She didn't have to download it. Because she setup a server at home and didn't need away to bring it home. Same result classified informain on an unsecure device.

 

But she did carry the information on unsecure devices like this navy reservist in foreign countries, but in her case multiple foreign countries. Again against a directive given to her.

 

Another big difference the FBI reported she was hacked and in the other case I haven't seen a report of it.

 

From statement today:

 

It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

Different rules?

 

What Bill did with Monica would get any CEO at any private company fired in no time.

 

What HRC did here would get any employee fired on the spot from almost any private company that valued its company information.

Lots of noise about what is evidently a moot point.

Lots of noise about what is evidently a moot point.

 

To me the most amazing part is how she is on record, heck on video, lying again to America saying she never sent these emails ect.ect. Yet half of America doesn't care about that. Sure she is a seasoned politician with experience on many issues but man how many lies can she get away with?

If the Trump campaign is smart, they'll focus less on the fact that no charges were filed, and more so on the use of terminology like "careless", "reckless", and "lack of judgement".

 

Which candidate would they be describing?

 

It's about a draw between the two of them, however, Hillary, was "recklessly careless" with classified information and she was involved in lying to America about Benghazi. It seems her lack of judgment, arrogance (she doesn't have to follow the rules everyone else does), and lack of trustworthiness would disqualify her from being the manager of a grocery store. I know she would not pass the background check where I am employed. With all due respect given to the current President's endorsement, she is not qualified to be President of the United States.

 

That is a very, very good article. It details all the comparisons very well.

 

And what conclusions do you draw from that article?

 

I'm still laughing at the suggestion that we ask a lawyer on BPG about what any of this means ... LOL , Thats priceless . Make sure its an " INDEPENDENT " lawyer , not one that leans left .. more LOL .

 

I didn't call for this, but an attorney may be able to tell us if "intent" is key to prosecution, for instance. There may be other nuances that the average lay person misses that an attorney could point out. It could be done like this: "If such and such could be proved, then prosecution would be warranted." That is focusing more on matters of law and less on asking for an attorney's political opinion.

 

He wasn't extreme enough, unfortunately.

 

Or perhaps he just wasn't conservative enough. Not at all the same thing.

 

I would like to see a jury decide on evidence when the potential president put National security at risk. Regardless of intent. The more power you have the more ignorance is an actual defense.

 

The only conclusion you can take from this entire debacle is Hillary is either serial liar or incompetent. She has to be one or the other.

 

As has been pointed out, she is actually both.

To me the most amazing part is how she is on record, heck on video, lying again to America saying she never sent these emails ect.ect. Yet half of America doesn't care about that. Sure she is a seasoned politician with experience on many issues but man how many lies can she get away with?

To me, like Benghazi (which I think she was forced to fall on the President's sword and more innocent than in this case), politicians at that level know that time heals all wounds... or in these cases makes people get lost in details and ultimately become numb. To answer your question, I think a big chunk of America that follows this on the periphery doesn't grasp the security threat side of it. They just know she deleted some emails, believing it was harmless and innocent with the intent.

To me' date=' like Benghazi (which I think she was forced to fall on the President's sword and more innocent than in this case), politicians at that level know that time heals all wounds... or in these cases makes people get lost in details and ultimately become numb. To answer your question, I think a big chunk of America that follows this on the periphery doesn't grasp the security threat side of it. They just know she deleted some emails, believing it was harmless and innocent with the intent.[/quote']

 

Absolutely, it's like her sending our missile codes but since nobody used them, this will all go away by November.

The report from Director Comey verifies my suspicions that Hillary can't handle the responsibility of POTUS. Who knows what information was in those emails, since they weren't archived nobody ever will.

Lots of noise about what is evidently a moot point.

 

Yeah its a moot point because not enough American's give a bowel movement . The lady is crooked , just not enough people care. More concerned with party and gender than a trustworthy leader of our nation. NOT saying Trump is the answer , but Hillary never should have been considered as an option.

Yeah its a moot point because not enough American's give a bowel movement . The lady is crooked ' date=' just not enough people care. More concerned with party and gender than a trustworthy leader of our nation. NOT saying Trump is the answer , but Hillary never should have been considered as an option.[/quote']

 

You knocked one of the park Dan and didn't make it about Trump, props to you.

And what conclusions do you draw from that article?

.

 

 

Really none. I wasn't looking for any, though. Just was interested in the differences of the individual cases.

Yeah its a moot point because not enough American's give a bowel movement . The lady is crooked ' date=' just not enough people care. More concerned with party and gender than a trustworthy leader of our nation. NOT saying Trump is the answer , but Hillary never should have been considered as an option.[/quote']

 

Amen.

From Comey statement:

 

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

 

They blatantly destroyed (sorted) evidence (and content that is legally required to be archived.)

 

If those actions are criminal, are you saying the lawyers should be indicted?

 

If sending and receiving emails through Hillary's server was criminal, how many state department employees should be indicted? The vast majority of the emails were sent by people other than Hillary

Amazing fact...there are still many people who will vote for her.