Hillary Ordered Classified Marks to be Removed & Sent Unsecure

[LoneLaugher]

To do what? Exactly? Be very specific and please provide a motive for this act.
Thanks.

1. Motive does not make an act 'criminal' or not. Motive is 'why' someone broke the law.

2. Why? IMO, it is just another example of Hillary thinking she is above the law. She wanted / needed to send classified information out to someone and fas faced with not being able to do so due to technology and law. But she's 'Hillary' and (fact) told the subordinate to ignore the law, strip the classification, and send it via UNCLASS means.

exactly, the only question remaining is whether the Obama justice dept will indict her or we have to wait for the Trump justice dept to do it.

Nice. The forum's second most stupid person has piped in. We are in for some deep discussion now.

forums most stupid and second most stupid-------------you and seawytch. Neither of you are worth my time, that's why you are on ignore. I opened your last post to see if you had changed but you remain the idiotic, biased, ignorant, blatantly stupid pair that I remembered.

Back to the ignore list, morons.

You can't quit me!

 

[imawhosure]

To do what? Exactly? Be very specific and please provide a motive for this act.
Thanks.

1. Motive does not make an act 'criminal' or not. Motive is 'why' someone broke the law.

2. Why? IMO, it is just another example of Hillary thinking she is above the law. She wanted / needed to send classified information out to someone and fas faced with not being able to do so due to technology and law. But she's 'Hillary' and (fact) told the subordinate to ignore the law, strip the classification, and send it via UNCLASS means.

1. I know, stupid. But without a motive....you rarely have something that meets the definition of "criminal". Isn't this fun?!

2. So......you think she broke the law because she's an entitled bitch? I'll bet you wish THAT was a crime. But....it's not.

Geeze, the liberal propaganda is so deep in this thread, I need a shovel.

1. If you drive through a stop sign because you do not know you are suppose to stop and kill someone, does that mean you are not guilty of vehicular homicide? NO! Ignorance of the law is no excuse in a court of law as a defense!

2. Is the left suggesting that Hillary has that dreaded disease, AFLUENZA? Oh wait, that one known case is making the courts of this country get totally questioned, isn't it!

So, ignorance of the law is no defense, and neither is afluenza. So, what defense are the lefties going to come up with next? Stay tuned!

 

[Seawytch]

To do what? Exactly? Be very specific and please provide a motive for this act.
Thanks.

1. Motive does not make an act 'criminal' or not. Motive is 'why' someone broke the law.

2. Why? IMO, it is just another example of Hillary thinking she is above the law. She wanted / needed to send classified information out to someone and fas faced with not being able to do so due to technology and law. But she's 'Hillary' and (fact) told the subordinate to ignore the law, strip the classification, and send it via UNCLASS means.

exactly, the only question remaining is whether the Obama justice dept will indict her or we have to wait for the Trump justice dept to do it.

Nice. The forum's second most stupid person has piped in. We are in for some deep discussion now.

forums most stupid and second most stupid-------------you and seawytch. Neither of you are worth my time, that's why you are on ignore. I opened your last post to see if you had changed but you remain the idiotic, biased, ignorant, blatantly stupid pair that I remembered.

Back to the ignore list, morons.

Fishy lying about ignoring people again? Such a broken record.

"I'm ignoring you...except this one (hundreth) time I'm not, then I'm ignoring you again" (rinse, repeat)

 

[Seawytch]

To do what? Exactly? Be very specific and please provide a motive for this act.
Thanks.

1. Motive does not make an act 'criminal' or not. Motive is 'why' someone broke the law.

2. Why? IMO, it is just another example of Hillary thinking she is above the law. She wanted / needed to send classified information out to someone and fas faced with not being able to do so due to technology and law. But she's 'Hillary' and (fact) told the subordinate to ignore the law, strip the classification, and send it via UNCLASS means.

exactly, the only question remaining is whether the Obama justice dept will indict her or we have to wait for the Trump justice dept to do it.

Nice. The forum's second most stupid person has piped in. We are in for some deep discussion now.

forums most stupid and second most stupid-------------you and seawytch. Neither of you are worth my time, that's why you are on ignore. I opened your last post to see if you had changed but you remain the idiotic, biased, ignorant, blatantly stupid pair that I remembered.

