lol I didn't say the second, and the FBI was investigating this and found nothing. What do you think they are going to find with the Clinton Foundation that will result in Hillary Clinton getting into trouble?
The opponent makes it matter much less that is true. I mean if she were going up against Cruz I also don't think it would have mattered. Bush? Rubio? I don't know. Maybe. They wouldn't have as big a gap with women and minorities but they'd still have a pretty big gap.
It's amazing to me to see the base of a party apparently dismiss the fact that they can't win on the strength of one voting demographic, but that's basically what a plurality (if not a majority) of Republicans have done.
See this is the rub. You can't say this because you don't actually know. If I'm running my own server on my own domain, there's no way for you to ever know whether or not I've turned everything over. She's supposed to be a public servant, she doesn't get to provide access at her whim. If she was sending emails to putin, there's no way for you to know. This plausible deniability into bad judgment loophole is consistently abused by her and her family. Either she's the dumbest Yale lawyer with the worst judgment to ever exist or she's covering her ass and I personally don't think she's dumb.
Here's the thing...I'm supposed to be outraged over Hillary (not saying you, just collectively)...
LOL of course you think that. Anything Trump has done there is legal recourse for. If someone believes they were wronged they can sue him. Specifically, the Taj contractors were paid 33 cents on the dollar the first year and another 50 cents on the dollar over the next few years through bankruptcy court. That's a total of 83 cents on the dollar through legal bankruptcy processes. So what was illegal? What was below board? This is all public record. He didn't make some good decisions and the economy tanked, the project went belly up and they went to court to settle up. Not everything goes perfect all the time. If he was such a horrible business man, no one would contract with him. No one would loan him money. But you know that's not the truth.
Personal wheelings and dealings in the name of profit are par for the business course, and yeah, you can always count on Trump to look out for Trump. I just don't see as direct a correlation between that (or any of his business dealings) and Hillary being negligent (or "careless" or whatever word we want to use) with her handling of national security information.
I guess I find one way more disgusting than the other. I find an intent to screw over the livelihood of other people (par for the business course or not) way worse than an intent to be secretive which is ultimately what led to the private server and the problems that followed.
Any reasonably competent prosecutor can indict someone if they really want to. Even a sandwich made of the meat of a pig...ham if you will.
If it's purely about intent, sure. But again, I don't find the "ignorance" appeal to be much of an excuse for being careless with information that could cause "grave damage to national security", up to and including costing people their lives, not just livelihoods. Now, it's unlikely the compromise of that TS/SAP information did that, but the potential exists and that is why it is classified as highly as it is.
Where did I say the repubs are angelic truth tellers? lol...I swear you guys and your teams. You gotta have a team to idolize! You are fundamentally missing the point. It's not that we "get to read" them, it's that there is no oversight and we can never know how much crap actually went across that server. Govt civilians aren't supposed to be able to operate that way, she's breaking the public trust.
Because it feeds into their Obama and Clinton are evil and anti-American and used the video to get him re-elected so he could continue destroying America as was his plan since he put that fake birth notice into the Hawaii newspaper using time travel.
Is this true?
She had her own private servers and domain and managed at her house by her own private people. How would anyone outside of her own people be able to track it? That's why it is not allowed. If she had been using the government network, then yes, everything is tracked. Even if she were using a third party like gmail, then Google would be able to pull the records. But since she wasn't, any email that didn't cross a government server at some point, could have been deleted and no one would be the wiser if the receiver was also not on a government network. Remember, even after the first release and now I'm quoting nytimes "The FBI discovered “several thousand” work-related emails that were not in the original trove of 30,000 turned over by Mrs. Clinton to the State Department. Three of those contained information that agencies have concluded was classified, though Mr. Comey said he did not believe Mrs. Clinton deliberately deleted or withheld them from investigators."
And yet we learn today that her lawyers in fact all had TS clearances thanks to the circus that is the Comey questioning. So swing and a miss there.
Granting them access would be an administrative process that doesn't take all that long, and "Need to Know" in this case would be pretty easy considering they would prove that by the nature of their work, even retroactively. I doubt the lawyers had anything other than SAP/SCI, depending on which specific access level (A, B, C, etc.) since strict TS is generally only used for crypto anymore, and that doesn't make any sense to have lawyers with just strictly TS clearance.
The guy asked for 5 security agents. The night of the incident, he had 5 security agents. It wasn't enough. So what exactly did she do that "pucked it up?" She did not personally deny his security request, and she did no reduce the funding for security nor did she say AMB go to this really dangerous place that we probably shouldn't even have open and take inadequate security.
From the livestream of the proceedings. It was made clear that her lawyers had TS clearances. To be clear, that came from Clinton's spokesperson, that the lawyers who went through her email to sort through them had those clearances.
I'd guess that it's fairly common for high-level attorneys representing officials such as Clinton to have access to the same level of information that the official herself does. Clinton has rights, and certainly State has attorneys cleared at the highest levels as does just about any military staff.
heck most civilian defense counsel who represent the military have either Secret or TS clearances. It's just smart practice. I assume the same of these attorneys that worked for Clinton.
Has nothing to do with his "word." He appears to be mistaken. Doesn't mean he's lying. As Gr8 said, it's highly unlikely that the top level attorneys that Clinton would have would have no security clearances AT ALL. At a minimum they'd have Secret.
Not necessarily. If State was the original classification authority, they can absolutely classify and declassify information based on lots of different things. If they removed the headers with intent of purposefully covering up the fact that they were transmitting classified material on unsecure networks, then yes, that would be a crime.
They had the best possible version of what they were going to have, but they couldn't leave it alone, and now they have a lesser version.
