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

Yep

More bad judgment by Clinton..

She has no idea what's in these emails and she is demanding they are released. The FBI put a statement out that they need to check the emails for classified material

You would have thought she would have learned her lesson the first go around by carelessly handling classified material.. now she is showing her carelessness again smh

Trump said he will release right after his audit

 

The FBI almost never announces an investigation into someone and certainly never around election time. Comey is a partisan hack it's disgusting.

 

If you seriously think Trump is going to release tax returns after an audit when he has been able to release tax returns this entire time, then you're sadly delusional

Now, on Clinton- if Clinton says, "I don't want to discuss the emails"- then it's "She's hiding something."
If Clinton says, "I don't want those emails revealed- again "She's hiding something."
If Clinton says, "I want those emails revealed- it's "She wants the FBI to reveal classified info."
If Clinton says, "I did nothing wrong." it's "Well, she's lying."

So, which is it? Which of those 4 is the correct response? Because whichever one you pick, dozens of other Trump supporters are going to cackle one of those subsequent quotes.

This is why partisan politics on both sides is disgusting.

 

Oh, it's no point arguing with them anymore. You just have to resign yourself to the fact that we all have to deal with this again for 4 years. It's going to be a year-over-year-over-year-over-year barrage of negative crap. Best to just get used to it and ignore.

 

ROFL.

I'm pretty sure your side was praising Comey from July 7th right up till yesterday.

You want someone to blame for this mess? Stick with Hillary. Comey...as much as he sucked at his job up to this point is not your problem.

 

LOL, if he really was then he'd have done his job and recommended indictment for the crimes they discovered Hillary was guilty of. I guess if you aren't covering up for her 100% of the time it makes one a "partisan hack"

 

Comey ****ed this up. He hasn't even seen the emails. They dont know if these are duplicates. They were afraid of leaks.....but wait til u actually see the emails.

 

Absolutely did not praise him. His statements were more damaging than a possible ensuing legal action. The American public has no way of knowing exactly what type of classified emails were sent, how they were marked, etc. The right thing to do would have been to go to criminal proceedings. Same with Trump. You can't take the word of those 11 women alone and judge him guilty. Too many people have been accused of crimes they haven't committed.

What is truly appalling is the smugness on both side when sentencing either of these two candidates on accusations. Without a formal trial, there is literally no way of knowing fully the email situation. Without a formal trial, there is no way of getting to the truth of what Donald Trump allegedly did to those women. Both of these candidates have a right to a fair trial when being accused of crimes- and if they don't get it, I don't see how you can hold them responsible- again, this goes for Trump as well as Clinton. Both situations should fall under the banner of "innocent until proven guilty."

 

It seems like Hillary is trying hard to make everyone hate her more than Trump. It's like some sort of sick competition.

 

The emails were not to or from Clinton. But the FBI was so afraid of republican backlash, they were being overly cautious by notifying Congress without really accessing the emails. The content probably have NOTHING to do with Clinton. WOW.

 

But she wasn't guilty of a crime. You can state your opinion over and over and over, but you doing so does not make it true. I can state my opinion over and over and over, but my doing so does not make it true.

And the legal experts are split:

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/we-...e-legal-expert-say-clinton-committed-a-crime/

So the only conclusion we can reach is that her being guilty of a crime is up to one's opinion.

 

That's flatly untrue. If convicted of what she was obviously guilty of, mishandling classified information, she'd potentially see jail time or at minimum probation along with being ineligible to hold office, any office, in the government ever again. I'd say that's more damaging than simply saying that she was reckless while allowing her to claim that she did nothing wrong due to no indictment.

 

According to the laws on the books, she absolutely was. Just because her political connections make her immune to prosecution doesn't mean that she didn't break the law.

 

What goes through your head when you read the following sentence:

"Release the Goldman-Sachs Speech Transcripts"

I'm just curious. You have some truly bizarre posts. But my curiosity is officially piqued.

 

I'm now officially convinced that you are a computer program.

 

According to the laws on the books, she was not guilty of a crime.

 

That she should have released the transcripts. Do you find it bizarre that I expect both candidates to adhere to the same degree of transparency?

 

I can accept that you are ignorant as to the relevant law.....most likely willfully so due to partisanship.

 

Yes, but that would be completely fair- you commit a crime, you are indicted, you are either convicted or acquitted. Either I believe that Clinton and Trump are both guilty of criminal acts, or I believe they are not b/c they have not been put on trial.

If she's guilty, then let's see the emails. If you're going to say, "well, they can't reveal that b/c they'd be revealing classified information," then we are supposed to take the word of the FBI verbatim without any proof? I mean, no offense, but the whole thing's very spotty to begin with. As with Trump, we want answers. If you're going to accuse Clinton of passing along classified information, then let's see some type of proof- like the actual C marking and blotting out the rest. If you're going to accuse Trump of sexual assault, where's the proof? Am I supposed to take their word verbatim? I think in both instances, we tread a very fine line of guilty until proven innocent- from both candidates.