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

Granville, seriously. If I'm supposed to sit here and think that the whole FBI knows less than a couple of very confident posters on here, than historians of government and data security who have exhaustively gone through past precedent and how confusing this realm truly is, then... no... I am honestly not better than that.

I trust scholars more than the opinions of posters here, no matter how strident. And I trust the bottom line from the WaPo more than any posters here too.

"The analysis raises difficult questions about how the government treats sensitive information. It suggests that either material is being overclassified, as Clinton and her allies have charged, or that classified material is being handled improperly with regularity by government officials at all levels — or some combination of the two."

I will never achieve the expertise of the people who study this stuff for a living. I won't pretend to, and I don't want to do so. Occam's razor suggests to me that a random anonymous poster does *not* trump (doh! that word!) the scholarly and carefully reported stories on this issue.

So I'll stop making fun of Bobby vs. FBI, but I think I've made my point. Cheers. God bless this country. We need it.

 

The piece that Txtony linked to doesn't say or prove what you are saying.

 

Well said B-Bob.

I'm not going to pretend expertise in this issue and will admit there's certainly a possibility that Clinton did commit malfeasance and get's indicted.
If that happens I will say I'm wrong.

There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion and arguing it. That said with many posters they frequently argue their own opinion as fact and often without providing supporting material.

 

You know what I think - based on the fact that she hasn't been accused of committing a crime and the FBI has stated she is not under investigation - I think the real reason people want access to her emails isn't to see whether the information was classified or not, but rather to find something embarrassing to use against her.

This is all this whole thing is - just about finding a way to ruin her, nothing more.

 

The problem with that is that it is a strawman argument. No one is suggesting that they know better than the FBI, I'm 100% sure they know everything that I've said given that what I have said is based on things already released to the public. The problem is that you are trying to spin the situation because partisanship is the only thing that matters to you.

If they didn't know those things, there wouldn't be an ongoing investigation into the issue.

Removing classification headings or asking someone to remove classification headings from documents is illegal. There is solid and conclusive evidence that happened and that evidence is public record. There's no way you can spin that.

Of course I know it doesn't matter to you, similar to the Trump Cultists, Hillary could walk out into the middle of a crowed street and murder a toddler live on national television and you'd bend over backwards trying to defend the action. Hillary and Trump are two sides of the same coin and so are their apologists.

 

So we agree, you are better than that.

The Washington Post is doing nothing but taking a big guess too. The crux of Clinton's defense isn't that material is overclassified. Her excuse is that is wasn't classified when she received it. Bobby and other have frequently pointed out that's not the problem here. You just want to ignore the actual problem for Clinton. As far as the article you posted, there are dozens you could find that say the opposite. You chose to believe things that minimize her shady at best actions.

Based on the video I posted of a nervous Sid Blumenthal, the Clinton camp is going to stick with the latter excuse that WaPo is throwing out.

 

what if the toddler has a history of fighting and attacked first and got unlucky to mess up with the wrong person?

 

I'm pretty sure the Hillary apologists would try and spin it that way, wouldn't be any more ridiculous than how they've handled this thus far.

 

Well thats how u spinned trayvon right

 

No, Trayvon wasn't an infant and describing that incident as an assault gone wrong by a budding criminal that ended up costing him his life is just an accurate portrayal of the events. Accurate portrayals of events being different than spin.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PS0I_bjfA1Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

The Secretary of State of the most powerful country in the world conducted US business with emails out of a server in her house...

This crap about classification is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that this is kind of activity is so stupid and so careless as to be enough to disqualify her for a position that would put her in charge of the worlds most powerful military. This woman doesn't care one bit about this country and has proven by her own actions that her own ability to protect herself and her career is more important than the safety and security of our nation. She is not fit, deserving or qualified to be POTUS.

If Hilary is elected president she will prove this to all of us before she is done.

 

Trump.

 

Pretty much like the Secretary of States before her.

 

Absolutely useless and ridiculous post but completely expected from somebody like yourself.

Not true at all, she is the first ever (to get caught at least) to use a private un-secured email server.

 

The problem is that there isn't an viable candidate running against her so while I agree that she's not fit, deserving, or qualified to be POTUS, she's more fit, deserving, and qualified than who she's running against.

If there was even a halfway acceptable alternative running against her, I think she'd lose pretty handily. Unfortunately in this election you have a life long Democrat who is a disgusting POS or Hillary. That's your options.

 

Diarrhea or explosive diarrhea?

How much of a difference really? Both still diarrhea when you analyze it.

 

(1) We don't agree. I've made what I consider a valid point that you don't like and your response was that I'm "better than that."

(2) Here you equate the WaPo's reporting to your own knowledge of the case and your own knowledge past precedent. That's equating arguably the most experienced political reporting editors and staff in the nation -- a group of people working full-time on this -- to what you can glean from the internet and/or cable news, second hand, in your spare time. I don't think that's a good idea, but I understand that people tend to just discount any media outlet that does not support their views these days, even reputable ones.

I wish for an America where we can agree on some basis of careful facts without falling to strident conclusions (e.g. "she belongs in jail" or "she did nothing wrong" in this case).

Here, to my reading, is a balanced filleting of two different cases with similarities and differences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/24/why-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-petraeus-leak-are-not-really-alike/

But I know what you think of the WaPo.

 

Keep your personal life out of this forum.

 

At least Trump is an unknown as a politician. I know you hate Trump and I have similar sentiments towards him but he is not Hilary and that is enough. What difference is it to you that he is a lifelong Democrat since you claim no party affiliation? Considering all the people that seem to die around the Clintons and the way Hilary has treated women I think you could classify her in the disgusting POS category too.

Hilary Clinton was unfit to be SOS which proves she is unfit to be POTUS.

I don't think there is any line she wouldn't cross to be POTUS.