New Release of Clinton Emails Included 150 Classified.

[timinatoria]

Only when views through the delirium of a brainwashed wingnut mind.

You're the biggest joke hack on this board. Keep posting though, it's a fascinating peek into the warped liberal mind.

 

[BubsFinn]

If anyone not named Clinton had handled classified information in this manner, they'd be in federal prison by now.

 

[Vroom_C14]

If she is this mentally inept at handling email as SoS, how the frank can you have an ounce of faith with her as potus. Seriously concerned for the well being of some in this country that are so blind.

 

[YellowSnow51]

 

[plmac9]

This story is getting old. If all the GOP has against Hillary are private emails that still haven't shown illegal activity, they're in trouble. All you hear with the Republicans is that Hillary did something illegal, but they never actually get around to proving it. Par for the course for the GOP.

I didn't know the GOP was running the investigation.

 

[73chief]

You stated:

David Patraeus was prosecuted and plead guilty for keeping his personal calendar during his time at the CIA locked in his desk drawer. The calendar contained the names of 5 individuals who's identities were considered classified.

If he gave them to somebody else, is he actually being prosecuted just for keeping them in a locked desk drawer?

Yes. The moment he moved the information from a secure location he was in violation and committed a felony.

 

[73chief]

This is an example of why I don't really trust anything that you post to be correct. Every article I've read on this says he gave her more than just a calendar.

I really don't give a shit what you think. He gave her his calendar of events so she could use it as a time line for research for her book. In the calendar, there names of individuals who's identity was classified, which triggered the felony. this is what he was ultimately prosecuted on and plead to. there may have been other documents, but they were not part of the prosecution.

 

[LifelongHawk]

One thing is for sure. People that wouldn't ever vote for Ms. Clinton have a reason to not vote for Ms. Clinton.

 

[73chief]

Is an honest mistake always gross negligence?

It is my understanding that "gross negligence" has a very low legal standard and does not require intent. So the way it has been explained to me is that an honest mistake would be considered "gross negligence"

 

[73chief]

Yeah, I already read that. You still have no proof Hillary broke any of the rules under this law. You still haven't proven gross negligence, loss of documents, of failing to produce documents upon request. Did you even read this law? Your post suggests that you haven't.

LOL. Stupid, simple, and slow.

 

[theiacowtipper]

I'm thinking there's a lot of misunderstanding in this thread. There are really two things being discussed.

1. Was Hillary was using her private email for official business, talking shop, however you want to call it? As long as there was nothing classified being shared or being talked about, this is no big deal. Irregular? Maybe, but nothing illegal or outrageous.

2. Did Hillary have classified material on her email server? This is a MAJOR no no and should be, sounds like it is, investigated and charges brought if she did have it on her non-secured email server. I would say the same about anyone, Powell, Rice, Bush, Obama, whoever. If you have classified material stored in a non-secured environment, at minimum you are guilty of immense stupidity and should lose your job immediately. If you knew if was classified and did nothing to protect it, you belong in jail.

I haven't seen this discussed yet in all the discussion about the private server. It is my understanding that classified information should never have been sent via email. State Department email or private email. If that's the case would she have set the private email up with the assumption that no classified info would get to it?

 

[Lone Clone]

I haven't seen this discussed yet in all the discussion about the private server. It is my understanding that classified information should never have been sent via email. State Department email or private email. If that's the case would she have set the private email up with the assumption that no classified info would get to it?

I think your understanding is incorrect.

 

[Lone Clone]

Chief...that is a CHEAP shot, buddyboy. Are you the new "coff" now? You put things out here that seem awfully simple and I learned a long, long time ago, things are seldom simple and things are seldom what they seem. Do you KNOW what is happening here? I seriously doubt it.
Perhaps Ms. Clinton committed a criminal act. Perhaps she didn't. You don't know and I don't know. And, the media doesn't know either. In fact, right now, Congress doesn't know. The reason this story is a story at the present is because Hilary is running for POTUS ands appears to be the frontrunner, and the GOP HATES her.
If she's guilty, so be it. The Courts will settle this one way or the other. But to call folks names because they have a different opinion than yours is a bit more than childish and way below your usual additions to this board.
I am just curious Chief...If Hilary is exonerated, will you apologize publicly here?

I am curious about something, myself. Seriously, do you and the other Hillary defenders realize that the committees in the House and Senate, led by Republicans, are not the primary investigators here? That probes are being conducted by the FBI and by the State Department's Inspector General? And that the Clinton aide responsible for setting up the server refused to talk to those investigators, too?

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

I am curious about something, myself. Seriously, do you and the other Hillary defenders realize that the committees in the House and Senate, led by Republicans, are not the primary investigators here? That probes are being conducted by the FBI and by the State Department's Inspector General? And that the Clinton aide responsible for setting up the server refused to talk to those investigators, too?

Reading your last post LC...I can only conclude that you are racist, no wait...a homophobe...umm, just a minute...a wingnut listening to the echo chamber...check that...you hate women. Yeah, that's it...you hate women. Whew, did I cover all the bases there?

Now, what was it that you said?

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

This story is getting old. If all the GOP has against Hillary are private emails that still haven't shown illegal activity, they're in trouble. All you hear with the Republicans is that Hillary did something illegal, but they never actually get around to proving it. Par for the course for the GOP.

You're one of three things:
1. A sycophant
2. A shill
3. The dumbest freaking person ever known.

Maybe you're all three.

 

[DanL53]

Incredible. Petraeus was found guilty of a misdemeanor. But a poster refers to what Petraeus did as a felony. That's a major slip there when we are talking about tight wire type definitions of whether Hillary Clinton did anything illegal or not.

And, in a discussion where "gross negligence" is being tossed out with the twin accusation of just being stupid, shouldn't the info given be accurate?

I would strongly recommend, and since this is basically becoming another right vs left argument, that the right try very hard to be accurate as your credibility has already been shot down by such ignoble crusades as the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and "Birthers". (Just to mention a couple)

You, the right, have put what's left of any reason to actually listen to you on trial once again with this latest round of leaping to conclusions.

(And no, I'm not "left", I'm about as moderate and middle as one can get.)

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Incredible. Petraeus was found guilty of a misdemeanor. But a poster refers to what Petraeus did as a felony. That's a major slip there when we are talking about tight wire type definitions of whether Hillary Clinton did anything illegal or not.

And, in a discussion where "gross negligence" is being tossed out with the twin accusation of just being stupid, shouldn't the info given be accurate?

I would strongly recommend, and since this is basically becoming another right vs left argument, that the right try very hard to be accurate as your credibility has already been shot down by such ignoble crusades as the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and "Birthers". (Just to mention a couple)

You, the right, have put what's left of any reason to actually listen to you on trial once again with this latest round of leaping to conclusions.

(And no, I'm not "left", I'm about as moderate and middle as one can get.)

Hillary was the original birther. she started it. so was her credibility shot down?

 

[DanL53]

Hillary was the original birther. she started it. so was her credibility shot down?

OiT, don't fall for the stuff:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ct-check-clinton-cruz-trump-birther/29631903/

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

well, dan, usa today would be considered a communist leftist democrat rag in my book, so I generally would not "fall for the stuff" they print

 

[DanL53]

well, dan, usa today would be considered a communist leftist democrat rag in my book, so I generally would not "fall for the stuff" they print

Ok, you've every right to believe that. Of course, I think you are dead wrong and Trump and Cruz are laughing at you for being their puppet.