Back to the ignore list, morons.

You can't quit me!

 

[LoneLaugher]

To do what? Exactly? Be very specific and please provide a motive for this act.
Thanks.

1. Motive does not make an act 'criminal' or not. Motive is 'why' someone broke the law.

2. Why? IMO, it is just another example of Hillary thinking she is above the law. She wanted / needed to send classified information out to someone and fas faced with not being able to do so due to technology and law. But she's 'Hillary' and (fact) told the subordinate to ignore the law, strip the classification, and send it via UNCLASS means.

1. I know, stupid. But without a motive....you rarely have something that meets the definition of "criminal". Isn't this fun?!

2. So......you think she broke the law because she's an entitled bitch? I'll bet you wish THAT was a crime. But....it's not.

Geeze, the liberal propaganda is so deep in this thread, I need a shovel.

1. If you drive through a stop sign because you do not know you are suppose to stop and kill someone, does that mean you are not guilty of vehicular homicide? NO! Ignorance of the law is no excuse in a court of law as a defense!

2. Is the left suggesting that Hillary has that dreaded disease, AFLUENZA? Oh wait, that one known case is making the courts of this country get totally questioned, isn't it!

So, ignorance of the law is no defense, and neither is afluenza. So, what defense are the lefties going to come up with next? Stay tuned!

Supposed to. With a "d". D.....is for dummy. Remember that next time. Your overall writing style is wanting, dummy. Work on that, will ya?

Such intellectual depth! I can hardly stand it. Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton is guilty of making a mistake?

 

[Wildman]

All it takes is ONE violation like this. She can't claim ignorance, this is deliberate.

Ex-Prosecutor diGenova: FBI 'Would Go Ballistic' If Hillary Not Indicted.

The FBI and intelligence community "would go ballistic" if there's no indictment in the case of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of her private email server to conduct government business, former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova tells Newsmax TV.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Ex-Prosecutor diGenova: FBI 'Would Go Ballistic' If Hillary Not Indicted

i am with diGenova! i hope she is soon wearing black and white stripes or the orange jumpsuit .

 

[imawhosure]

To do what? Exactly? Be very specific and please provide a motive for this act.
Thanks.

1. Motive does not make an act 'criminal' or not. Motive is 'why' someone broke the law.

2. Why? IMO, it is just another example of Hillary thinking she is above the law. She wanted / needed to send classified information out to someone and fas faced with not being able to do so due to technology and law. But she's 'Hillary' and (fact) told the subordinate to ignore the law, strip the classification, and send it via UNCLASS means.

1. I know, stupid. But without a motive....you rarely have something that meets the definition of "criminal". Isn't this fun?!

2. So......you think she broke the law because she's an entitled bitch? I'll bet you wish THAT was a crime. But....it's not.

Geeze, the liberal propaganda is so deep in this thread, I need a shovel.

1. If you drive through a stop sign because you do not know you are suppose to stop and kill someone, does that mean you are not guilty of vehicular homicide? NO! Ignorance of the law is no excuse in a court of law as a defense!

2. Is the left suggesting that Hillary has that dreaded disease, AFLUENZA? Oh wait, that one known case is making the courts of this country get totally questioned, isn't it!

So, ignorance of the law is no defense, and neither is afluenza. So, what defense are the lefties going to come up with next? Stay tuned!

Supposed to. With a "d". D.....is for dummy. Remember that next time. Your overall writing style is wanting, dummy. Work on that, will ya?

Such intellectual depth! I can hardly stand it. Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton is guilty of making a mistake?

If I go back and fix it, will you answer the question? Not! That it explains it all, and should be the defining moment for refuting your propaganda, and seriously, that is really all that matters, since it is plainly obvious you understood exactly what I was implying, and the best you could do was attack a misspelled word, lol.

Bottom line, you lose-)

 

[imawhosure]

To do what? Exactly? Be very specific and please provide a motive for this act.
Thanks.

1. Motive does not make an act 'criminal' or not. Motive is 'why' someone broke the law.

2. Why? IMO, it is just another example of Hillary thinking she is above the law. She wanted / needed to send classified information out to someone and fas faced with not being able to do so due to technology and law. But she's 'Hillary' and (fact) told the subordinate to ignore the law, strip the classification, and send it via UNCLASS means.

