Of the material that was classified at the time of transmission, was it marked classified? If it was not then there is no way for her to have known it was classified and without that specific knowledge, which must be proved in court, there is nothing to charge her with. If the FBI can't present that evidence to a Grand Jury, then the AG isn't going to waste their time nor should the FBI.

Finally if she was only in receipt of the material and did not transmit it, who is guilty? The person sending? The person receiving? Both?

On the receipt side, she likely had an obligation to report it being outside security. However if it had been stripped of the classified markings before it was sent, how could she have known to report it? Again they have to prove knowledge of classification to make the case.

Finally I keep hearing perjury this and that. Only statements that count are those made under oath and when you know you aren't speaking the truth. She can lie her head off at press conferences, and obviously being a politician does. Again the crime is mental state, which has to be proved in court.

Absent her saying "I did the crime!" there is little if anything to present to a grand jury. (And this is what hung many of the cases mentioned, they finally admitted it!)

Just like hubby "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

FYI: This is why you don't do business with a lawyer!

I guess I am going to have to quote the ENTIRE bullet point 1 from the NYT article Bobby linked...

Of 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton handed over to the State Department, 110 contained information that was classified at the time she sent or received them. Of those, Mr. Comey said, “a very small number” bore markings that identified them as classified. This finding is at odds with Mrs. Clinton’s repeated assertions that none of the emails were classified at the time she sent or received them. The F.B.I. did not disclose the topics of the classified emails, but a number of the 110 are believed to have involved drone strikes.

So, at least ONE of the 110 bore the markings identifying it as classified.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

She was their boss... The ones that raised the issue were told to drop it and never mention it again or they would be fired (or worse...).

An absolute case of being able to take an employer to court for unfair dismisal. Therefore I question that without authoritative substanciation

And no I do not get it. From what I have read of your remarks on the subject I can only assume you are very anti-Hillary and make my judgement on that.

Of course, I am anti-Hillary. I have been for many, many years, ever since Cousin Bill was A.G. of Arkansas. She was a snake of a crooked lawyer then... and is a snake of a crooked lawyer now.

So what?

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

I guess I am going to have to quote the ENTIRE bullet point 1 from the NYT article Bobby linked...

Of 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton handed over to the State Department, 110 contained information that was classified at the time she sent or received them. Of those, Mr. Comey said, “a very small number” bore markings that identified them as classified. This finding is at odds with Mrs. Clinton’s repeated assertions that none of the emails were classified at the time she sent or received them.

Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees ... Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

So, at least ONE of the 110 bore the markings identifying it as classified.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe only the copy they found on some other machine had the markings. Prove her machine received it that way.

FYI: This is why you don't do business with a lawyer!

---

After thinking about it for much time I'm surprised that none of the subcontractors that the Donald stiffed on contracts he had with them haven't tried to kill him.

---

After thinking about it for much time I'm surprised that none of the subcontractors that the Donald stiffed on contracts he had with them haven't tried to kill him.

They are more moral than him?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

After thinking about it for much time I'm surprised that none of the subcontractors that the Donald stiffed on contracts he had with them haven't tried to kill him.

They are more moral than him?

Still doesn't get them a check?

---

After thinking about it for much time I'm surprised that none of the subcontractors that the Donald stiffed on contracts he had with them haven't tried to kill him.

They are more moral than him?

After destroying their business dark thoughts could easily inspire revenge.

---

After thinking about it for much time I'm surprised that none of the subcontractors that the Donald stiffed on contracts he had with them haven't tried to kill him.

They are more moral than him?

More likely that they can no longer afford to hire the lawyers. Roof over head and food on table might be a higher priority.

Hillary MUST GO!!!

Drumpf and the right wing hate mongers have insured 8+ years of a democratic president and it doesn't matter how corrupt the person in the office is, what matters is they aren't a right wing hate monger.

---

Hillary MUST GO!!!

Drumpf and the right wing hate mongers have insured 8+ years of a democratic president and it doesn't matter how corrupt the person in the office is, what matters is they aren't a right wing hate monger.

Fraud Hillary has insured a Trump victory.

I'm sure right wing hate mongers feel that way. I don't think the majority of the people do.

---

I'm sure right wing hate mongers feel that way. I don't think the majority of the people do.

You may be as surprised in November as the EU was in June..........

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

I'm sure right wing hate mongers feel that way. I don't think the majority of the people do.

You may be as surprised in November as the EU was in June..........

We haven't yet heard the claptrap that will come out in the congressional races in the red states where there will be a race to be the most hateful candidate. That position being the official position of the party, he has to support it as he must support the party's candidates, so he wears it. That hate will derail him as it did Romney.

---

Either side is open to surprise at this point.
Let us hope that one such surprise could come from low percents, being siphoned off by Johnson & Stein. So much that either Johnson or Stein wins or that whichever of Clinton or Trump wins, the percent is so low it cannot possibly be seen as a "mandate".

