Put a fork in Hillary...she is finished as viable candidate

On the inside wrote:

There are no requirements to turn over personal emails for classification.

We are not talking personal emails. She had all her State Dept. emails on her private server in the barn at her home. We are talking ALL her emails. She has to submit EVERY official email to the State Dept. so they can classify them. That is the law.

SAlly V wrote:

stats on stats wrote:

And as I pointed out, Petraeus wasn't convicted for merely "having" confidential information.

You are correct. He got 2 years probation for sharing the classified info with his biographer

What will Hillary get for sharing classified information with her lawyer on the thumb drives?

not libtarded wrote:

SAlly V wrote:

You are correct. He got 2 years probation for sharing the classified info with his biographer

What will Hillary get for sharing classified information with her lawyer on the thumb drives?

Elected

Sally V wrote:

On the inside wrote:

There are no requirements to turn over personal emails for classification.

We are not talking personal emails. She had all her State Dept. emails on her private server in the barn at her home. We are talking ALL her emails. She has to submit EVERY official email to the State Dept. so they can classify them. That is the law.

Make up your mind; you say we're not talking personal emails, then say we are talking about ALL of her emails.

Look I'll try to make this so simple that even you can understand it...emails sent to her personal server are considered personal emails under the law. Get it?

On the inside wrote:

Sally V wrote:

We are not talking personal emails. She had all her State Dept. emails on her private server in the barn at her home. We are talking ALL her emails. She has to submit EVERY official email to the State Dept. so they can classify them. That is the law.

Make up your mind; you say we're not talking personal emails, then say we are talking about ALL of her emails.

Look I'll try to make this so simple that even you can understand it...emails sent to her personal server are considered personal emails under the law. Get it?

Thanks for keeping it simple. I guess you don't realize that she only had ONE server for both her personal and private emails. She did not have a personal server for her personal emails. Do you not understand this? They were both on the same server. That server is not hers. It is yours, it is mine and it is the property of every other US taxpaying citizen. She does not have the right to decide which email was personal, which was work-related. Some could be both. But, she does not get to decide. Again, every classified email on that server was classified regardless of whether it was marked as classified. The content of the email determines if it is classified. She does not decide.

Of course it matters. Someone in passive receipt of documents which weren't marked classified is, in the real world, going to be treated very differently than someone who purposefully secures, and knowingly distributes classified information.

Not sure why you're sticking up for Petraeus. I get the not liking Hillary part. but don't get ahead of the facts. Time will tell if there's more on her server. Arguments against her will carry have the weight of evidence behind them then. Petraeus on the other hand is known to have distributed top secret classified info (and bodily fluids) to his mistress / biographer.

Again, there are 3 levels of Classified Information:

1) Confidential - the lowest level - and what Petraeus was engaged in.

2) Secret - the 2nd highest.

3) Top Secret - the very highest of Classified Information. And when the Intel community did sampling - out of 40 emails - 2 were classified as Top Secret - 5%.

Again, It matters not ONE iota whether it was marked as classified. The substance of the email or document is all that matters. If it is deemed Top Secret later then it was ALWAYS top secret.[/quote]

Sally, you're getting trolled.

slow day wrote:

Of course it matters. Someone in passive receipt of documents which weren't marked classified is, in the real world, going to be treated very differently than someone who purposefully secures, and knowingly distributes classified information.

Not sure why you're sticking up for Petraeus. I get the not liking Hillary part. but don't get ahead of the facts. Time will tell if there's more on her server. Arguments against her will carry have the weight of evidence behind them then. Petraeus on the other hand is known to have distributed top secret classified info (and bodily fluids) to his mistress / biographer.

.

[/quote]

I am not sticking up for Petraeus. I really don't care about him.

Lets look at some facts:

1) Hillary scrubbed clean the illicit server that housed her official emails while as secretary of State. Does that not seem criminal?

2) Her attorney, David Kendall, is walking around with a thumb drive containing Top Secret emails. He has no governmental clearance in any way to be handling that.

3) A few months ago she said the server would remain in her possession. Well, it seems like she has had a change of heart.

4) In the past people have been convicted of mishandling classified documents that were never marked as classified.

Why are you protecting her? Her story keeps changing.

not libtarded wrote:

What will Hillary get for sharing classified information with her lawyer on the thumb drives?

Hillary will get a slap on the wrist, the lawyer however may get the death penalty.

Sally, are you saying that her private server at her home was paid for by the taxpayers?

Yutre wrote:

Sally, are you saying that her private server at her home was paid for by the taxpayers?