1. I know, stupid. But without a motive....you rarely have something that meets the definition of "criminal". Isn't this fun?!

2. So......you think she broke the law because she's an entitled bitch? I'll bet you wish THAT was a crime. But....it's not.

Geeze, the liberal propaganda is so deep in this thread, I need a shovel.

1. If you drive through a stop sign because you do not know you are suppose to stop and kill someone, does that mean you are not guilty of vehicular homicide? NO! Ignorance of the law is no excuse in a court of law as a defense!

2. Is the left suggesting that Hillary has that dreaded disease, AFLUENZA? Oh wait, that one known case is making the courts of this country get totally questioned, isn't it!

So, ignorance of the law is no defense, and neither is afluenza. So, what defense are the lefties going to come up with next? Stay tuned!

Supposed to. With a "d". D.....is for dummy. Remember that next time. Your overall writing style is wanting, dummy. Work on that, will ya?

Such intellectual depth! I can hardly stand it. Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton is guilty of making a mistake?

Hey, I will answer your question without doing a spell check on you, lol.

Did Hillary make a mistake, and is that what I am accusing her of?

No she did not make a mistake, because if she had passed the course required by law for her position, she would have know, now wouldn't she!

That is like suggesting that the driver who committed vehicular homicide is innocent because he never took a driving course, or got his/her drivers license. That is NOT a mistake, that is AFLUENZA and arrogance believing they do not need drivers training because they are so damn smart!

Any more questions-)

 

[imawhosure]

Bottom line-----> Arrogant Hillary has AFLUENZA! That is our take on it, and is why she may have had no idea she was breaking the law.

See, I am fair! I just made an excuse for her, she is ill, and has that dreaded disease, AFLUENZA! She can feel free to use that as her defense, and I won't charge her a dime for the suggestion-)

 

[jon_berzerk]

Bottom line-----> Arrogant Hillary has AFLUENZA! That is our take on it, and is why she may have had no idea she was breaking the law.

See, I am fair! I just made an excuse for her, she is ill, and has that dreaded disease, AFLUENZA! She can feel free to use that as her defense, and I won't charge her a dime for the suggestion-)

of course she does

that is why the laws do not concern her

her followers agree

that she is more valuable then they are

 

[LoneLaugher]

To do what? Exactly? Be very specific and please provide a motive for this act.
Thanks.

1. Motive does not make an act 'criminal' or not. Motive is 'why' someone broke the law.

2. Why? IMO, it is just another example of Hillary thinking she is above the law. She wanted / needed to send classified information out to someone and fas faced with not being able to do so due to technology and law. But she's 'Hillary' and (fact) told the subordinate to ignore the law, strip the classification, and send it via UNCLASS means.

1. I know, stupid. But without a motive....you rarely have something that meets the definition of "criminal". Isn't this fun?!

2. So......you think she broke the law because she's an entitled bitch? I'll bet you wish THAT was a crime. But....it's not.

Geeze, the liberal propaganda is so deep in this thread, I need a shovel.

1. If you drive through a stop sign because you do not know you are suppose to stop and kill someone, does that mean you are not guilty of vehicular homicide? NO! Ignorance of the law is no excuse in a court of law as a defense!

2. Is the left suggesting that Hillary has that dreaded disease, AFLUENZA? Oh wait, that one known case is making the courts of this country get totally questioned, isn't it!

So, ignorance of the law is no defense, and neither is afluenza. So, what defense are the lefties going to come up with next? Stay tuned!

Supposed to. With a "d". D.....is for dummy. Remember that next time. Your overall writing style is wanting, dummy. Work on that, will ya?

Such intellectual depth! I can hardly stand it. Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton is guilty of making a mistake?

If I go back and fix it, will you answer the question? Not! That it explains it all, and should be the defining moment for refuting your propaganda, and seriously, that is really all that matters, since it is plainly obvious you understood exactly what I was implying, and the best you could do was attack a misspelled word, lol.

Bottom line, you lose-)

You didn't ask a question. And....I didn't attack a misspelled word. I attacked your inability to communicate in English. That's worse.

