Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
it's entirely relevant. she set it up which i agree on it's own is not illegal.well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.not really.
the bottom line is when you don't care about 1 side acting up / suspicious you have a hard time getting an agreement when the other side is doing the same thing.
we've come to the point where we defend what we have for no other reason that we're being attacked by the other side for doing what we're all guilty of doing.
we're past legal. we're full on emo-bat-shit-crazy. we defend hillary to the wall for actions that are AT BEST highly suspicious and jump all over trump for a closed door meeting with russians.
when we treat like actions on like terms, we can end the bullshit. til then, here we are full of hate.
Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.
if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.
Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------
did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
- The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
- FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
- The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
- Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.
When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.
Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.
you setup that server - you take on the responsibilities to make sure those laws are upheld and met.
were they? were they even a consideration to her? when you narrow this all down to "knowingly" and "intent" you know you don't have much to stand on "legally".
You keep coming back to the server - but it's entirely irrelevant to what we're talking about.
I'm literally highlighting the words in the law - and you're trying to argue that I don't have much to stand on, legally?
but she used it for that.then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.if they reworked the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?
we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.
Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.
Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.
the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.
she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.
anything else is pure chicken shit.
Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.
Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.
.
Hillary's official state.gov email is not approved to handle classified information either. No email account connected to the public internet is approved to handle classified information.
That's why the server part is irrelevant.
then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.if they reworked the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?What?
we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.
Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.
Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.
the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.
she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.
anything else is pure chicken shit.
Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.
Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.
.
You cling to that paragraph like a baby clings to a pacifier while intentionally avoiding the evidence Hillary knew damn-well what she was doing.......well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.not really.You're having an issue with how you're phrasing your question. I'm not talking about my feelings, I'm talking about the law.
As far as I understand it, the Presidential Records Act would likely be violated, if Trump were to do what you suggest. But that's an entirely different conversation.
the bottom line is when you don't care about 1 side acting up / suspicious you have a hard time getting an agreement when the other side is doing the same thing.
we've come to the point where we defend what we have for no other reason that we're being attacked by the other side for doing what we're all guilty of doing.
we're past legal. we're full on emo-bat-shit-crazy. we defend hillary to the wall for actions that are AT BEST highly suspicious and jump all over trump for a closed door meeting with russians.
when we treat like actions on like terms, we can end the bullshit. til then, here we are full of hate.
Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.
if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.
Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------
did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
- The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
- FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
- The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
- Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.
When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.
Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.
this is just funny anymore.You cling to that paragraph like a baby clings to a pacifier while intentionally avoiding the evidence Hillary knew damn-well what she was doing.......well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.not really.
the bottom line is when you don't care about 1 side acting up / suspicious you have a hard time getting an agreement when the other side is doing the same thing.
we've come to the point where we defend what we have for no other reason that we're being attacked by the other side for doing what we're all guilty of doing.
we're past legal. we're full on emo-bat-shit-crazy. we defend hillary to the wall for actions that are AT BEST highly suspicious and jump all over trump for a closed door meeting with russians.
when we treat like actions on like terms, we can end the bullshit. til then, here we are full of hate.
Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.
if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.
Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------
did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
- The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
- FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
- The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
- Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.
When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.
Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.
You're saying that Hillary Clinton knew that she was "removing" classified material without authority, and with the intent to retain those documents?
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
but she used it for that.then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.
Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.
the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.
she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.
anything else is pure chicken shit.
Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.
Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.
.
Hillary's official state.gov email is not approved to handle classified information either. No email account connected to the public internet is approved to handle classified information.
That's why the server part is irrelevant.
so it became relevant the first official e-mail she sent.
Actually NOT. The uncovered e-mail from President Obama to Hillary on her private server, using an alias to do so, was exposed when the FBI recovered many of the files / e-mails Hillary tired to delete. It was also one of the more than 15,0000 'official' documents Hillary never turned in (nor did Barry) as required by TWO laws she intentionally violated.why can't you get it through your head she did it to hide?then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.
the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.
she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.
anything else is pure chicken shit.
Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.
if trump were to make his own server to communicate with - would you give it the same "all clear, boss" or would you say trump is hiding something?
To hide what?
It was not against the law for Clinton to set up a private server for her email. Full stop.
Using it to communicate with the president and foreign officials was illegal, those communications are automatically classified.
.
This is now the second time you've repeated this. It's still not true.
this is just funny anymore.You cling to that paragraph like a baby clings to a pacifier while intentionally avoiding the evidence Hillary knew damn-well what she was doing.......well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.
if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.
Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------
did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
- The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
- FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
- The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
- Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.
When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.
Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.
You're saying that Hillary Clinton knew that she was "removing" classified material without authority, and with the intent to retain those documents?
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
why did she need her own server? if she must have it - fine. there were laws she needed to follow if she were to use this for official purposes.
did she ever use it for official purposes? if so, she is now liable for the information and retention laws that are in place.
did she follow those?
you keep trying to distance her from the body as if she had nothing to do with it but i'm pretty sure you'd not allow "the other side" to do the same.
well now even she disagrees with you.but she used it for that.then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.
the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.
she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.
anything else is pure chicken shit.
Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.
Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.
.
Hillary's official state.gov email is not approved to handle classified information either. No email account connected to the public internet is approved to handle classified information.
That's why the server part is irrelevant.
so it became relevant the first official e-mail she sent.
No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server.
but she used it for that.then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.
Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.
the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.
she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.
anything else is pure chicken shit.
Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.
Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.
.
Hillary's official state.gov email is not approved to handle classified information either. No email account connected to the public internet is approved to handle classified information.
That's why the server part is irrelevant.
so it became relevant the first official e-mail she sent.
it's above in this very message you seem to be choosing to ignore. i cited (4) relevant laws you were asking for and her failure on each one - you somehow missed my providing you exactly what you requested.this is just funny anymore.You cling to that paragraph like a baby clings to a pacifier while intentionally avoiding the evidence Hillary knew damn-well what she was doing.......well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.
if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.
Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------
did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
- The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
- FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
- The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
- Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.
When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.
Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.
You're saying that Hillary Clinton knew that she was "removing" classified material without authority, and with the intent to retain those documents?
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
why did she need her own server? if she must have it - fine. there were laws she needed to follow if she were to use this for official purposes.
did she ever use it for official purposes? if so, she is now liable for the information and retention laws that are in place.
did she follow those?
you keep trying to distance her from the body as if she had nothing to do with it but i'm pretty sure you'd not allow "the other side" to do the same.
I have no idea why she "needed" her own server. You'll have to ask her about that.
As for "information and retention laws", which laws are you referring to? Please, quote the statute.
well now even she disagrees with you.but she used it for that.Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.
Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.
.
Hillary's official state.gov email is not approved to handle classified information either. No email account connected to the public internet is approved to handle classified information.
That's why the server part is irrelevant.
so it became relevant the first official e-mail she sent.
No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server.
Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email
"I’m going to give the same answer I’ve given for many months," Clinton replied. "It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed, and as I’ve said and now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing, and many other people in the government."
---
got anything else?
There was no action of bias against Clinton, jackass.Their greatest action of bias was against Clinton and for Trump.
it's above in this very message you seem to be choosing to ignore. i cited (4) relevant laws you were asking for and her failure on each one - you somehow missed my providing you exactly what you requested.this is just funny anymore.You cling to that paragraph like a baby clings to a pacifier while intentionally avoiding the evidence Hillary knew damn-well what she was doing.......When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.
Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.
You're saying that Hillary Clinton knew that she was "removing" classified material without authority, and with the intent to retain those documents?
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
why did she need her own server? if she must have it - fine. there were laws she needed to follow if she were to use this for official purposes.
did she ever use it for official purposes? if so, she is now liable for the information and retention laws that are in place.
did she follow those?
you keep trying to distance her from the body as if she had nothing to do with it but i'm pretty sure you'd not allow "the other side" to do the same.
I have no idea why she "needed" her own server. You'll have to ask her about that.
