I agree with Habib. If you don't see the difference, it is because you choose not to.

 

Hillary setting up email at her home is clearly different than downloading classified information onto media devices and carrying that material around with you in Afghanistan and elsewhere. That action raises far more questions and suspicions for me than Hillary's actions. There is nothing in Hillary's actions that suggest she ever thought about or had the intent to share information with outside parties. While the naval reservist's actions cause me to wonder what he was going to do with that classified information even if intent could not be discovered.

 

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.

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.

 

She was accessing information for official business. She was not carrying classified information in her pocket while taking a walk in a park in Afghanistan - for who knows what purpose.

 

State department computers themselves have been hacked by the Russians. The point being Hillary's setup being hacked is not unique.

 

Your case is close to Hillary's, but with some clear differences.

She was accessing information for official business. She was not carrying classified information in her pocket while taking a walk in a park in Afghanistan - for who knows what purpose.

 

State department computers themselves have been hacked by the Russians. The point being Hillary's setup being hacked is not unique.

 

Your case is close to Hillary's, but with some clear differences.

 

She literally walked everywhere with an unsecure device. Literally everywhere.

 

She also asked permission to setup that server at home and was told no.

The FBI did not report she was hacked. Comey said there was no evidence she was hacked, but he wasn't sure there would be evidence of hacking if it would have been.

She literally walked everywhere with an unsecure device. Literally everywhere.

 

She also asked permission to setup that server at home and was told no.

 

She walked around on official business. That is the key for me. Everything she was doing was on business. The naval reservist had no business carrying the information around with him, downloading it on media devices, storing it at his home ... it begs the question - for what purpose? That is the difference on that issue. There is no question as to why Hillary was accessing the information - it was business.

 

The second item I will need to read up on.

She walked around on official business. That is the key for me. Everything she was doing was on business. The naval reservist had no business carrying the information around with him, downloading it on media devices, storing it at his home ... it begs the question - for what purpose? That is the difference on that issue. There is no question as to why Hillary was accessing the information - it was business.

 

The second item I will need to read up on.

 

Your supposed difference is irrelevant to the statute ?

She walked around on official business. That is the key for me. Everything she was doing was on business. The naval reservist had no business carrying the information around with him, downloading it on media devices, storing it at his home ... it begs the question - for what purpose? That is the difference on that issue. There is no question as to why Hillary was accessing the information - it was business.

 

The second item I will need to read up on.

 

How about my favorite email from the IG report a Clinton aide shut down the server for a period of time because they were being hacked. But never notified anyone outside the inner circle.

She also asked permission to setup that server at home and was told no.

 

LB ... trying to find info that says Hillary asked permission to set up her server and can't find any. Can you find some info and link it for me? Everything I have read on multiple websites says Hillary never asked for permission to do it because it was common practice for previous Secretaries of State to use personal email. For example, Colin Powell used personal email for communications. In fact, John Kerry is said to be the first Secretary of State that has exclusively used the state department .gov email.

Sub sailor's photo case draws comparisons to Clinton emails - POLITICO

 

Another example

LB ... trying to find info that says Hillary asked permission to set up her server and can't find any. Can you find some info and link it for me? Everything I have read on multiple websites says Hillary never asked for permission to do it because it was common practice for previous Secretaries of State to use personal email. For example, Colin Powell used personal email for communications. In fact, John Kerry is said to be the first Secretary of State that has exclusively used the state department .gov email.

 

Hillary Clinton ignored state department warning on email says audit | Toronto Star

 

Asking permission may not of been the right wording. But she was warned both she and her staff on more than one occasion they were breaking rules. They ignored those warnings and told those people not to bother them.

 

Also please quit bringing up the tired point of past SOS. The rules and laws changed by the time she entered office. Ignorance of the law is never a defense and even if it were she was warned more than once.

The FBI did not report she was hacked. Comey said there was no evidence she was hacked, but he wasn't sure there would be evidence of hacking if it would have been.

 

But the Czech hacker who was in federal custody indicated...wait...he is now missing....

Sub sailor's photo case draws comparisons to Clinton emails - POLITICO

 

Another example.

 

Not as good as the first one you posted. When someone blatantly destroys evidence and obstructs an investigation it raises a lot of red flags. It even talks in your article how other sailors who took pictures got minor punishments. That seems to show that other low level government employees got off like Hillary. It is the guy who destroyed evidence and obstructed the investigation that is getting the charges filed.

Hillary Clinton ignored state department warning on email says audit | Toronto Star

 

Asking permission may not of been the right wording. But she was warned both she and her staff on more than one occasion they were breaking rules. They ignored those warnings and told those people not to bother them.

 

Also please quit bringing up the tired point of past SOS. The rules and laws changed by the time she entered office. Ignorance of the law is never a defense and even if it were she was warned more than once.

 

She ignored her own Presidents EO...

 

The past situations are not at all the same. This is media deflection.

Not as good as the first one you posted. When someone blatantly destroys evidence and obstructs an investigation it raises a lot of red flags. It even talks in your article how other sailors who took pictures got minor punishments. That seems to show that other low level government employees got off like Hillary. It is the guy who destroyed evidence and obstructed the investigation that is getting the charges filed.

 

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.)

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.)

 

I was just about to post this .