You've implied that Hillary unknowingly broke some law.

 

[imawhosure]

1. Motive does not make an act 'criminal' or not. Motive is 'why' someone broke the law.

2. Why? IMO, it is just another example of Hillary thinking she is above the law. She wanted / needed to send classified information out to someone and fas faced with not being able to do so due to technology and law. But she's 'Hillary' and (fact) told the subordinate to ignore the law, strip the classification, and send it via UNCLASS means.

1. I know, stupid. But without a motive....you rarely have something that meets the definition of "criminal". Isn't this fun?!

2. So......you think she broke the law because she's an entitled bitch? I'll bet you wish THAT was a crime. But....it's not.

Geeze, the liberal propaganda is so deep in this thread, I need a shovel.

1. If you drive through a stop sign because you do not know you are suppose to stop and kill someone, does that mean you are not guilty of vehicular homicide? NO! Ignorance of the law is no excuse in a court of law as a defense!

2. Is the left suggesting that Hillary has that dreaded disease, AFLUENZA? Oh wait, that one known case is making the courts of this country get totally questioned, isn't it!

So, ignorance of the law is no defense, and neither is afluenza. So, what defense are the lefties going to come up with next? Stay tuned!

Supposed to. With a "d". D.....is for dummy. Remember that next time. Your overall writing style is wanting, dummy. Work on that, will ya?

Such intellectual depth! I can hardly stand it. Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton is guilty of making a mistake?

If I go back and fix it, will you answer the question? Not! That it explains it all, and should be the defining moment for refuting your propaganda, and seriously, that is really all that matters, since it is plainly obvious you understood exactly what I was implying, and the best you could do was attack a misspelled word, lol.

Bottom line, you lose-)

You didn't ask a question. And....I didn't attack a misspelled word. I attacked your inability to communicate in English. That's worse.

You've implied that Hillary unknowingly broke some law.

OK then, I will ask you an easy question-------> Did Hillary break a law that says she must attend that class as part of her position as SOS? Is that not a law, or is it just a suggestion? If it is a law, then that is breaking the law, yes? And if it is not, then I have another question, but I thought I would start with the easiest one 1st.

And let me say this in all honesty-------> you people can vote for whomever you wish, it is not my purpose to dissuade you in any way. But, if Nixon was up for re-election this time around after breaking the law the way he did, would I be a sincere American asking anybody to ignore what he did to all of us, including you?

I think not! That is my only point in this thread. If you are going to put up a candidate, put up one who is not a crook, not breaking the law against their own people, then with a straight face, tell us why we should vote for them. I am willing to listen, hell......I voted for Clinton the 2nd time around. It wasn't until he lied to the court I turned sour on him. What he did with Lewinski was his, her, and Hillary's business in my book. Our leaders need to be held to at least a slightly higher standard than we the citizens do, especially when their crimes are about deceiving us, don't you think!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump is going to fucking roast her

 

[Fueri]

Bush made her do it.

Or that global warming exacerbated her hot flashes.

Clearly it can't be her fault. Emails she herself sent aren't enough for some people to question this proven liar. Truly amazing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

1. I know, stupid. But without a motive....you rarely have something that meets the definition of "criminal". Isn't this fun?!

2. So......you think she broke the law because she's an entitled bitch? I'll bet you wish THAT was a crime. But....it's not.

Geeze, the liberal propaganda is so deep in this thread, I need a shovel.

1. If you drive through a stop sign because you do not know you are suppose to stop and kill someone, does that mean you are not guilty of vehicular homicide? NO! Ignorance of the law is no excuse in a court of law as a defense!

2. Is the left suggesting that Hillary has that dreaded disease, AFLUENZA? Oh wait, that one known case is making the courts of this country get totally questioned, isn't it!

So, ignorance of the law is no defense, and neither is afluenza. So, what defense are the lefties going to come up with next? Stay tuned!

Supposed to. With a "d". D.....is for dummy. Remember that next time. Your overall writing style is wanting, dummy. Work on that, will ya?

Such intellectual depth! I can hardly stand it. Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton is guilty of making a mistake?

If I go back and fix it, will you answer the question? Not! That it explains it all, and should be the defining moment for refuting your propaganda, and seriously, that is really all that matters, since it is plainly obvious you understood exactly what I was implying, and the best you could do was attack a misspelled word, lol.

Bottom line, you lose-)

You didn't ask a question. And....I didn't attack a misspelled word. I attacked your inability to communicate in English. That's worse.

You've implied that Hillary unknowingly broke some law.

OK then, I will ask you an easy question-------> Did Hillary break a law that says she must attend that class as part of her position as SOS? Is that not a law, or is it just a suggestion? If it is a law, then that is breaking the law, yes? And if it is not, then I have another question, but I thought I would start with the easiest one 1st.

And let me say this in all honesty-------> you people can vote for whomever you wish, it is not my purpose to dissuade you in any way. But, if Nixon was up for re-election this time around after breaking the law the way he did, would I be a sincere American asking anybody to ignore what he did to all of us, including you?

I think not! That is my only point in this thread. If you are going to put up a candidate, put up one who is not a crook, not breaking the law against their own people, then with a straight face, tell us why we should vote for them. I am willing to listen, hell......I voted for Clinton the 2nd time around. It wasn't until he lied to the court I turned sour on him. What he did with Lewinski was his, her, and Hillary's business in my book. Our leaders need to be held to at least a slightly higher standard than we the citizens do, especially when their crimes are about deceiving us, don't you think!

Did she break a law that said she needs to attend a class? I have no idea.

I think its funny that you think Clinton and Nixon are comparable. Its also funny that you think I'm voting for Clinton in the primary.

But....she is far more qualified than any of the front runners on your side. That is reason to vote for her. Dummy.

Standards? You speak of standards? Look at the GOP field.

 

[imawhosure]

Geeze, the liberal propaganda is so deep in this thread, I need a shovel.

1. If you drive through a stop sign because you do not know you are suppose to stop and kill someone, does that mean you are not guilty of vehicular homicide? NO! Ignorance of the law is no excuse in a court of law as a defense!

2. Is the left suggesting that Hillary has that dreaded disease, AFLUENZA? Oh wait, that one known case is making the courts of this country get totally questioned, isn't it!

So, ignorance of the law is no defense, and neither is afluenza. So, what defense are the lefties going to come up with next? Stay tuned!

Supposed to. With a "d". D.....is for dummy. Remember that next time. Your overall writing style is wanting, dummy. Work on that, will ya?

Such intellectual depth! I can hardly stand it. Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton is guilty of making a mistake?

If I go back and fix it, will you answer the question? Not! That it explains it all, and should be the defining moment for refuting your propaganda, and seriously, that is really all that matters, since it is plainly obvious you understood exactly what I was implying, and the best you could do was attack a misspelled word, lol.

Bottom line, you lose-)

You didn't ask a question. And....I didn't attack a misspelled word. I attacked your inability to communicate in English. That's worse.

You've implied that Hillary unknowingly broke some law.

OK then, I will ask you an easy question-------> Did Hillary break a law that says she must attend that class as part of her position as SOS? Is that not a law, or is it just a suggestion? If it is a law, then that is breaking the law, yes? And if it is not, then I have another question, but I thought I would start with the easiest one 1st.

And let me say this in all honesty-------> you people can vote for whomever you wish, it is not my purpose to dissuade you in any way. But, if Nixon was up for re-election this time around after breaking the law the way he did, would I be a sincere American asking anybody to ignore what he did to all of us, including you?

I think not! That is my only point in this thread. If you are going to put up a candidate, put up one who is not a crook, not breaking the law against their own people, then with a straight face, tell us why we should vote for them. I am willing to listen, hell......I voted for Clinton the 2nd time around. It wasn't until he lied to the court I turned sour on him. What he did with Lewinski was his, her, and Hillary's business in my book. Our leaders need to be held to at least a slightly higher standard than we the citizens do, especially when their crimes are about deceiving us, don't you think!

Did she break a law that said she needs to attend a class? I have no idea.

I think its funny that you think Clinton and Nixon are comparable. Its also funny that you think I'm voting for Clinton in the primary.

But....she is far more qualified than any of the front runners on your side. That is reason to vote for her. Dummy.

Standards? You speak of standards? Look at the GOP field.

Well then, the obvious question then is-------------> If you do not know if she broke the law, then the smoking gun scenario of the OP is valid. Therefore, you and I have nothing more to discuss, since I am taking the OPs word for it. If you prove otherwise, I will then take your side. You see, trying to win an election by less than truthful means does not suit me. It also makes the people claiming what is truth look foolish.

As of now, the OP has won his/her point because no definitive refute to prove it wrong has been presented. I will watch this thread longer to see if something appears. I may make fun of the left at times, but I am fair. I will not pile on to a lie.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Supposed to. With a "d". D.....is for dummy. Remember that next time. Your overall writing style is wanting, dummy. Work on that, will ya?

Such intellectual depth! I can hardly stand it. Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton is guilty of making a mistake?

If I go back and fix it, will you answer the question? Not! That it explains it all, and should be the defining moment for refuting your propaganda, and seriously, that is really all that matters, since it is plainly obvious you understood exactly what I was implying, and the best you could do was attack a misspelled word, lol.

Bottom line, you lose-)

You didn't ask a question. And....I didn't attack a misspelled word. I attacked your inability to communicate in English. That's worse.

You've implied that Hillary unknowingly broke some law.

OK then, I will ask you an easy question-------> Did Hillary break a law that says she must attend that class as part of her position as SOS? Is that not a law, or is it just a suggestion? If it is a law, then that is breaking the law, yes? And if it is not, then I have another question, but I thought I would start with the easiest one 1st.

And let me say this in all honesty-------> you people can vote for whomever you wish, it is not my purpose to dissuade you in any way. But, if Nixon was up for re-election this time around after breaking the law the way he did, would I be a sincere American asking anybody to ignore what he did to all of us, including you?

I think not! That is my only point in this thread. If you are going to put up a candidate, put up one who is not a crook, not breaking the law against their own people, then with a straight face, tell us why we should vote for them. I am willing to listen, hell......I voted for Clinton the 2nd time around. It wasn't until he lied to the court I turned sour on him. What he did with Lewinski was his, her, and Hillary's business in my book. Our leaders need to be held to at least a slightly higher standard than we the citizens do, especially when their crimes are about deceiving us, don't you think!

Did she break a law that said she needs to attend a class? I have no idea.

I think its funny that you think Clinton and Nixon are comparable. Its also funny that you think I'm voting for Clinton in the primary.

But....she is far more qualified than any of the front runners on your side. That is reason to vote for her. Dummy.

Standards? You speak of standards? Look at the GOP field.

Well then, the obvious question then is-------------> If you do not know if she broke the law, then the smoking gun scenario of the OP is valid. Therefore, you and I have nothing more to discuss, since I am taking the OPs word for it. If you prove otherwise, I will then take your side. You see, trying to win an election by less than truthful means does not suit me. It also makes the people claiming what is truth look foolish.

As of now, the OP has won his/her point because no definitive refute to prove it wrong has been presented. I will watch this thread longer to see if something appears. I may make fun of the left at times, but I am fair. I will not pile on to a lie.

No dummy. That isn't how it works. Please cite the law about taking a class. Thanks.

 

[Care4all]

Care, YOU want to suddely declare ONLY SECRET and TS-level information can be looked at. It doesn't work that way. YOU don't get to make that call.

Confidential, SECRET, TOP SECRET, and Special Compartmetalized Information -- 'SCI' - material is involved, and she has broken laws regarding them all.

If you have TS/SCI information on a server, that server is therefor classified as a TS/SCI server. ANYTHING on that server is then classified as TS/SCI...even if it is un-classified personal material. By law you can not save /send multiple levels of classified documents on one server.

The military, for example, has different colored stickers on their PCs labeling them as UNCLASS, SECRET, and TS. Among the many laws she violated, she broke the law by putting it all on one server and sending different classification-level e-mails from one server.

When you KNOW what you're talking about, when you KNOW what the laws, regs, and rules are pertaining to Classified, and then start disecting Hillary's actions as they pertain to the access to, handling of, and destruction of classified information you begin to understand the mountain of violations and crimes with which the FBI will be able to charge Hillary if they do choose to do so.