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Surely the surprise would be if Trump wins.
In percentage terms the white population is ageing and falling, non-latino population is falling. Such that there is a suggestion the GOP has lost FL for good, without a seismic shift within the GOP, and that is not Trumpism, he's gone the opposite direction. So it probably means the only 'large state' in Electoral College Vote' terms that Trump can win is Texas.

After thinking about it for much time I'm surprised that none of the subcontractors that the Donald stiffed on contracts he had with them haven't tried to kill him.

They are more moral than him?

More likely that they can no longer afford to hire the lawyers. Roof over head and food on table might be a higher priority.

Democrat's problem:

Trump is being evaluated as The Capitalist he is. Very low expectations. Therefore doesn't matter.

Secretary's of State, and other High Officials. Are expected, by the voters, to live and work by a higher standard. As teachers, police officers, et al, are.

Therefore... Hillary is being judged correctly, by a higher standard than a Capitalist.

Hillary MUST GO!!!

The last time I asked, you deflected, yet here you go again. Will you now answer whether you believe you know better than the people that chose Drumpf and Clinton as their candidates?

[ETA]
On the question of higher standards, Politifact has this for Drumpf, and this for Clinton.

|               |     Drumpf      |     Clinton     |
|               | Count    %age   | Count    %age   |
|----------------------------------------------------
|True           |    4     2.26   |   51    23.08   |
|Mostly True    |   13     7.34   |   62    28.05   |
|Half True      |   25    14.12   |   47    21.27   |
|Mostly False   |   30    16.95   |   33    14.93   |
|False          |   71    40.11   |   25    11.31   |
|Pants on Fire  |   34    19.21   |    3     1.36   |
=====================================================
Total	        |  177            |  221	

[/ETA]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Either side is open to surprise at this point.
Let us hope that one such surprise could come from low percents, being siphoned off by Johnson & Stein. So much that either Johnson or Stein wins or that whichever of Clinton or Trump wins, the percent is so low it cannot possibly be seen as a "mandate".

+1

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

For both of them, the levels of unfavorability are so large that each should be un-Presidented.

WK in speaking with some various folks, there are Republicans who were against Trump that are now for him as the presumptive nominee. I am sure they would never ever vote for a Democrat, let alone a Clinton. My attempts to get them to consider independents such as Johnson or Stein (particularly Johnson in their cases) are met with a befuddled lack of knowledge he exists to no response.

I know a Latino that said he was for Trump about 7 months ago. About a month ago, he was against him. I did not find out why. But I know he does not like Hillary, either, and who knows whether he get swayed back into the Trump camp?

Look over your shoulder.
Be prepared.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Left Wing Hate Speech is the problem.

So you believe right wing hate speech is acceptable, but left wing is not! Good to know that your core belief is that hate speech is acceptable in civil discourse!

I hope the powers that be here take that into consideration at all appropriate times.

---

I consider the following the same:

Men are (fill-in the negatives). Women are (fill-in the negatives). Whites are (fill-in the negatives). Blacks are (fill-in the negatives). Gays are (fill-in the negatives). Straights are (fill-in the negatives). Atheists are (fill-in the negatives). Christian/Jews/Hindus/Muslims/et al are (fill-in the negatives):

The above list shows the Bigotry of the accuser.

Left wingers are (fill-in the negatives). Right wingers are (fill-in the negatives).

Does that show the bigotry of the accuser as well?

Those that project their Inner Bigotry towards any group, are Evil. And should not be part of any Civil Discourse.

Correct?

Given your inner bigotry toward the extreme right, and your admitted and greater dislike for the left, I assume you are to be excluded from civil discourse then?

I consider the following the same:

Men are (fill-in the negatives). Women are (fill-in the negatives). Whites are (fill-in the negatives). Blacks are (fill-in the negatives). Gays are (fill-in the negatives). Straights are (fill-in the negatives). Atheists are (fill-in the negatives). Christian/Jews/Hindus/Muslims/et al are (fill-in the negatives):

The above list shows the Bigotry of the accuser.

Left wingers are (fill-in the negatives). Right wingers are (fill-in the negatives).

Does that show the bigotry of the accuser as well?

Those that project their Inner Bigotry towards any group, are Evil. And should not be part of any Civil Discourse.

Correct?

Given your inner bigotry toward the extreme right, and your admitted and greater dislike for the left, I assume you are to be excluded from civil discourse then?

OzzFan...

Thank you for making my point regarding Ideologues (and their partners in Ignorance - or worse), Religious Fanatics.

According to your 'thinking':

Attacking The Right, KKK, Nazi's, etc. And their brethren in Hate: The Left, Progressives, Marxists, etc.:

Should not be part of a Civil Discourse?

OzzFan...

Hopefully, you were making a joke. Correct?

"CLYDE" wrote:

Those that project their Inner Bigotry towards any group, are Evil.

Are you protecting your inner bigotry now?