BTW: Ask the Director of The FBI regarding her judgement.

oops, Bush's judgement in Iraq?
Blair's judgement in Iraq?

If comparing those judgement's, Whose was the most damning?

Again...Other people are worse than Hillary. So vote for her?

Bit silly stating that as you replied to my comment & hopefully you are aware that it is not possible to do.

BTW: Ask the Director of The FBI regarding her judgement.

Was it Hillary's fault that she had to find another way to communicate the information she required for her job after they refused her a phone like or similar to the one supplied to Obama.

You cannot rectify error's unless you diagnose the root cause.

Diplomats of all ranks need secure communications from their place of work, which are obviously in foreign countries and not always with an Embassy or other US government base, back to the State Department.

And you also have to ask why personnel sent information to or through her private server, if they were known to be insecure. It is the senders responsibility to ensure classified info is sent via secure means to a secure destination, if they cannot ensure that then the info should never have been sent.

It doesn't help that the US authorities have a very bad habit of over-classifying just about everything.

Have to agree with that, however, wouldn't it be the recipient's responsibility to bring that to the attention of those concerned regarding classified documents?

And you also have to ask why personnel sent information to or through her private server, if they were known to be insecure. It is the senders responsibility to ensure classified info is sent via secure means to a secure destination, if they cannot ensure that then the info should never have been sent.

The reason why no prosecution was possible. Too many mid and upper level staff would have been implicated for following orders. The BOSS may also have escaped the "mandatory" security briefing on the handling of information. Also the receipt of the information over a known insecure channel could be taken as evidence that the information was not classified at the time, as classified information could not be knowing transmitted via insecure channels. Mens rae. Can't convince a jury after a good lawyer gets through with the loopholes.

You can be sure it won't happen again. a/k/a a lesson from the school of hard knocks.

---

Oh they'll happen again, it's just human nature. There will always be one that considers themselves one rung higher than everyone else & do things as they see it.

And you also have to ask why personnel sent information to or through her private server, if they were known to be insecure. It is the senders responsibility to ensure classified info is sent via secure means to a secure destination, if they cannot ensure that then the info should never have been sent.

The reason why no prosecution was possible. Too many mid and upper level staff would have been implicated for following orders. The BOSS may also have escaped the "mandatory" security briefing on the handling of information. Also the receipt of the information over a known insecure channel could be taken as evidence that the information was not classified at the time, as classified information could not be knowing transmitted via insecure channels. Mens rae. Can't convince a jury after a good lawyer gets through with the loopholes.

You can be sure it won't happen again. a/k/a a lesson from the school of hard knocks.

This is all clear as mud.

Clinton’s Email Falsehood

" *More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton gave to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information — most of it classified retroactively.
*But 110 emails in 52 email chains contained classified information at the time they were sent or received.
*Three emails included classified markings, but weren’t properly marked."

So not great, but hardly the scandal of the century, and certainly not vomit worthy.

So again, is Clinton being held to a higher standard than her male counterparts?

---

Reality Internet Personality

So not great, but hardly the scandal of the century, and certainly not vomit worthy.

Maybe not, but what about the issue that lead to that e-mail scandal?

So not great, but hardly the scandal of the century, and certainly not vomit worthy.

Maybe not, but what about the issue that lead to that e-mail scandal?

Oh, you mean that she held classified material classified when she talked to the press?! A double standard only a woman would be held to!

---

Sorry, you lost me on that one.

I prefer this: -

"Where does Clinton play into this? Well, aside from being the Secretary of State — an important cabinet position — she later took responsibility for the security at the compound, or rather, a lack thereof. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts," Clinton said, in an interview with CNN. "The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs, and make a considered decision.""

"Essentially, the claim is that the administration did not heed proper security warnings before the attack, which lead to military support coming in too late. This was aided by the recovery of Stevens' personal journal after the assault by CNN, which the broadcasting network reported that he wrote he was concerned about security in Libya in the months prior to the attack."

So as Secretary of State, did she address the Ambassador's concerns?

So as Secretary of State, did she address the Ambassador's concerns?

Request for funding was denied by republicans.

---

So party politics got that dirty then.

So party politics got that dirty then.

Or one Fast and Furious was enough.

---

...

The elephant in this room.

How can the Sec. of State do State business on her private email server and not have classified material sent/received and or stored on that server?

If anybody can explain this I might concede.

Wikileaks is threatening a dump that should blow all this out of the water.

---

...

So party politics got that dirty then.

That is the clean part.

---

The elephant in this room.

How can the Sec. of State do State business on her private email server and not have classified material sent/received and or stored on that server?

Please explain how any employee could be so stupid and put their job in jeopardy by sending classified material to
hillary@hillaryclinton.com

and not
hillary.clinton@secure.state.gov

One address is an automatic espionage conviction.

Now sending the attendance report or the office supplies request ...

by the way can you tell me why a gateway/router at the state department even was configured to allow a classified system to send e-mail to a non-classified system?
A question a lawyer would ask at a trial and the answer might prove just to embarrassing. Like post manning they didn't close the gate?!!!

---

When is the next election going to be held?

As I previously said, the question becomes to me as a non U.S. citizen whether a liberal is always the same as a Democrat.

If Hillary Clinton tells me what to do, or others for the matter, the case probably will not be closed or finished before something is happening.

Is a Democrat, or liberal supposed to be more accountable when it comes to the law?

If Hillary Clinton had been the Attorney General rather than the Secretary of State, would she still be allowed or have the opportunity of running for President?

These are some of the questions I am asking myself a day before the start of the next weekend.

Surely the person at the top ensures that their administration is secure? Doesn't the buck stop at the top?

Wait a minute...

...oops, Obama is a Democrat so say no more :-)

When is the next election going to be held?

Elections for U.S. President are always the Tuesday after the first Monday of November every fourth year.

As I previously said, the question becomes to me as a non U.S. citizen whether a liberal is always the same as a Democrat.

Generally in the U.S., the Democrats are ideologically left-leaning, making them liberal. By contrast, the Republicans, actually called the Grand Ol' Party or G.O.P. are ideologically conservative or right-leaning.

Is a Democrat, or liberal supposed to be more accountable when it comes to the law?

In the U.S., all* are held accountable to the law.


*Except those with friends in high places, large amounts of money, or otherwise aren't beholden to U.S. law.

If Hillary Clinton had been the Attorney General rather than the Secretary of State, would she still be allowed or have the opportunity of running for President?

The official qualifications for U.S. President is that you must be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old. There's no reason to believe if Hillary were Attorney General rather than Secretary of State wouldn't still be eligible for President.

The official qualifications for U.S. President is that you must be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old.

Being a felon is not a disqualification BTW.

---