should've been classified or that he did anything wrong.

No proof that she knowingly did. You can't accuse her of having traveled back in time so that she knew what info would be classified in the future.

Once again your opinion that she broke the law isn't fact. The FBI is doing it's job investigating a situation where there might've been potential malfeasance. Many investigations though have gone no where or even exonerated the subject(s).

Not exactly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...bb6ab2-e15e-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

[rquoter]It could mean that Pagliano, concerned about his legal exposure, might implicate others, including Clinton. But it also could be an indication that agents and prosecutors are winding down an inquiry that will not result in charges, said Justin Shur, a former deputy chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section who now works in private practice at the MoloLamken firm.

“I don’t know that I would necessarily jump to the conclusion that this person has ‘flipped,’ and now they’re going to say a bunch of incriminating things about other people,” Shur said, adding that the agents could simply be making sure they have spoken to everyone relevant to the investigation.[/rquoter]


Finally to say this is worse than Watergate is ridiculous. For one while Clinton was Secretary of State she wasn't the President. By the time impeachment proceedings were beginning against Nixon arrest had already been made. Nothing like that has happened in this case.

Watergate was both an actual direct crime and coverup. The most that can be said about Email-gate is that there was a crime of negligence and poor judgement than an intentional crime.

 

No, wiping means erasing all evidence from a hard drive. Deleting means just deleting an email from your inbox - which is what you typically do on a day to day basis.

Deleting an email from your inbox is not a crime. There is still a record of it until you wipe it. The FBI recovered deleted emails from the server when she handed it over to them. There was no crime committed.

Saying it depends on your definition of "wiped" just goes to show you don't know what you are talking about. There is only one definition of what that means. Please please please I beg you to just be objective a bit more and less reckless in your accusations - don't be a partisan!

 

I might be able to buy this if there wasn't Top Secret SCI information (I know it's redundant to say it that way) on the server, that stuff is inherently classified and she'd have known that.

Also, I think we're getting bogged down in terminology here. When people say that the emails weren't classified at the time, that doesn't mean that the information wasn't classified when the email was written or received, it just means that the email itself wasn't marked classified. There's an important difference there. The SCI stuff for example, the information itself would have ALWAYS been classified, putting that classified information in an unclassified email doesn't change that. If that unclassified email is discovered, it would later be classified, but that doesn't mean that the information wasn't classified before that time.

 

SMH okay, I'll play this game with you. The FBI requested the servers, they "deleted" all of the information off of that server before handing it over but didn't do a professional job. That's still illegal. Also, her emails were the target of numerous FOIA requests that she knew about yet she deleted them anyway, that's illegal....even though she did a bad job of it.

I honestly don't know if you are playing stupid about this or if it really is the best you can do, but it's not very productive. The server technically had no information on it when the FBI received it, literally everything had been deleted. This isn't "deleting" something from your Yahoo mail, this was deleting all of the information on your entire computer. Are you following better now?

 

Also, chill with the stupid accusations of partisanship for starter's I'm not a Republican and second I'm likely voting for Hillary in this election if she's allowed to run and Trump wins the Republican nomination. You just make yourself look like an idiot with that nonsense.

 

Whats wrong with you? How long have you been here? If you disagree with someone, clearly they belong to the other parties view.

 

She has of yet done nothing illegal - that has been stated clearly. What she did was unusual, but not illegal. You are making up laws? Why?

Deleting the emails from a server is not the same as wiping it. The FBI recovered the emails. They were handed over. You act like she intentionally deleted the emails and then handed it over to the FBI thinking they couldn't get them. I think it's pretty safe to say that she is far smarter than this. Clearly she was up to something in setting up her personal email server, she wanted to circumvent the ability of Republicans to go after her. She was definitely unwise and political in how she did it - it is something that should be frowned upon - but again, she hasn't done anything illegal to date.

Well when you play from the partisan playbook then yes, you are a partisan. Forget the facts and attack based on blogs - great!

The things that were classified that they people are crying about is email conversations about a NEWSPAPER article about drones. It's so silly.

 

SMH kiddo, you do realize that there are literally thousands of classified emails....in your world, you think they are all about a newspaper article. That's just special.

You keep repeating that she hasn't done anything illegal, but that's just factually inaccurate. They've released an article where she instructed people to remove classification from a document and send it though unclassified means....even asking someone to do that is illegal. This is yet another issue where you simply don't know what the hell you are talking about.

 

Could we get an in depth technical discussion of the term "wiping" please?

 

Front to back or back to front?

 

When the guy who set up HILLARY'S SERVER is given immunity from prosecution, thats a pretty big sign they are interested in HILLARY'S SERVER and what role she had in setting this up.

If it wasn't illegal, or at the VERY least some serious possibility of something illegal being done they simply wouldn't spend the time investigating it.

People don't get immunity from prosecution unless they expect to get information from that person that allows them to build a bigger case against someone else...in this case Hillary.

 

Unsurprising. The right is going to load up the ammo no matter what, but that's just the type of thing your status quo politician does so you shouldn't be surprised. It's a classic, typical dirty politician trick and Hillary would be doing the same thing if it benefitted her in any way.

 

I would argue that the "typical dirty politician trick" is a politician under criminal investigation by the FBI spinning the situation into being nothing more than political rivals playing politics....