Yes this has been covered ad nauseum. It has been covered to such an extent that the mere existence of POSSIBLY other emails, prompts the FBI director to disrupt the election process to a point that it damages one of the candidates. And the really sick thing is, is that even after doing that, his findings are still questioned by the right. You can't have it both ways. One the one hand refer to the FBI investigation and on the other hand reject it's findings. Furthermore I find it peak hypocrisy saying one candidate is unfit for office because the FBI is investigating that candidate, while the other candidate is being taken to trial because of fraud ( Trump University) and is actually on tape bragging about sexual assault. Something that then is corroborated by a dozen woman stepping forwards alleging he did it to them. In your head mishandling classified information without any intent to actually leaking it, is worse than actually being on trial for fraud and confessing to sexual assault. Like a said, if their was ever a better example of hypocrisy I've never seen it.Intend to do what? Intend to leak classified information? Intent to get herself in trouble? What did she intend to do? You and congress aren't capable of pointing to an email that hurt American interests, the only thing you have is a notion that she did something that was against the state department rules. Although careless and stupid, she didn't do it with any motive to leak information, saying different makes it the political witch hunt it is. That's why the FBI isn't recommending prosecution.Two different accusations: First you said she lied about having one device. That is clearly not true because of the difference in context of the question.She told the FBI she used multiple email device during her term as secretary of state. She told the House she used one email device but the context of the question was about her normal usage of email, not the total number of device she used as Secretary of State over 4 years. You can bet if there was a clear inconsistency in her statement, she would be under arrest for contempt of congress and we would not be having this conversation.
...and the fact the IT department told her that she could not use a secure Blackberry like Obama... so she used an unsecure one anyway? How in the fuck can you try to defend her actions when they are as obvious as the back of your hand they were lies?
You then divert to the issue of Clinton not being able to use her Blackberry so she continued to use her personal email server which did not meet security standards. That is clearly true but as Comey pointed out in their investigation they found nothing to indicate there was any intent to violate the law. Without intent the issue becomes one of an administration error, poor judgement, or mishandling of classified information, none of which warrant charges because there was no indication of intent making a successful prosecution very unlikely.
This issue is not likely to end up in court but rather is an issue for voters to consider in electing a president who is responsible for mishandled classified information.
Partisan Congressional investigations regardless of which party initiatives them are political in nature with a true goal of discrediting the target, not to uncover true. The House committee investigating Clinton is certainly such a committee.
...and as Gowdy clearly pointed out, criminals, even dumb ones, don't come out and say they are going to break the law in order to provide intent. However, lying about several parts of something clearly shows deception, and can be used as circumstantial evidence to prove intent.
Oh for Christ Sakes this has been gone over ad nasuem. Experts in the legal field, FBI agents, and several others have said she is guilty of mishandling of classified information.
Last edited: