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

The people who don't care, don't care because of partisanship....so that means they don't really matter.

I understand that lots of people don't want laws to apply to people of their party, but hopefully more intelligent people will still insist that laws to apply to everyone.

 

No, an "unbiased" person would want to see equal treatment under the law.

Well, and the FBI.

No, even the FBI Director said that other people might face administrative sanctions, but not criminal charges.

Only to biased partisans who don't care about equal treatment under the law.

Seriously? You just took your partisanship and upped it even more. Doubling down on stupid, I see.

Really? So you can show other instances where spouses have been sanctioned through loss of security credentials as a result of their spouse's missteps?

 

The people who care about this witch hunt are the ones allowing their partisan bias to color their opinions. The rest of us believe the FBI Drector who found that there wasn't enough evidence to warrant a prosecution.

The more intelligent among us do indeed insist on equal treatment under the law. Given more egregious violations by previous parties both in the same and at higher levels of power, the lack of an investigation or any indictments in those circumstances clearly point to the fact that charging Clinton would be applying different standards to Democrats than were applied to Republicans just a few short years ago.

 

Agreed, they'd want to see Hillary prosecuted for her crimes. Equal treatment under the law.

The FBI acknowledged that Hillary broke the law, they just stated that no prosecutor would take the case (which is inaccurate) so they weren't going to force the issue.

Well that's factually inaccurate. Anyone who did the same thing Hillary did without the political backing would face charges, have their security clearance revoked, and never be allowed to work for the government again.

But it's Hillary so the rules don't apply.

Only biased partisans who don't care about equal treatment under the law are suggesting that this be ignored. They don't want the law to apply to Hillary because she's a Democrat and because she's running for president. Simple as that.

Yes, seriously. I know you are a partisan hack who has never had anything to do with the intelligence community, but I can tell you that's how it happens.

Of course you'll reject that in favor of your completely ignorant opinion on the matter, but that's why I don't really consider your opinion to be a valid or important one.

I'm not going to show you examples, but yes, security clearances have been denied or revoked due to the actions of spouses. I've seen this personally. I know you'll reject that in favor of your totally ignorant opinion, but....well what I said above.

The people you are married to or affiliated with is taken into consideration when you are being approved or denied for clearance and any new information about the criminality of those you are affiliated with or married to can change your status.

It's just how it is when you aren't a Clinton.

 

Calling this criminal investigation a "witch hunt" implies that there was nothing to find and that's the furthest thing from the truth. If Hillary weren't "too big to prosecute" then she'd likely be doing time for her crimes.

I'm sure you won't acknowledge that because your partisanship prevents it, but if this were about a Republican doing the same thing, you'd agree with me.

 

No, it isn't just partisanship. A lot of people that are not really deeply involved in politics just really don't seem to care either.

 

Nobody has ever been prosecuted with the dearth of evidence present in this case. Equal treatment under the law is Clinton not being prosecuted at least in part because worse violations weren't prosecuted in the past.

No, that's not what the FBI said, try again rookie.

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is information that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,"

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...t-clinton-in-email-probe-225102#ixzz4EJmGwcuh

Not according to the FBI director.

It's Hillary, so the rules apply in the same way as they did to the previous administration.

You're wrong, simple as that. Equal treatment under the law is Hillary facing exactly the same sanctions that Powell, Rice, Cheney, and Bush did for more egregious violations.

As I said, feel free to highlight a case where a person's misdeeds resulted in their spouse being stripped of security clearance. I'm open to believing you, but your word alone is only worth slightly more than that of t_j or bigpuffery, so you'll need to provide evidence.

I'll reject it until you provide evidence, which you have chosen not to do, which leads me to believe that you're the ignorant one.

Because you don't have any.

In the absence of evidence, I will choose not to believe your unfounded speculation, this is absolutely true. However, this has to do with your trustworthiness, which is questionable at best on political topics.

Perhaps you're right, but refusing to show evidence doesn't help your case.

This isn't about being a Clinton, it is about the lack of enough evidence to prosecute.

 

In your opinion. Given that it is the opinion of a biased partisan who refuses to back up his assertions with evidence, I'll take it with a grain of salt the size of a deer lick.

No, I didn't think that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Powell should be prosecuted even though they did much worse.

Note that I'm Libertarian, so if I were a biased partisan, it wouldn't be towards Clinton. I have never voted for a Democrat for president, which makes me a terrible Democrat partisan.

 

So.....they basically said "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, we did find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton and her colleagues violated laws governing the handling of classified information."

Being extremely careless when handling classified information is a crime. Thanks for doing your best partisan rookie.

 

If you're going to argue this strongly about this incident, you need to get your act together. Hillary broke the law. Comey said that couldn't find intent to break the law. He didn't even say that had no evidence either, he said there was no clear evidence.

Jesus dude, read what you post....

 

And before that:

Community Activist!
Bill Ayers!
Reverend Wright!
Medrassa!
Muslims!
Socialist!

Oh wait, that was Barry Hussein Obama they were attempting to demonize. I get them mixed up sometime...

Hey wingers... perhaps coming up with better candidates might be a more successful approach? Just saying...

 

Then other GOP members that did the exact same thing with less secure methods should have. Do you think Cheney, Rice and Powell should be in prison too?

 

If there was any evidence whatsoever that classified material was sent via those methods then I'd be for going after them too. There's not. Also, those corporate emails were more secure because at least they had full time security. The FBI even mentioned this.

If Hillary had used a GMail account, it would have been more secure than her private server.

So anyway, if you have evidence that others committed the same crimes Hillary did, then let's go after them. If you merely have evidence that they used private email then that's not good enough. You have to have evidence that they were as foolish as Hillary to have discussed classified information via those means.

Some people pay attention to InfoSec.

 

For clarity's sake, Hilary's Crime is not using a private email system, it was using a private email system that was not secure enough? So if she had used GMAIL this wouldn't be a scandal?

 

On classified at the time it was sent...

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

 

Her crime was using an unclassified server to send, receive, and store classified information. Had she committed the same crimes and used a Gmail account, it would have been more secure in that at least they'd have full time security so that they'd have a better idea if it was compromised. Basically it's just worse that she broke the law using a private server without a security staff and it's why it's harder to determine if it was compromised or not.

 

No, you made the last part of that up.

Not according to the FBI Director.

You're the partisan and, based on your inability to think or provide evidence, also the rookie.

 

Not enough evidence to prosecute. That's what they found, that's what I've said, repeatedly.

 

Because they deleted 22 million.

Which doesn't change anything about the RNC email server used by Bush, Rice, and Cheney.

And also more secure than the system used by Bush, Rice, and Cheney.

There is no more evidence for this than there is for Clinton's email. That's why there won't be prosecutions in any of these cases.

Which we will never have because they deleted more than 20 million emails.

And you're not one of them.

 

The same "crime" that is somewhere between possible and likely for Rice, Powell, Bush, and Cheney to have engaged in, but won't ever be able to know for sure because they deleted the evidence.

Which is worse?

1. Using a private email server to send and/or receive seven email chains that might have been classified, then cooperating fully with authorities in their investigation for possible criminal prosecution.

2. Using a private email server with the same potential for classified material, then deleting tens of millions of emails so that there wouldn't be any evidence of wrongdoing.

If you chose 1, your partisan bias is showing.