- Joined
- Mar 7, 2006
- Messages
- 24,681
- Reaction score
- 51,098
That's an odd comment given the reality of the situation. It's more accurate to say that someone as high up as Clinton who has run afoul of the GOP hit squad can seemingly have any mundane action presented as a scandal.
Last I checked she had her aids remove markings on materials to send them, which is illegal.She didn't even do anything illegal, though. I don't think they'd throw a low-level civilian contractor in jail for threatening Republicans' right to the presidency.
Depends on how much they know or had access to. If they legitimately have no useful knowledge, they have nothing to worry about. If they do, lie about it. If they get busted for Perjury, they'll get a presidential pardon eventually.
Last I checked she had her aids remove markings on materials to send them, which is illegal.
She also appeared to have SAP files on her server which is illegal. So unless new contradictory has come out she has broken the law.
It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," Fallon told CBS News' Nancy Cordes.
And State Department spokesperson John Kirby said Friday that it is not uncommon for non-classified documents to be crafted and shared on the classified system.
Further, according to the Associated Press, the State Department said a review showed that the document in question was sent "apparently by secure fax, after all," and was never was sent to Clinton by email.
On top of that at least 22 of those emails have since been changed to Top Secret. Which means she was sending files that should have been treated with better security. At the very least she is irresponsible with sensitive materials and that's not a good quality for the leader of our armed forces.
Why was it bad?
That's true if you're assuming that everything that is marked "top secret" is actually sensitive material, which is, to say the least, not a safe assumption. And, more importantly, you've shifted from arguing that she's only not getting imprisoned for stuff because of how high-profile she is to arguing that you think that she's not a good leader. That's a debatable point (particularly as "good quality for the leader ..." is entirely subjective), but not one I'm interested in. The fact that you so quickly made that shift indicates to me that your thought process goes "Clinton = bad" ==> (rationalization), which is fine (you don't even need the rationalization! Don't strain yourself). I was just pointing out that your claim that someone running for major office can get away with stuff that ordinary people can't is the opposite of the truth.
She didn't even do anything illegal, though. I don't think they'd throw a low-level civilian contractor in jail for threatening Republicans' right to the presidency.
Well according to this Judge that Bill Clinton appointed, has said there is reasonable suspicion, that this private server prevented freedom of information act requests that Clinton is required to abide by as a government official.
Now that is a reasonable concern. You have to keep in mind that at the time there were not rules or laws that said she could not use a private server. Now they would have to prove that information requested was not produced, or deleted.
Interesting how you deride poor conservatives for voting against their own interests.
But now that the Dems are selling out their constituents for the big banks, it's fair play. If you make less than $1M a year, Hilary is not looking out for your interests. Period.
Agreed, part of this story is that Clinton herself, and the remainder of her E-mails may end up being subpoena'd, as well.
This becomes a very interesting question, if Clinton can not provide the deleted e-mails.
???
Wait, what?
First week and I already stumped the biggest troll on here.
First week and I already stumped the biggest troll on here.
Um, congratulations?
While she didn't do anything illegal in using a personal account--stupid on State's part--if she ended up receiving or sending classified material via that account she could still be in trouble as such would count as mishandling of material.She didn't even do anything illegal, though.
What we're seeing is a first-world political party trying to take out political opponents with trumped up charges. I would expect decent conservatives to stand up against that kind of thing, but failing that, I'd at least expect alleged left-leaning folks not to cheer it on.
Jack, you are openly accusing the FBI of political partisanship, to the point of breaking the law. Going after a Presidential candidate, and former SoS, in the name of a political witch hunt, is something I think you actually need to back up.
While she didn't do anything illegal in using a personal account--stupid on State's part--if she ended up receiving or sending classified material via that account she could still be in trouble as such would count as mishandling of material.
Not really. The charges that she's done something illegal are not coming from the FBI.