It was and is the property of the US government. Regardless of who paid for it.

Protecting her? Really, that's your read on what I posted? I'm simply saying don't get out in front of the facts. That's what always seems to save the Clintons - overzealous partisans who make unsubstantiated claims a la Vince Foster. It's obviously out of line for her team to unilaterally decide what to turn over and attempt to destroy the rest. It reflects a gross sense of entitlement and really bad political judgement. Is it criminal? Who knows? Maybe. Depends on what was scrubbed. Time will tell. The classification process is such a mess anyway. I think plenty of shady dealings around the Clinton Foundation will come to light once the server is examined and email chains examined. Emails are never really deleted. Why not let the facts come out first?http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jul/29/four-pressing-questions-about-hillary-clintons-sta/

Sally V wrote:

slow day wrote:

Of course it matters. Someone in passive receipt of documents which weren't marked classified is, in the real world, going to be treated very differently than someone who purposefully secures, and knowingly distributes classified information.

Not sure why you're sticking up for Petraeus. I get the not liking Hillary part. but don't get ahead of the facts. Time will tell if there's more on her server. Arguments against her will carry have the weight of evidence behind them then. Petraeus on the other hand is known to have distributed top secret classified info (and bodily fluids) to his mistress / biographer.

.

I am not sticking up for Petraeus. I really don't care about him.

Lets look at some facts:

1) Hillary scrubbed clean the illicit server that housed her official emails while as secretary of State. Does that not seem criminal?

2) Her attorney, David Kendall, is walking around with a thumb drive containing Top Secret emails. He has no governmental clearance in any way to be handling that.

3) A few months ago she said the server would remain in her possession. Well, it seems like she has had a change of heart.

4) In the past people have been convicted of mishandling classified documents that were never marked as classified.

Why are you protecting her? Her story keeps changing.[/quote]

Sally V wrote:

Yutre wrote:

Sally, are you saying that her private server at her home was paid for by the taxpayers?

It was and is the property of the US government. Regardless of who paid for it.

How does that make any sense? Can you explain further how something she paid for out of her own pocket can be considered govt property? That would seem to set a dangerous precedent.

Have you people forgotten BENGHAZI!!!!?

Yutre wrote:

Sally V wrote:

It was and is the property of the US government. Regardless of who paid for it.

How does that make any sense? Can you explain further how something she paid for out of her own pocket can be considered govt property? That would seem to set a dangerous precedent.

She went rogue and and illegally kept all her State Dept. on a server in her house. That server and everything on it is State Dept property. It is not hers. They can take possession of it and release the personal emails to her. The server is not hers - when she broke the law and housed State Dept. emails on it - the server no longer was hers. Only perhaps in a residual fashion.

If someone emails out classified information to a large distribution list, then only the fool that sent the email gets in trouble. Not everybody on distribution list. Hilary would be someone on the distribution list. They would need to prove that she received, read and then retransmitted classified information to have any sort of case.

how it really works wrote:

If someone emails out classified information to a large distribution list, then only the fool that sent the email gets in trouble. Not everybody on distribution list. Hilary would be someone on the distribution list. They would need to prove that she received, read and then retransmitted classified information to have any sort of case.

This is not even the crux of the problem. Imagine SOS John Kerry having State Dept server in his Nantucket beach house. All his Top Secret correspondence concerning Iran nuclear deal goes through server. He is out hang gliding and the Russians and Chinese are hacking his unprotected server. You see the absurdity of this all?

This x 1000

OMFG why do you idiots not understand? oh yeah, answer is in the question.

nah...she's (it's) fine. She's the next "pres". Sanders and trump are only the reflections of discontent within the two parties. On the Right, folks are pissed at the RHINO's boehener, mconnell, macain,collins, etc. And after 3 or 4 general elections when they (GOP'ers) have had to hold their peter and vote for a Pres candidate they REALLY didn't want BUT THE ESTABLISHMENT did, and the Marxists on the left having NOT to hold their peters for same...It's more than likely that moderate and conservitive GOP'ers will say "enough of this shit", and not vote at all. The Marxist's, on the other hand-having decent ideological candidates over the past few Gen elections, will most LIKELY be able to hold their collective peters (Ha ha!) and vote for a skum Marxist like Sanders or a neo-Marxist like Clinton or Warren, or a Putin wanna-Be like O'malley. It's all over, Folks. Get the Hell out of Dodge if you can! As Far as running goes, I don't think you can run fast enough or f"in far enough to remove yourself from the Sheet that's about to befall so, so, many of us. La, La, de, daaaaa!