As for "information and retention laws", which laws are you referring to? Please, quote the statute.
good job.
well now even she disagrees with you.but she used it for that.Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.
Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.
.
Hillary's official state.gov email is not approved to handle classified information either. No email account connected to the public internet is approved to handle classified information.
That's why the server part is irrelevant.
so it became relevant the first official e-mail she sent.
No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server.
Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email
"I’m going to give the same answer I’ve given for many months," Clinton replied. "It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed, and as I’ve said and now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing, and many other people in the government."
---
got anything else?
No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server.
you must be a clinton the way you look for loopholes for bad behavior.it's above in this very message you seem to be choosing to ignore. i cited (4) relevant laws you were asking for and her failure on each one - you somehow missed my providing you exactly what you requested.this is just funny anymore.You cling to that paragraph like a baby clings to a pacifier while intentionally avoiding the evidence Hillary knew damn-well what she was doing.......
You're saying that Hillary Clinton knew that she was "removing" classified material without authority, and with the intent to retain those documents?
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
why did she need her own server? if she must have it - fine. there were laws she needed to follow if she were to use this for official purposes.
did she ever use it for official purposes? if so, she is now liable for the information and retention laws that are in place.
did she follow those?
you keep trying to distance her from the body as if she had nothing to do with it but i'm pretty sure you'd not allow "the other side" to do the same.
I have no idea why she "needed" her own server. You'll have to ask her about that.
As for "information and retention laws", which laws are you referring to? Please, quote the statute.
good job.
You cited one law, and I pointed out the required mens rea elements, which are clearly missing in this case. The rest were departmental regulations, not laws.
well now even she disagrees with you.but she used it for that.Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.
.
Hillary's official state.gov email is not approved to handle classified information either. No email account connected to the public internet is approved to handle classified information.
That's why the server part is irrelevant.
so it became relevant the first official e-mail she sent.
No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server.
Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email
"I’m going to give the same answer I’ve given for many months," Clinton replied. "It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed, and as I’ve said and now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing, and many other people in the government."
---
got anything else?
I think you're not following the conversation. In what way do you think Clinton has disagreed with me?
you must be a clinton the way you look for loopholes for bad behavior.it's above in this very message you seem to be choosing to ignore. i cited (4) relevant laws you were asking for and her failure on each one - you somehow missed my providing you exactly what you requested.this is just funny anymore.
You're saying that Hillary Clinton knew that she was "removing" classified material without authority, and with the intent to retain those documents?
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
why did she need her own server? if she must have it - fine. there were laws she needed to follow if she were to use this for official purposes.
did she ever use it for official purposes? if so, she is now liable for the information and retention laws that are in place.
did she follow those?
you keep trying to distance her from the body as if she had nothing to do with it but i'm pretty sure you'd not allow "the other side" to do the same.
I have no idea why she "needed" her own server. You'll have to ask her about that.
As for "information and retention laws", which laws are you referring to? Please, quote the statute.
good job.
You cited one law, and I pointed out the required mens rea elements, which are clearly missing in this case. The rest were departmental regulations, not laws.
and you continue to fall back on "but she didn't mean it". of which you can't ever provide evidence for or prove in the same manner you're asking others to do.
now what?
well now even she disagrees with you.but she used it for that.Hillary's official state.gov email is not approved to handle classified information either. No email account connected to the public internet is approved to handle classified information.
That's why the server part is irrelevant.
so it became relevant the first official e-mail she sent.
No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server.
Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email
"I’m going to give the same answer I’ve given for many months," Clinton replied. "It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed, and as I’ve said and now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing, and many other people in the government."
---
got anything else?
I think you're not following the conversation. In what way do you think Clinton has disagreed with me?
no - you just keep wordsmithing and giggling.
"No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server"
she conducted official business on this server. there is no denying it. there was classified info on there, there is no denying that. there is mail from obama on here of which he said he never knew about it, of which cannot be denied. why would obama deny knowledge of a perfectly legal server?
you're just walking in circles and playing word games so i'm out.
have fun.