There are a few laws relating to this topic...

the thousand emails plus, that have been classified after the fact, ARE NOT covered as breaking the law....she has to know the material is classified and the material had to be classified before she received it, or sent it.

So, on all of those, she broke no law...even if it ends up being 2000 or 3000 emails they redacted classified info from, that are being released out of her 30000 emails..

Government Secrecy Expert: "There's No Case" Against Clinton If She Didn't Knowingly Misuse Classified Information. William Jeffress, an attorney who has handled government secrecy cases, told Time:

Legally, the question is pretty clear-cut. If Clinton knowingly used her private server to handle classified information she could have a problem. But if she didn't know the material was classified when she sent or received it she's safe.

[...]

Clinton has explicitly and repeatedly said she didn't knowingly send or receive any classified information. "The facts are pretty clear," she said last weekend in Iowa, "I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time." Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III, disagrees, saying some of the material was in fact classified at the time it was sent. But in his letter last week to Congressional intelligence committee leaders, McCullough reported that, "None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings." And there has been no indication Clinton knew she was sending and receiving anything classified.

The public doesn't yet know the content of the classified emails, and the State Department and the inspectors general have tens of thousands still to review. If evidence emerges that Clinton knew she was handling secrets on her private server, "She could have a problem," says William Jeffress, a leading criminal trial lawyer at Baker Botts who has represented government officials in secrecy cases. Barring that, says Jeffress, "there's no way in the world [prosecutors] could ever make a case" against her. [Time, 7/29/15]

FACT: Experts Have Debunked The Comparison -- Petraeus Knowingly Mishandled Classified Documents, Whereas Clinton Had Authorization To Use Private Email, And There's No Evidence She Knowingly Emailed Classified Information

even if all of these emails of Hillary's were on the .gov system and Hillary used the .gov system as her main email system, those same emails that are being released now, would be gone through by FOIA experts and the same redactions and classifications would take place after the fact.

The .gov email system is the gvts UNCLASSIFIED email system just as Hillary's server was an UNCLASSIFIED system.

Clinton Campaign: Emails Originated From "Unclassified .Gov Email System." A fact sheet released by the presidential campaign for the former secretary of state explains that the emails at issue originated on "the unclassified .gov email system":

Would this issue not have arisen if she used a state.gov email address?

Even if Clinton's emails had been on a government email address and government device, these questions would be raised prior to public release.

While State Department's review of her 55,000 emails brought the issue to the Inspectors Generals' attentions, the four emails were on the unclassified .gov email system. They were not on the separate, closed system used by State Department for handling classified communications

NONE of the emails were classified when she received or sent them.

IG Memo On Classified Information In Emails: "None Of The Emails ... Had Classification Or Dissemination Markings." A memo from the ICIG clearly stated that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings":

I can go on and on and on and on with all of the false accusations the right wing has made the past year like:

She wiped her server clean---but that's not true

She deleted govt emails to hide her crimes, well that also turned out not to be true ON BOTH accusations

She broke the law by using private email, well it turned out she was authorized to use it

Hillary's email use was equal to Patreus's email MISUSE, and that too, is not true

There are so many more that have been flat out lies, that your side and their propaganda on this have spread around without an ounce of truth or facts to them, they simply can not be believed by anyone with critical thinking skills and logic.

 

[imawhosure]

lol, I am not trying to refute the OP, you are! I have no dog in this debate, you do! All I suggested is.........that if Hillary did break the law, then she could use the AFLUENZA defense. The logical response from you or any other lefty to me and the OP is, "she didn't break the law because it says right here in the law or constitution, this is the proof right here............................... so the OP, I, and everyone else is who claims it is so, is wrong. The OP provided links to why she is. Our we supposed to ignore the OPs links of truth, based on just your opinion? Sorry, YOU have to do better than that, lol.

Like I said, we have nothing more to discuss. I take the threads side because the OP provided some sort of links, you have provided just opinion. I think you are ok, but I don't trust you that much to reverse course on only your word, or opinion-)

 

[imawhosure]

See, care came through. He/she made a case with links, why it is all smoke and mirrors. Now we shall see what others have to say, and go from there. Good job Care, I shall read them.