Does the GOP wish Obama left the country the way Bush left it.

[kaz]

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

If she wasn't a high ranking Democrat, there would be no problem winning a conviction. What she did was way beyond what they prosecute and win all the time

Democrat, Republican...no difference. No politician has ever been prosecuted for security violations or leaking classified that I'm aware of.

Because there's no criminal intent.

Edward Snowden, on the other hand, has a lot to worry about and answer for.

Yes, it was illegal. What a service he did for his country though telling us our own government is unconstitutionally spying on us.

And again, there was CLEAR criminal intent. You're saying Hillary seriously didn't intend to send her e-mail to her server? That's WHY she did it

 

[pinqy]

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

If she wasn't a high ranking Democrat, there would be no problem winning a conviction. What she did was way beyond what they prosecute and win all the time

Democrat, Republican...no difference. No politician has ever been prosecuted for security violations or leaking classified that I'm aware of.

Um ... Petraeus?

Not a politician. But you're right...I was thinking more of leaks lacking intent, like Orrin Hatch announcing Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11, than deliberate leaks, such as Petraeus.

 

[kaz]

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

If she wasn't a high ranking Democrat, there would be no problem winning a conviction. What she did was way beyond what they prosecute and win all the time

Democrat, Republican...no difference. No politician has ever been prosecuted for security violations or leaking classified that I'm aware of.

Um ... Petraeus?

Not a politician. But you're right...I was thinking more of leaks lacking intent, like Orrin Hatch announcing Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11, than deliberate leaks, such as Petraeus.

I'm not saying it's the exact same thing, but reckless disregard is "intent" in a court of law. If you kill someone shooting into a crowd, you didn't intend to murder that person, but that you shot into the crowd is considered "intent."

Everyone knows how often servers are getting hacked. I've only done two government projects in my career, the rest was all commercial. But I know way more about government regulations than the former Senator/Secretary of State claims she knows. I frankly have a hard time believing that. I don't believe that. She's a liar, she knows full well what she did was illegal. She just doesn't care. She thinks she's above the law. Sadly so far, she's right ...

 

[Al Azar]

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

If she wasn't a high ranking Democrat, there would be no problem winning a conviction. What she did was way beyond what they prosecute and win all the time

Democrat, Republican...no difference. No politician has ever been prosecuted for security violations or leaking classified that I'm aware of.

Um ... Petraeus?

Petraeus gave classified information to an unauthorized person. That's against the law. Hillary used a private email server for official business. That wasn't against the law when she was doing it.

Other than that, exactly the same thing...

Sheesh.

 

[kaz]

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

If she wasn't a high ranking Democrat, there would be no problem winning a conviction. What she did was way beyond what they prosecute and win all the time

Democrat, Republican...no difference. No politician has ever been prosecuted for security violations or leaking classified that I'm aware of.

Um ... Petraeus?

Petraeus gave classified information to an unauthorized person. That's against the law. Hillary used a private email server for official business. That wasn't against the law when she was doing it.

Other than that, exactly the same thing...

Sheesh.

Hillary gave access of classified information to several unauthorized people who support her server. As you said, "That's against the law," and providing access to classified information was clearly against the law when she did it

 

[Al Azar]

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

If she wasn't a high ranking Democrat, there would be no problem winning a conviction. What she did was way beyond what they prosecute and win all the time

Democrat, Republican...no difference. No politician has ever been prosecuted for security violations or leaking classified that I'm aware of.

Um ... Petraeus?

Petraeus gave classified information to an unauthorized person. That's against the law. Hillary used a private email server for official business. That wasn't against the law when she was doing it.

Other than that, exactly the same thing...

Sheesh.

Hillary gave access of classified information to several unauthorized people who support her server. As you said, "That's against the law," and providing access to classified information was clearly against the law when she did it

Have you notified the authorities and produced your evidence?

 

[kaz]

If she wasn't a high ranking Democrat, there would be no problem winning a conviction. What she did was way beyond what they prosecute and win all the time

Democrat, Republican...no difference. No politician has ever been prosecuted for security violations or leaking classified that I'm aware of.

Um ... Petraeus?

Petraeus gave classified information to an unauthorized person. That's against the law. Hillary used a private email server for official business. That wasn't against the law when she was doing it.

Other than that, exactly the same thing...

Sheesh.

Hillary gave access of classified information to several unauthorized people who support her server. As you said, "That's against the law," and providing access to classified information was clearly against the law when she did it

Have you notified the authorities and produced your evidence?

 

[Al Azar]

It's refreshing to see you finally understand how silly your position is.