No, that following of proper protocol means she was well aware of what proper protocol was, which disqualifies the “honest mistake, Guv” defense others are putting out. She knew what she was doing wasn’t supposed to happen, and she did it anyway.
Yes, I’m sure; after all, lawyer are not famous for precision in their actions.
Yeah, it says that I’m tired to be lied to. “The other side” is full of liars and crooks (of which the current candidate is a splendid example), why do we have to put up with this shit “on this side” as well? The corporatist Third Way failed over 15 years ago, why do we still have to put up with it and the liars who peddle it?
Another wrinkle. I agree with you, but everything I’ve read notes that the USG overclassifies to an extreme degree such that they’re hiding things that don’t necessarily need hiding, so I’m not shocked to find a small amount of “lowly classified” info in the email. In addition, the FBI themselves didn’t see a need for prosecution–and if that set of lunatic lawyercops says there’s nothing worth prosecuting in her email, I’m willing to take their word on it in this case.
While I don’t agree with removing Abedin, I agree with the rest of your statement.
So…we’re lucky if we’re in a “heap of some very nasty smelling garbage for the next 4 years”? Does that mean if trump is elected then we’ll miss the nasty smelling garbage? Is the garbage actually related to political theory or is the garbage a metaphor for life or are you simply expecting Americans to generate more, smellier, waste products than we have before 2016? Or is the US in a heap of “nasty smelling garbage” right now, despite the election? You do say the garbage thing is a “…fact”, can you tell me exactly how much garbage we’re talking about?
Yet drumpf gets away with his mail servers still running on windows 2003? Has anyone kicked up a stink about that in the news media as a riposte to this non-story? Anywhere? We all know how well government i.t. projects turn out for everyone.
Okay “mistake” I think we can admit at this point that nothing Hillary Does is not calculated and with reason, bad or good. I think even you would have to admit that or face ridicule for saying that your champion is capable of mistakes of such magnitude.
Now that we kicked that idea to the curb lets go with “poorly explained”. Since Hillary and her campaign were attempting at first to deny any wrongdoing at all, then faced with the 30k emails deleted, you know because every women has 30k emails about yoga and grandkids, had to admit the truth. It’s certainly not easy to explain how you knowingly violated the law and how you took it upon yourself to determine which of your emails were work and which were personal. See this is why we are forced to use TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SERVERS even at my level so that we cannot mix up personal with work emails as well as for security.
Keep in mind the same woman who put our nations most important emails on a completely insecure server, wants to take on the most secretive data this nation has under her wing. Though FBI Coney did a half assed job at best to investigate her, violating many of our agency rules in the process, he was clear that what she did constituted a clear lack of judgement and was a gross mark of incompetence. If that doesn’t disqualify her from officer nothing would. You may be attempting to elect the first president who could easily be denied a Federal Security Clearance. by law.
The biggest problem I see is the cavalier attitude towards classified information. This might not be entirely Clinton’s fault, as the Department of State has had a reputation for being sloppy with such matters. Under the DoD, you get briefings yearly on protocol for handling classified information. This includes the fact that it is up to the person handling the information to understand what should be classified.
Clinton has used the excuse that emails were not marked as classified, when it would have been her responsibility to mark them as such. The more recent dodge has been that she left it to her staff to make that determination. Both of these statements go completely against how classified information is supposed to work. James Comey made the statement that the handling of classified information through Clinton’s private server was “irresponsible” but refused to make it a legal case, stating there was no precedent. In all likelihood, he was reluctant due to the number of State Department employees who would wind up being prosecuted if the precedent was set. (That and not wanting to influence a presidential election.)
srsly, though - of you 5 following sentences countaining several noun phrases, which 1 was the 1 simple fact? If there is more than 1 fact, could you rank them in order of complexity?
If you had read the article in question, you would know that the home server has no effect on FOIA and that using State email wouldn’t have changed the procedure in any way.
If you had read the article in question, you would know that she did not break any rules and was not caught doing so, because there was nothing to be caught for.
[quote=“wrecksdart, post:89, topic:88213, full:true”]
In addition, the FBI themselves didn’t see a need for prosecution–and if that set of lunatic lawyercops says there’s nothing worth prosecuting in her email, I’m willing to take their word on it in this case.[/quote]
I am, too. As noted above, she shouldn’t be prosecuted. This goes more to her own culture of secrecy (she’s as prone to over-classification of info as the government) and to the people she hires. The paranoia is justified to a certain extent in the context of her history with right-wing attacks, but she hides even the most innocuous stuff (e.g the Goldman Sachs speeches) and damages herself in the process.
[quote=“wrecksdart, post:89, topic:88213, full:true”]
While I don’t agree with removing Abedin, I agree with the rest of your statement.[/quote]
Abedin was responsible for recommending this IT “genius.” Do we really need someone who’s demonstrated such bad judgment in a senior White House position? That’s before we get to her staying married to Weiner way past his sell-by date for political reasons.
But hey, she’s loyal, just like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Podesta. All will be rewarded with posts despite contributing to two needlessly embarrassing incidents for Clinton during this election.
As the article in question clearly noted, the vast majority of the “classified” emails were classified after the fact. In addition, the FBI investigation was very clear that they were criticizing her for emails she sent or received.
Even the most cursory rational thought should make it clear that if you were to investigate basically anyone in this position, you’d make the same criticism. Also note that if someone were to forward a New York Times article on Snowden, she would again be “receiving classified mterials.”
Also, the classification of the emails is a completely irrelevant red herring with respect to her using a private email server. Again as the article noted, classified information is not to be sent in email, period, regardless of whether the server runs at State or yahoo.com. You have to use one of a number of special secured systems for various forms of classified information, which she did.
I wonder if anyone has ever calculated the cost of all the investigations conducted to find something against Bill and Hillary. That’s got to be a big, fat number. I’d love to see an illustration that explains how much money was spent vs. how much dirt was found. If I didn’t have to fix dinner, I’d go and look for it. Screw dinner, Mr. Jilly can deal with that. I’m going to look now.
